Written evidence submitted by the University
of Warwick (TIC 26)
INTRODUCTION
1. The University of Warwick, offers the
enclosed comments in response to the House of Commons Science
and Technology Committee inquiry into Technology Innovation Centres
(TIC).
2. With a reputation for enterprise, innovation,
and knowledge transfer, the university has long embraced the concept
of a wide mandate for universities, being not solely "knowledge-creators",
but also "knowledge-sharers".
3. This is demonstrated most recently by
Warwick's participation in the £57M Birmingham Science City
initiative; the industry-focused activities of WMG (formerly Warwick
Manufacturing Group) and our resolute commitment and enthusiasm
to the innovative Quantum Technology Partnership between Universities
of Warwick and Lancaster, Qinetiq and Advantage West Midlands.
4. Alongside the expertise of our award-winning
research commercialisation company, Warwick Ventures, these examples
show Warwick's academic, administrative and governance expertise
in delivering large, strategic, theme-based technology development,
with extensive academic-industry collaboration and societal-led
measurable innovation outputs (such as new jobs and new business
creation) - attributes and skills shared with the Fraunhofer Institutes.
5. This response draws upon our first-hand
experience in technology-development derived in particular from
these examples and our own direct interactions with various Fraunhofer
Institutes.
6. Finally, we highlight the important link
that each of the Fraunhofer Institutes has to a university acting
as its "technology-creator", and declare a future interest
if this initiative proceeds, in acting in this role to any Technology
Innovation Centre.
Question: What is the Fraunhofer model, and would
it be applicable to the UK?
Response:
7. Although there is increasing focus on
the role of universities in contributing to innovation, economic
growth and wealth creation (Lambert, 2003; Sainsbury 2007; BIS,
2009), the interaction modes between them and external business
are complex and multi-faceted including broadly technology transfer
and people- or community- based problem-solving.
8. However, it is apparent from a number
of studies (particularly, Michael, 2009, ESRC) that technology-transfer
(licensed research, patenting, spin-off company formation, consultancy),
is amongst the least common form of knowledge exchange activity.
Typically, the key motivation for business to interact with universities
is not to gain commercial advantage through technology, but through
management-innovation.
9. Furthermore, a major academic motivation
for external business engagement is to pursue academic research
and teaching agendas, with the solution of problems for external
partners not always prioritised.
10. This is one example of several significant
differences that exist between universities and businesses. It
is argued that these cultural barriers limit collaborations that
include a significant element of technology transfer—the
Lambert report states "companies and universities are not
natural partners: their cultures and their missions are different".
11. The teaching and research qualities of leading
UK universities are by most metrics internationally competitive,
however establishing the best methods by which these qualities
are directed towards UK societal innovation and wealth-creation
remains a challenge. Although a number of UK initiatives have
been implemented in order to improve this performance, none of
these have entirely replicated the core characteristics or success
of the Fraunhofer Institutes.
12. The first Fraunhofer Institutes were established
in 1949. The primary motivation for their formation was to maximise
novel military-applicable technology growth from research institutions
in West Germany, augmenting contributions from other western nations
against the emerging Soviet Bloc threat. Despite considerable
technical and societal differences that exist in 2010 compared
to 1949, the core characteristics to ensure their success were
anticipated correctly and remain similar today. In 2010, there
are almost 60 Fraunhofers, mostly located in Germany but with
increasing numbers now created internationally.
13. The Fraunhofer model provides an environment
in which the operational, management, governance and cultural
characteristics are "aligned" in order to expedite research
application and commercialisation.
14. Each institute is associated with both an
academic organisation (for example, a University, a Technical
University, or a Max Planck institute) which acts as a source
of "technology-supply", and external business and commercial
partners, these bringing market-led "technology-pull"
problems and opportunities.
15. Hence, the Fraunhofers exist as an "intermediary
organisation", operating between these two stakeholders,
providing coordinated, easily-accessed technology-development
and commercialisation expertise, coupled with an operating culture
common and familiar to both and an expedited route between them.
16. A number of the major characteristics of
Universities and Fraunhofer Institutes are listed in Table 1.
Table 1
MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS OF UNIVERSITIES AND
FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTES
| Descriptor
| Universities
| Fraunhofer Institutes
|
| Core Mission | Research,
Teaching,
'3rd-Stream'
| Applied research,
Technological problem solving
Technology-enabling
|
| Funding | ~ 30% Competitive research
~2-10% Industry
~ 50% core Teaching
Balance %, Other peripheral activities (e.g. CPD)
| ~33% local government
(German Lander)
~33% competitive research (German TSB equivalent)
~33% Industry
|
| Main Funder | Government |
Mixed government-private sector |
| Main Funding-type | Speculative, competitive, funding opportunity driven
| Competitive, technology development opportunity driven
|
| Typical Research Interactions | Academic research community
Research Councils
| Academic research community
Technology businesses
Technology development funders
|
| Typical Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) |
1-4 | 3-7 |
| Governance | Academic | Mixed academic-commercial
|
| Core Staff Expertise | Knowledge generation
| Knowledge exploitation |
| Core Outputs | Critical-thinking enabled graduates
Open-access Journal publications
| Open-access journal publications
Private know-how
Technology development expertise
Commercialisation expertise
Market intelligence
|
| Research Activities | Broad, diverse
| Focused, themed, market-led selective |
| Outlook | Academic | Technology-Business
|
| Research Horizons | < 5years
| >5 years |
| Funding Horizons | < 5years
| >5 years |
17. Fraunhofer research activities focus on a number of centrally
selected themes, providing expertise within applied-research,
commercialisation, and technology-development. By contrast, Universities
generally maximise the potential to generate new knowledge by
encouraging research diversity and academic freedom.
18. This impartiality of research focus and direction is appropriate
when new knowledge is the prime objective, but not when technology
development becomes the core activity. This requires a different
and more diverse skill-base, partially dependent on the technology
types to be developed and the anticipated engineering and market
challenges. These differences and the intrinsic challenges of
technology development are frequently underestimated.
19. Although published journal papers are a Fraunhofer output,
the core deliverable is to provide bespoke technology solutions
in a form most accessible and relevant to funders and clients.
20. The management and governance of the Fraunhofers also
reflects the requirements of both its academic and business stakeholders.
Representatives from both groups are involved in the operational
and strategic management of the centres. This ensures that the
requirements of applied research, commercialisation, and crucially,
the transitions between these activities, are understood.
21. University research funding is accessed on a speculative,
responsive basis by single academics, submitting proposals in
response to a well-advertised national call from a single government-funding
(eg EPSRC) source. This contrasts with the funding requirements
of technology-development, where an early strategic plan or technology
roadmap for the anticipated development and potential applications
of core technologies is important, particularly for generating
external industry funding. Fraunhofers commonly develop technology
roadmaps to underpin their strategic plans as part of a continuous
assessment of new technologies derived from the affiliated institution.
22. The technology development process, where university-derived
technologies are translated to the marketplace, often takes in
excess of 10 years to complete. Partial, but significant funding
for each Fraunhofer is provided by the regional government (Lander)
in which it is established, in anticipation of eventual economic
benefit to the local region. This core funding recognises the
long-term development process, and is provided with minimal variability
in terms, conditions, and financial value, coupled with light-touch
audit approach, for terms of over 10 years.
23. By comparison with some of the UK initiatives, this provides
a stable financial framework in which a new Fraunhofer can devote
significant resources to establishing its technical proficiencies
and optimising operations, without the distraction of regularly
needing to secure substantial amounts of replacement core-funding.
24. The process of technology development typically requires
a considered transition between these major stages:
- (i) New knowledge (Knowledge Development)
- (ii) Tests of its wider relevance and applicability (Applied
Knowledge and anticipated Technology Roadmap)
- (iii) The generation of suitable, appropriate route to
market, and prototype generation (Commercialisation)
- (iv) Production, distribution and marketing (Manufacturing).
25. Navigating this process typically takes many years, considerable
funding, and luck. Each step requires differing skills-sets of
the participants, and many different providers can be commissioned
for each stage. Identifying the most appropriate group of partners
to deploy as the process develops requires an understanding of
the new core technology, what successful routes similar technologies
have taken, and the likely end-user market.
26. The expertise available within Fraunhofer Institutes recognises
these challenges, and provides all within a single centre, allowing
a more 'porous-transition' between each stage and a consistent
governance and cultural framework to both the University technology
provider and the industry end-user.
27. Figure 2 shows key technology-development characteristics
of a typical University.
Figure 2
UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTIC
28. The universities greatest strength, derived in part from
the principle of academic freedom, is their depth of expertise
in the creation of new knowledge. Coupled with wide research diversity,
this provides a substantial capability for new knowledge creation
over a wide thematic base.
29. In addition, the research-active universities, through
intervention of "Business Development" and "Technology
Transfer" offices, are able to "move" new knowledge
along the technology development process.
30. However, one of the key challenges to the development
of university-derived technology relates to the academic culture
of innovation. The depth and vibrancy of activity, coupled with
academic freedom, and the need to respond to short term funding
initiatives, as opposed to a known research roadmap, make it difficult
to predict from where and when new technologies may emerge, and
whether the investigator will continue to develop their research
into the more process-complicated applied domain.
31. This complicates the role of university 'Business Development'
and 'Technology Transfer' offices that are reliant on the engagement
of academic colleagues in the translation of their research, but
have limited ability to influence shape and direction of that
research.
32. These factors tend to limit interactions between the research
and the technology development elements of a university with relatively
solid 'boundaries' between them, where closer working and further
strategic planning would be beneficial to both groups.
33. As the future commercial and societal potential of entirely
new knowledge is rarely initially apparent, it is difficult for
universities to attract industry backing prior to further applied
research investigations. Since the mandate of the Universities
is principally new knowledge creation, a different organisation
may be better placed to carry out the applied research, technology
assessment and generation of the technology roadmap. In Germany,
this organisation is the Fraunhofer Institutes.
34. Figure 3 shows key technology-development characteristics
of a Fraunhofer Institute.
Figure 3
FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS
35. Unlike universities, the research and commercialisation
activities of each Fraunhofer focus around the development of
technology within a selected applied research theme. This focus
allows the institute to more easily identify and track technological
advances and anticipate the most effective technology-development
routes and strategies. This advance knowledge and strategic planning
enables a more porous development of technology across the development
stages within the institute.
36. The university and Fraunhofer models are therefore complementary
to each other. The need for a regular flow of new knowledge is
satisfied through partnerships between the Fraunhofer institutes
and their partner university. The externally focussed cultures
of the Fraunhofers, with their understanding of market requirements,
make them an attractive resource to both universities and external
businesses when either seeks technology-development expertise.
37. The success of the Fraunhofers is not derived from a single,
key characteristic, but by a number of mutually supportive factors:
- (i) An applied, responsive culture, founded on understanding
the needs of external clients.
- (ii) Focussed, themed, market-led technology areas leading
to definable, relevant, technology transfer strategies and expertise.
- (iii) A collective, national network, all sharing similar
long-term funding, governance, mandates, staff qualities and culture.
- (iv) A strong brand—the 1949 Fraunhofer model has
proved successful, and has grown with strong continuity in the
external offering.
- (v) Mixed academic-commercial staff expertise
- (vi) Light-touch, long-term, secure, core funding.
38. Although we have identified the mandate, governance and
procedural features underpinning Fraunhofer successes, there remains
the influence of the wider cultural environment in which they
operate.
39. Whilst we may practically reproduce the Fraunhofer Institutes,
we cannot quickly recreate the more developed technology-research
ecosystem and innovation economy of Germany.
40. Hence, Warwick also strongly supports a number of recommendations
found within the study "Ingenious Britain", Dyson, 2009.
A key task for this report was to consider how a wider UK culture
of science, technology and engineering might be promoted. Although
outside the reference terms of this return, further analysis of
the Dyson recommendations is advisable to improve the external
technology-ecosystem the TICs must operate within.
41. In particular, we consider that greater importance should
be given to science, technology and engineering within pre-University
education, promoting networked collaboration, and providing the
correct investment environment, governance and regulation for
a thriving technology industry.
Question: Are their existing Fraunhofer-type research centres
within the UK, and if so, are they effective?
Response:
42. We are aware of a number of activities that demonstrate
some, but not all of the key Fraunhofer characteristics.
43. For example, the IRCs (Interdisciplinary Research Centres),
IMRCs (Innovative Manufacturing Research Centres), and Cambridge
University Technology Centre all show the applied, interdisciplinary
approach, but are entirely university-based. These lack a dedicated
commercialisation arm concentrating on developing technology transfer
expertise suitable to their research theme, network-coordination,
and long-term "light-touch" funding.
44. Additionally, the NIHR-funded (National Institute of Health
Research) Biomedical Research Centres and units are existing University-NHS
partnerships, which have major additional elements of Industrial
partnership.
45. The closest current UK model is the EPSRC-TSB-Industry-funded
Innovation Knowledge Centres (IKC). The IKCs (currently six centres
and increasing by competitive review at two centres biennially)
are university-based and interdisciplinary, but with comparatively
short-term core funding of five years.
46. However, the IKC funding is primarily not to support fundamental
or even applied research, which is provided by industry partners,
but to generate Fraunhofer-type expertise in thematic-based technology-transfer,
market awareness, and business-culture. It is anticipated that
there will a loose network of IKCs will develop, but with no central
coordination of themes.
47. As previously indicated in our covering letter, WMG at
University of Warwick also demonstrates a number of Fraunhofer
characteristics, particularly with its prime mission being the
provision of externally focussed academic-derived innovation and
technology solutions to UK industry.
48. WMG recognises the benefits of focussed research themes,
with particular expertise in the well-defined areas of materials
and sustainability, digital technologies, manufacturing technologies
and operations and business management.
49. Finally, WMG also understands the advantages arising from
close networking, with international teaching and research based
partnerships in Hong Kong, India, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand.
Question: What other models are there for research centres
oriented toward applications and results?
Response:
50. Some similar international centres exist: ETRI, Korea;
TNO, Netherlands; Carnot Institutes, France; Industry-University
Collaborative Research Centre (IUCRC) USA; GTS, Denmark; Hong-Kong
Research and Development Centres, China; Rolls Royce Technology
Centres, International.
51. Warwick has recently made efforts to understand the success
of the MIT Media Lab. This applied research laboratory works on
future methods for information flow, control, and dissemination.
This work is predominantly industry-commissioned (for example,
Apple, Microsoft, Sony, BT). Although journal publications are
an output, the audio-visual component of the research means results
are frequently delivered in nearly-complete final product form.
This minimises the transition boundary between commercialisation
and manufacturing, further accelerating the commissioning of the
new technology.
52. Warwick recommends further investigation of the MIT Media
Lab as part of the TIC enquiry.
Question: Whose role should it be to coordinate research in
a UK-wide network of innovation centres?
Response:
53. A significant strength of the Fraunhofer Institutes arises
from the focussing of research-expertise around technology themes.
54. By comparison to universities, each institute has by design
a narrow technology outlook. It is only by careful coordination
of all centres expertise into a mutually supportive network, each
with similar mission, governance and funding, that a broad, encompassing,
strategic technology outlook is achieved. We therefore support
the requirement for central coordination to the overall network.
55. There are a number of complex, interdependent factors
that determine the broad research themes each Fraunhofer Institute
follows and similar considerations should be given to TIC themes.
These considerations include but are not limited to:
- (i) Suitability of the UK university technology base in
the chosen theme.
- (ii) Availability and primary source of core TIC funding.
- (iii) Technology-market requirements.
- (iv) Venture capital funding requirements.
- (v) Future societal technology requirements (for example,
greater clean energy generation, greater food production, greater
material recycling demands).
- (vi) Capabilities of existing TICs.
- (vii) Ready, local availability of suitable mixed academic-commercial
skilled TIC staff.
56. We are not aware of any single body with this broad mandate
currently capable of meeting these requirements. Hence, we propose
the establishment of a new body to oversee TIC strategy. Considering
the above requirements, membership could include representation
from TSB, BIS, Research Councils (Technology and Social Science
mandates), universities, local-government, learned institutes
(Institute of Physics, Institute of Electric and Electronic Engineers
etc.), CBI, LEP, Chamber of Commerce etc, jointly reporting to
the Secretary of States for Business Innovation and Skills, and
Universities and Science.
Question: 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?
Response:
57. This is a complex question, subject to many coupled factors,
meaning we can only speculate on TIC impact. As noted, there are
some UK initiatives that possess similar characteristics to the
Fraunhofers, but no single substantive example demonstrating all
attributes.
58. A direct negative consequence would be if funding were
to be transferred from existing centres to the new TICs. We believe
that the government component of TIC funding should be new funds
to avoid any reduction in existing research capacity.
59. The activity of TICs can be expected to be useful to all
institutions engaged in technology development, and a formal route
for the analysis and dissemination of TIC practice should be established
as part of a standard TIC review process.
Professor Mark Smith
Deputy Vice Chancellor
Professor Tim Jones
Chair, Science Faculty
Dr Mark Barnett
Business Engagement, Research Support Services
University of Warwick
1 December 2010
| 
