Andy Coyne and Michael Taylor look at the successful strategies of those universities attempting to engage with the business world.
Anyone who has seen the TV adverts from supermarkets claiming to be the cheapest will be aware that where you rank in the league table often depends on how you measure success.
On university income in 2006/07, universities that have earned the largest percentage of their income from intellectual property (IP) rights aren’t at the top when total income is totted up.
There is, perhaps, a case for arguing that the total income table shows the most business-savvy universities, but the heavy weighting towards the London universities at the top may be to do with the higher charges for their services than in the provinces.
There are several arguments – perhaps a high income from IP rights reveals universities are best at formalising blue-sky thinking – but what is clear is that universities are being run as businesses, so what would be more natural than working with other businesses?
Engagement with commerce is a mixture of self interest – income earning and altruism – helping to ensure the future health of the regional or national economy. But the strategies employed to achieve these dual ends are various. As shown in the first issue of Spark, many universities have established
consultancies that offer a range of services to businesses on a fee basis. Others have established incubator facilities nurturing talent in fledgling high-end companies, more often than not created in the university.
One of the earliest of adopters in this field was Imperial College, London. Its Imperial Innovations has become one of the UK’s leading technology transfer and commercialisation companies.
It was set up in 1986 and listed on AIM in 2006, raising £26m.
The company’s approach encompasses the identification of ideas, protection of IP, development and licensing of technology, and formation, incubation and investment in technology businesses. A range of technologies are commercialised within healthcare, energy, environment and emerging technologies.
It has a 15-year agreement with Imperial College to commercialise technology derided from research at the university and has commercial deals with the likes of BAE Systems.
Similar structures can be found at Oxbridge, and a variation on the theme may be the science/biocity projects that universities in Nottingham and Liverpool have a stake in. But universities don’t only deal with businesses at the incubation and ideas level: the bulk of work is on a more prosaic level through business-facing courses, workshops, seminars and projects.
Universities that get it right often have long-standing relationships with companies for staff development purposes. An example is Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU), which has financial links – co-funding of courses and training – with the likes of McDonalds and Tesco.
Vice chancellor Professor John Brooks describes such relationships as “excellent” but says the prevailing economic climate could mean employers become more reluctant to put their hands in their pockets.
“As the economy worsens employer willingness to fund staff development is problematic,” he says. “Already some of the big manufacturing sectors in the North West, such as automotive, are just not engaging.”
Brooks’ view is that certain companies prioritise staff development and often like to work with universities.
One of the things about the businesses mentioned is that they are people businesses. Staff development is a priority. It makes sense to them from a HR perspective,” he says.
MU’s approach to being business focused works in various ways.
“One is the undergraduate programme. We try to make it relate to employability. The courses are
professional body accredited,” says Brooks. “Then there is the postgraduate programme. These are often part-time courses for staff who are employed but want to upskill and reskill.
“The third part is meeting the needs of organisations. These are chunks of programmes, learning and skills. Universities don’t have a unique right to provide this, but sometimes we have the skills at hand.”
Brooks’ opinion is that some universities can be a “bit rigid” in their approach to engaging with business, saying: “We have to move towards learning in the workplace and find out what
the requirements of employers are. The priority is to maintain skills levels.”
He adds that helping students prosper when they leave university is also a priority: “Particularly in a
recession, we need to talk about careers differently. There could be significant graduate unemployment through no fault of their own. So we have to find ways to help them,” he says.
To this end, MMU runs an incubation scheme for new businesses set up by alumni based in a building in central Manchester. “It provides hot desking. IT, a good postal address and business advice. They cluster together,” Brooks says. “The real test is how many survive the next few years. It is a real chance to look at entrepreneurial opportunities.”
The MMU approach to engaging with more established companies is relatively straightforward. Brooks says: “It is about networking; identifying key sectors and key employers. We set up a series of dinners and create ambassadors. Some of them sit on panels and get into our training programmes. But it shouldn’t be a hierarchal focus with us at the top. It should be a partnership.”
Similarly, pushing the partnership approach is Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU), which has
established a national advisory board with the likes of Marks & Spencer (M&S), Ford Europe, the Institute of Directors and Littlewoods advising on its business engagement approach.
Vice chancellor Professor Michael Brown says: “We came to the conclusion that we wanted to become a business-engaged university. What we were providing before that wasn’t fit for purpose. The role of higher education isn’t just to expand the intellect and mastery of an area but to provide skills.
“To do that we decided to get people in to tell us what they want. We had everyone from small business representatives to Sony and M&S, and the likes of Richard Lambert, director general of the Confederation of British Industry.
“We needed to convince them that we run as a business. We got their backing and started a pilot scheme. At the end of the process the university doesn’t assess it, it is the employer.”
The LJMU approach is nothing if not thorough. “The first thing we did was to change all the courses in six months,” says Brown. “All courses now include work-related learning and they have graduate skills embedded in them, which can be measured.”
On top of this the university introduced what it calls WOW (world of work) skills. “Students have to
demonstrate these skills,” says Brown. “Firstly, self awareness; working in teams, reading situations and personal intelligence. Second, understanding business. How do balance sheets work? And third, entrepreneurial skills, business ethos and project management.
“Employers have been moaning for years that people are learning a lot about a subject but are useless at doing anything. But employers have been superb in helping us. They want us to produce the graduates they want. And the other aspect of this is that we want our students to be successful.
“A lot of universities say they are doing the same but they are not doing it at the same level and for every course.”
Oxford Saïd Business School is also evaluating its offering after consulting with business executives. Its 26-year- old Oxford Advanced Management Programme, which has attracted more than 1,100 senior executives, has been entirely redesigned and renamed The Oxford Advanced Management and Leadership Programme.
Dr Lalit Johri, director of the programme, says: “This is one of our flagship programmes and has established a reputation for excellence, impact and relevance. Such a programme should always be evolving, but this year we decided to review every part of the programme to ensure its value to
participants and their organisations.
“Executives are bringing a wider, more urgent range of issues to the programme and looking for powerful answers. The programme is stronger and addresses the pressures we see in our conversations with executives.”
Expect to see a lot more course and programme overhauls within universities in the coming months. It has become clear that the first step towards getting it right in a business engagement programme is listening to the businesses you are attempting to engage with.