Submitting Institution
University of CambridgeUnit of Assessment
Business and Management StudiesSummary Impact Type
SocietalResearch Subject Area(s)
Economics: Applied Economics
Commerce, Management, Tourism and Services: Business and Management
Studies In Human Society: Policy and Administration
Summary of the impact
Research at the Centre for Business Research (CBR) contributed to the
2010 Hauser report, which advocated the establishment of Technology
Innovation Centres (TICs), and played a central part in subsequent
discussions and decisions about the realisation of the report into
legislation. This led to the UK government announcing a £200m programme to
establish these centres, subsequently termed Catapult Centres. To date,
seven Catapult Centres have been established (cell therapy, digital
economy, future cities, high value manufacturing, renewable energy,
satellite applications and transport) and the policy is set to expand in
two further areas, energy systems and diagnostics for medicine. In July
2013, a further £185m was committed to the programme. Private sector funds
are intended to bring public and private funding together on the programme
to over £1 billion in the next few years.
Underpinning research
A long-running programme of research on the determinants of innovation
performance across firms and nations and university industry knowledge
exchange has been undertaken at the CBR since 1994. The key researchers
were Professor Alan Hughes, (Director CBR 1994-, Director UK~IRC 2008-,
Margaret Thatcher Professor Enterprise Studies Judge Business School
1998-), Mina, Senior Research Fellow (2008-, University Lecturer in
Economics of Innovation, 2013-) and Connell, Senior Research Fellow
(2006-). This research included comparisons of the UK and US innovations
systems: university-industry links; survey analysis of commercialisation
interactions of 22,000 UK academics; evaluation of the impact of `third
stream' funding in UK universities; analysis of new company formation and
financing patterns in the Cambridge Silicon Fen; survey and case based
analyses of innovation funding; innovation policy evaluation; and case
studies of commercialisation. This led to a specific international
comparative case study research carried out as part of the research award
EPSRC Cambridge Integrated Knowledge Centre in Photonics and Electronics
(EP/EO236141/1) (Research Award 1) which showed that successful
intermediate technology and innovation centres combined a number of key
characteristics (Ref 1). These included medium to long-term public
sector development funding of platform technologies with the capacity to
develop multilateral and bilateral private sector co-funding to enhance
the quality and speed of commercialisation from the science base (Refs
1 to 6).
Using the information gained from its international comparative case
studies, the research focussed on the generic problem of how to fund early
stage commercialisation processes in general purpose technologies (GPTs).
Private sector venture capital and corporate labs will typically not fund
early stage GPT development because of uncertain final market applications
and long lead times. Funding from key lead customers along alternative
development trajectories must be combined with sustained public sector
research funding to exploit the diverse end user applications which may
arise. Institutional design to achieve this is a central innovation policy
concern.
Specifically, fieldwork carried out in 2009 in Korea, Taiwan, USA,
Germany and Belgium, published in (Ref 1), revealed that successful
intermediate technology and innovation centres all included medium to
long-term public sector funding for platform technology development. This
was combined with multilateral and bilateral private sector co-funding
linked to contract research. Institutional design was matched to specific
national innovation systems in terms of large and small firm presence and
university funding patterns. The UK lacked comparable institutions. The
publication based on the research (Ref 1) set out a possible
configuration for the UK based on these insights, and emphasised the key
institutional design issues to be addressed (for details see section 4).
References to the research
Publications
1 Mina, A., Connell, D. and Hughes, A. (2009), `Models of technology
development in intermediate research organisations', Centre for
Business Research Working Paper 396, December 2009. (www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/pdf/WP396.pdf)
2 Mina, A. (2009), `The emergence of new knowledge, market evolution and
the dynamics of micro-innovation systems', Economics of Innovation and
New Technology 18(5): 447-466.
6 Hughes, A. (2008),`Innovation
policy as cargo cult: Myth and reality in knowledge-led productivity growth',
in Bessant, J. and Venables, T. (eds.), Creating Wealth from Knowledge.
Meeting the innovation challenge, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Reprinted in Augusto Lopez Claros (ed.) (2009), The Innovation for
Development Report 2009-2010: Strengthening Innovation for the
Prosperity of Nations, Palgrave Macmillan
Research Awards
1 Hughes, A, Connell, D. IKC Advanced Manufacturing Technologies for
Photonics and Electronics (IKC). Funded by EPSRC, (EP/EO236141/1) 1 April
2007-31 December 2011: £395,000
2 Hughes, A., Kitson, M., Cosh, A., with Tether, B., Haskel, J., Kilduff,
M., Metcalfe, S., Mina, A., Martin, B., Minshall, T. and Imperial College,
London. Cambridge Imperial Innovation Research Centre (UK~IRC). Funded by
ESRC, NESTA, DIUS, and TSB. 1 January 2009-31 December 2013: £2.8m
3 Kitson, M., Hughes, A., (with CIHE) Impact of Higher Educational
Institutions on Regional Economy (HEIs), 1 July 2007-31 October 2009:
£531,725
Details of the impact
The impact of this work is evidenced by the current coalition
government's implementation of the policy on `Catapult Centres', or
Technology and Innovation Centres, which are designed to facilitate the
translation of scientific research into commercialisation and wealth
creation. This policy was a key recommendation of the 2010 Hauser Report
entitled The Current and Future Role of Technology and Innovation
Centres in the UK (Source 1). The key contribution of the
Cambridge team was to submit evidence to the policy making process,
through select committee evidence and advice, and provide input to key
policy meetings at the relevant government department and
cross-departmental groups. The Cambridge input, evidenced by substantive
publications and competitive awards listed above, provided evidence to
support this key policy development (cited in Source 2, 7). Source
9 below provides a statement from a senior government official
involved detailing the impact of Source 1 in shaping the policy
relating to Catapult Centres. In particular, the CBR team: developed a
vision for the role of technology and innovation centres within the UK
system, provided international case studies of technology and innovation
centres, provided evidence of the impact of technology and innovation
centres. The role of the Cambridge team `helped to build a strong
evidence base and consensus behind the report and its recommendations.
Without this, it would not have been possible to persuade the incoming
Coalition Government to adopt this policy' (Source 9).
Based on the findings from (Ref 1), the Cambridge team were
directly involved in the provision of written and verbal evidence to the
2010 Hauser Review of Technology and Innovation Centres (Source 10).
The team took part in discussions with, and submitted written advice to,
Ministers before and after the 2010 election and submitted written
evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and
Technology (Sources 3, 4). (Ref 1) was cited several times
in the Hauser Report on The Current and Future Role of Technology and
Innovation Centres in the UK, presented to Lord Mandelson on 25
April 2010 (Source 10). Hughes attended policy seminars and
briefing meetings in 2010 and 2011 with the Prime Minister, the Secretary
of State for Business Innovation and Skills, and the Minister for Science
and the Universities, the Director General for Innovation and a number of
senior officials in BIS, the Technology Strategy Board, and with the OECD
Innovation Policy Review Secretariat.
The recommendations in (Ref 1) relating to the identification of
sectors for TIC investment, the scale and duration of public sector
funding and the attraction of private sector co-investment were embodied
in the policy announced by the government in January 2011. The Technology
Strategy Board would establish a network of six to eight world-leading
technology and innovation centres with funding of £200m in the four years
2011-2015 (Source 5). Seven `Catapult Centres' have now been
established in the areas of high value manufacturing, cell therapy,
offshore renewable energy, satellite application, connected digital
economy, future cities, and transport systems. Five are running in 2013,
with future cities and transport systems scheduled for 2014, with chairman
and chief executives having been appointed. The policy is set to expand in
2015-16 in two further areas (energy systems and diagnostics for medicine)
with £185m funding added to the Technology Strategy Board from July 2013.
Making the announcement of the new Future Cities Catapult, at Innovate
UK 2013, Secretary of State for Business, Vince Cable said, `One
of the decisions of this government I am most proud of is establishing a
chain of catapults across the UK. These are national centres of
excellence, promoting innovation in collaboration with business' (Source
8).
Sources to corroborate the impact
- Hauser, H. (2010), The Current and Future Role of Technology and
Innovation Centres in the UK, Report for Lord Mandelson, Secretary
of State, Department for Business Innovation & Skills., p.6, p10,
p.12, p.14, footnote 7 (www.innovateuk.org/_assets/pdf/other-publications/hauser-review.pdf)
- Brinkley, I. (2010),Knowledge
Economy Strategy 2020: The Work Foundation submission to the
Comprehensive Spending Review, The Work Foundation, p.13
(www.theworkfoundation.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/CSR%20Submission%20FINAL%203
0-9-2010.pdf)
- House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee, Memoranda,
Written Evidence: Technology
Innovation Centres, TIC 00-85, pp. 37, 42, 274-275
(www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/innovation/innovation.pdf
)
- House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee, Technology and
Innovation Centres, Second Report of Session 2011-11, Volume II,
Additional written evidence, Ordered by the House of Commons to be
published 15 December 2010, 12 January 2011, and 2 February 2011, pp.
19, 23, 131,132
(www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/619/619vw.pdf)
- Technology Strategy Board (2011), Technology and Innovation
Centres: a Prospectus. Maximising the Commercial Impact of UK
R&D ,The Technology Strategy Board, North Star House North
Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1UE
-
RSC Response to the Department for Business Innovation and Skills
Consultation on the EU Framework Programme, p.2
(www.rsc.org/images/RSC_Response_to_BIS_Consultation_on_the_EU_Framework_Programme_tcm18-197347.pdf)
- Reid, B, Sissons, A., Brinkley, I., Levy, C., Albert, A. and Holloway,
C. (2010),Technology Innovation Centres: Applying the
Fraunhofer model to create an effective Innovation Ecosystem in the UK,
Submission to the Science and Technology Committee, December, p. 6. (www.theworkfoundation.com/Assets/Docs/KnowledgeEconomynewsletters/TICs.pdf)
- Press Release, Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, 12 March
2013 (www.gov.uk/government/news/multi-million-pound-future-cities-catapult-to-be-hosted-in-London)
- Supporting written statement from senior civil servant, Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills (28/8/13)
- Supporting written statement from Chair of the Hauser Review
(10/9/13)