How can we strengthen links between entrepreneurial companies and…

How can we strengthen links between entrepreneurial

companies and entrepreneurial universities in the UK?



Daniel Lockton

Cambridge-MIT Institute Technology Policy Programme

Judge Institute of Management, University of Cambridge

March 2005



Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Licence. To

view a copy of this licence, please visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0

or write to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA




                                                                                             1
Executive summary



Abstract

       Current policy thinking on innovation and the changing rôles of universities is

introduced, along with discussion of entrepreneurial collaborations with business in

California and Cambridge, UK. The Cambridge example is examined in more detail and

some key factors behind its success are identified to serve as lessons for other UK

initiatives in this field. Existing schemes and relationship structures are reviewed and the

rationale expounded: advantages for both entrepreneurial companies and for

entrepreneurial universities, along with possible areas of difficulty or conflict, are

recognised and some opportunities for other initiatives to link the academic and

commercial worlds are described.



Recommendations

       To strengthen the links between entrepreneurial companies and entrepreneurial

universities in the UK--

   ·   Best practice from existing initiatives (Cambridge example) to be disseminated

       through the existing Science Enterprise Centres and other schemes

   ·   Regional consortia of universities and business, and non-regional expertise

       consortia to be encouraged, making up for lack of resources or perceived prestige

       of individual institutions

   ·   Better promotion of benefits of university collaboration to UK firms, especially

       SMEs engaged in research work

   ·   Greater coherence and clarity of purpose of the numerous players and groups in

       the innovation networks

   ·   Greater understanding and coherence of IP to be promoted within universities

   ·   Universities to explore other forms of using IP entrepreneurially, including

       branded product development in collaboration with business.

                                                                                           2
Background to the issue



Universities as development engines

       What is the purpose of the UK's universities? Should they be training the next

generation with skills to generate and maintain the momentum of economic growth?

Should they be dedicated to furthering academic knowledge in pure science, liberal arts,

and personal fulfilment? Or should they be development engines for new technologies

and tomorrow's economy, hives swarming with the best talent available to turn research

into commercially applicable advances to benefit us all, socially and financially?

       The third option is attractive, especially when presented in this way, and indeed,

this idea of a `third mission' for universities--which could contribute to the `third stream'

[e.g. 1] of funding after teaching and research council income--has been a popular one

since the British Technology Group's right of first refusal on inventions arising from

publicly funded research (a legacy of the National Research Development Corporation

and National Enterprise Board) was rescinded in 1985 [2]. Richard Lambert's Review of

Business-University Collaboration [9], published in December 2003, forms a foundation

of much current thinking on the issues involved.

       Hart [47] points out that "knowledge creation alone does not lead to

entrepreneurship," and as Minshall and Wicksteed [3] have noted, there has been "a

growing policy interest in innovation from the science base," leading to "a wide range of

`interaction' or `collaboration' programmes that include both socially and commercially

focused activities." As recently as this week (w/e 9. iv. 2005), Alec Broers' Reith Lecture

for the BBC included the line, ""It is time we in Britain, so good at fundamental science,

also came fully to appreciate the intellectual challenge behind product development,"

[19] which again reinforces the message that commercial applicability (and application)

of university work is a common theme.




                                                                                                3
Silicon transplants?

       How do these collaborative activities work? The most famous exponent of such

links between industry and educational institutions is California's Silicon Valley, where

Stanford University and Stanford Research Institute, together with forward-looking,

highly entrepreneurial companies such as Hewlett-Packard (started by Stanford alumni),

Xerox, Silicon Graphics and later Apple [4] established intricate networks and

relationships, with the universities often undertaking research for companies, spinning

out their own companies and indeed attracting supposedly unrelated companies to set up

in the area, along with, for example, banks and venture capital firms to service the needs

of the entrepreneurial community [5].

       It is this model of a successful, interlinked community, blurring the

boundaries of both the firm and the university, which has proved so attractive to

entrepreneurs and policy-makers the world over--the establishment of technology

clusters, either organically or through planned development, has become common. As

Bob Metcalfe (co-inventor of Ethernet) has said, "Silicon Valley is the only place on Earth

not trying to figure out how to become Silicon Valley" [6]. It is important to recognise

that not all technology clusters involve university participation, but many of those which

are focused on technical and scientific innovation rather than simply fabrication,

assembly or coding have tended to involve educational or R & D institutions (even

military research facilities in Israel, for example) to a significant extent [5].

       Equally, whilst physical proximity creates the specific `cluster' phenomenon,

international collaborations between universities with a significant commercial focus--

such as the Cambridge-MIT Institute [7]--show that geography need not necessarily be a

barrier to entrepreneurial endeavours, although the Lambert Review notes that "informal

networks cannot easily be sustained over long distances" [26], thus recognising the

degree of formal organisation that may be needed for very large-scale collaborations to

work successfully.



                                                                                             4
Lessons from a UK example

       The question, then, is how best UK universities and innovative firms can work

together to build the kind of entrepreneurial development community which has been

elevated to a desirable status in policy terms by reports such as 1993's White Paper

Realising Our Potential [8], the 2003 Lambert Review of Business-University

Collaboration [9] and the DTI's 2003 Innovation Report Competing in the Global

Economy: the Innovation Challenge [10].

       The UK does not lack successful examples of entrepreneurial companies and

entrepreneurial universities' working together to drive innovation, so it is worth

examining how these collaborations have worked in order to determine how to apply the

lessons more generally, and what policies can be considered based on what is learned.

       The Cambridge cluster, or technopole, is the best-known UK example of multiple

collaborations between business and academia, with the entrepreneurial network and

community spirit having been (not surprisingly given the location) the focus of a number

of studies--ranging from Segal Quince & Partners' original 1985 The Cambridge

Phenomenon [11] to more recent analyses of the rôle of serial entrepreneurs [e.g. 12].

Herriot and Minshall, in the Autumn 2004 Cambridge Technopole Report [13], list three

main ways in which the variety of organisations comprising the `cluster' interact:

community, collaboration and constructive chaos.

       Community in this context implies that individuals self-identify with the

phenomenon and recognise the part they can play in worthwhile and significant

developments. In a university context, this may even come from a camaraderie-style

loyalty along the lines of a sports team; it would seem to be particularly important where

an institution either has a very good reputation already (e.g. Cambridge) or is trying to

develop "perceived prestige" [3] in competition with rival institutions and it is in

members' best interests to promote the status of the institution with which they are

associated. Some anecdotal evidence of this comes from the lively discussions on online

student forums, particularly in more creative fields [e.g. 14], where the reputation of one

                                                                                             5
institution in relation to others comprises a majority of the debate. Equally important,

though, for a community meme to become prevalent is the belief that anyone has the

chance to make a difference: there must be transparency of opportunity within the

system.

        Collaboration as used here means a recognition that the community effort is

best sustained through networking, since the network effects bring benefits to both sides

of any relationship. The presence of so many other entrepreneurs in the community,

together with the academic expertise, means that collaboration will be the optimal way

to grow a business or learn from others' experience. Collaboration in Cambridge comes

from both out-and-out industrial research partnerships (e.g. the BP Institute for

Multiphase Flow [15]) and through "the high level of engagement of the business

community in enterprise education activities throughout Cambridge" [13]; this feature of

the Cambridge cluster is possibly one of the most distinctive links between

entrepreneurial companies and academia, with programmes such as the Centre for

Entrepreneurial Learning's `Enterprise Tuesday' events [16] being very widely attended

and promoted.

        Finally, the constructive chaos is perhaps not as flippant as it sounds;

`entrepreneurial thinking' as a state of mind would appear to depend to a large extent on

having the freedom to find, explore and exploit opportunities without having to work in

within a rigid societal architecture. The fact that "there is no one group that `organises'

Cambridge" [13] (and indeed, perhaps, the very complex relationships that make up the

University itself) leads to the situation where there is both the freedom to build new

enterprises, and also (without any real institutional `safety net'), the excitement of risk

which some studies have found to be a significant motivator in entrepreneurial thinking

[e.g. 17].

        Other UK clusters surrounding universities may derive in part from the pre-

eminence of that university in particular fields; or indeed the university may have become

pre-eminent in those fields because of their existing importance to industry in that area.

                                                                                              6
For example, Southampton's naval engineering importance led to the University offering

courses in this field; yet the city's current status as a high technology and IT cluster was

perhaps driven at least in part by start-ups and spin-outs related to the University's

activities in these areas.




                                                                                               7
Options for strengthening the links



Existing initiatives

        There are numerous existing schemes which have the specific aim of

strengthening links between entrepreneurial companies and entrepreneurial universities,

government-led and otherwise.

        The network of Science Enterprise Centres, set up in 1999, "aim to embed a spirit

of enterprise as a mindset for university departments and enterprise entrepreneurship as

a discipline building on existing excellence in traditional activities" [18]. Run by the

Office of Science & Technology (part of the DTI), there are currently 13 regional centres

(e.g. Cambridge Enterprise) involving 60 higher education institutions, organising

networking events, running--and arranging sponsorship of--business plan competitions,

running courses on business and entrepreneurship and advising and supporting

academics when dealing with industry or setting up spin-out companies. The regional

structure means that each centre can specialise or tailor its programmes to suit local

expertise; disciplines may cluster, especially if universities' own science parks or new

company incubators grow out of particular departments or faculties' spin-offs.

        Advantages of this kind of initiative include regional flexibility, as mentioned, and

the ability to engage people from all walks of life: with the right publicity to raise

awareness of events such as workshops or `HOWTO' lectures, interested members of the

public can become involved in the entrepreneurial community alongside students from a

variety of disciplines.

        Other initiatives also receiving government `third stream' funding, but through

different channels (such as the Higher Education Innovation Fund) include the London

Technology Network (LTN), which "aims to put businesses in touch with the wealth of

knowledge and resources at London universities," [28] and a large variety of locally based

innovation, business networks, chambers of commerce, Enterprise Hub Networks [e.g.

35] and consortia, some run by groups of universities, some by the Regional

                                                                                            8
Development Agencies, and some by local businesses themselves (i.e. completely without

government funding). For example, London Innovation (funded by the London

Development Agency [29]) works with business groups such as London First, Greater

London Enterprise One London (which promotes social enterprise), innovators' groups

such as Ideas21, LTN itself, and through LTN, may work directly with participating

universities.

       It is not an understatement to say that there is a multitude of groups involved in

education-to-business and business-to-education community activities; whether this

diversity deserves to be considered part of the `constructive chaos' (q.v.), is perhaps

debatable (the `spirit of competition' distinction that Herriot and Minshall make [13]

when talking about the chaos shouldn't be quite so applicable when organisations are

intended to complement each other).

       Nevertheless, regional consortia of universities, as have been common for seed

funding applications (especially the University Challenge Fund, specifically intended for

universities to commercialise technologies they have developed [30]) and cross-

disciplinary research and commercial collaboration communities (e.g. PARK [31] and

WestFocus [32]) in London and the Thames Valley, offer some opportunities for

universities which, on their own may not have the necessary size or reputation, to attract

business interest.

       Different types of schemes for strengthening the links between entrepreneurial

companies and entrepreneurial universities have also met with success, most notably the

Knowledge Transfer Partnerships [33] (formerly Teaching Company Scheme), which

make use of recent graduates in particular fields to bring new expertise mainly to SMEs--

often enabling the companies to move into new product or service areas. Faraday

Partnerships, which bring together university departments and leading businesses

carrying out research by field, are another successful variant of collaboration--for

example, `Integration of New & Renewable Energy in Buildings' [34]. LINK [36]



                                                                                             9
provides government partial funding for collaborations between companies and research

base organisations (which can include, for example, hospitals as well as universities).



Rationale behind the initiatives

        For universities, advantages could come ultimately from revenues from

successfully spun-out businesses and/or the licensing of technologies, although in the

short-term, the benefits of increased student and staff participation and establishment of

links with companies (which may provide placements, internships, `live' projects or

indeed research commissions) are probably sufficient motivation to become involved in

collaborative activities.

        Particularly in degrees with a strong vocational focus (e.g. engineering and

product design), well-publicised links between universities and eminent or prestigious

businesses in the field can be a major discriminator for students deciding where to study

in the first place--a point which will become even more relevant with the advent of top-up

fees.

        For students already at university, the transition from studying into more career-

oriented thinking can be greatly assisted by the involvement of possible employers in the

curriculum, whether through placements or projects as already mentioned, or even

through presentations on what it is like to work in a particular industry. "Among

graduates, a lack of practical work experience and commercial understanding is

frequently identified as a problem by employers," notes Lambert [27], and collaborative

programmes can help to ameliorate this situation.

        Indeed, in terms of specifically entrepreneurial companies giving presentations to

students on exactly how they `made it' (or how they didn't), this can in itself be highly

inspirational in encouraging a spirit of entrepreneurship among the cohort.

        What, though are the advantages for businesses? Many discussions of

university-business collaboration do tend to take the universities' viewpoint; it is often

portrayed as companies being able to teach students about business. For entrepreneurial

                                                                                             10
businesses that have been spun out of universities, or started by alumni, the chance to

maintain links with the parent institution may offer access not only to expertise and a

knowledge base that would simply be unavailable in the commercial sector, but access to

familiar laboratories and workshops which would otherwise entail enormous capital

expenditure for a new business.

       Equally, for other businesses (perhaps larger companies) which become involved

in university-business collaboration without any pre-existing links to the universities

involved, aside from purely promotional considerations, there is the chance to circumvent

expensive and perhaps ineffective recruitment consultancies by engaging directly with the

next generation of `talent'. Sometimes the use of unpaid or low-paid placements or

internships can bring fresh ideas and competent work into a company at a much lower

cost than would be the case with permanent staff; whilst this may be a cynical point of

view, a wealth of anecdotal experience would indicate that this may not be an uncommon

route for certain companies. Nevertheless, if the student can benefit from the exposure to

real business, and the involvement with the commercial development of technology, it is a

positive approach to take, especially if such placements are accredited by the university.

       There is also the chance to refresh and update companies' own R & D capability

with knowledge and expertise gleaned from working with "good university researchers

[who] operate in international networks: they know where cutting-edge work in their field

is going on around the world." [25]



Improving on existing initiatives

       Problems are also apparent for both businesses and universities if the

schemes are not managed in an appropriate way. Minshall and Wicksteed, referring

specifically to spin-outs, note that "academics focusing time and effort on

commercialisation activities may divert attention from their core activities of teaching and

research" [20]; spin-out activity may also require specialist management. To some extent



                                                                                             11
this can also be applied more generally to universities' involvement in schemes such as

the Science Enterprise Centres if they misjudge the amount of resources required.

        The application of commercial, market disciplines to the academic employment

mindset may also lead to conflict--for example, the recent strike ballot over

`unprecedented' enforced teaching redundancies at Brunel as the university attempts to

move towards a commercially-focused research strategy [21].

        Ideological conflict may also occur within universities where a habitually `pure'

academic ethos is regarded as superior to commercially focused or collaborative activities.

Again quoting Bob Metcalfe: in a recent Cambridge-MIT Institute lecture, he recalled

what a "low status" entrepreneurs and even business school staff were given by their more

traditionally academic peers at Oxford and Cambridge as recently as the early 1990s [22].

        Whilst this attitude has surely ebbed over the past decade, "with many universities

casting off their ivory tower image" [24], it has also possibly evolved into a feeling that

traditional, non-vocational disciplines are `under attack' as universities place so much

priority on their commercial activity. A related problem may be that only commercially

attractive areas of applied research will be given precedence in allocating budgets, since

absolutely pure science may not find a comfortable collaborative rôle within the Science

Enterprise Centre community; this may erode the UK's reputation for pure science

excellence.

        For businesses, the Lambert Review particularly notes that "the biggest

challenge... lies on the demand side" [23]; i.e., that UK companies do not realise or

understand how to make the most of relationships with universities, and that outside

certain sectors (aerospace/defence, and pharmaceuticals/biotechnology [24]), there is

little R & D investment.

        In the majority of cases, Lambert is referring to companies' not appreciating how

useful it could be if they collaborate with universities in the first place, but there is also

the issue of collaborative relationships that have been established ailing or failing due to

misunderstandings or differing levels of commitment. "Business-university collaborations

                                                                                                 12
need careful and consistent management by both sides... For their part, universities talk

about the problems that can result from frequent changes in company strategies, or in the

boardroom." [26]

       Conflicts can also occur where priorities over IP are concerned: once previously

publicly-funded work becomes tied up with commercial considerations, it can make it

difficult for academics to publish, and thus the goal of disseminating innovation can be

stifled. Clearly defined IP structures from the outset can help to solve this, but there will

inevitably be tensions.

       A major difficulty is achieving a satisfactory objective measure for the success or

otherwise of these initiatives. Whilst raw numbers of companies spun out from

universities give a guide to the level of commercial activity, Gill, Minshall and Rigby [48]

have shown--in reference to German knowledge transfer activities--that large numbers of

spin-out companies may merely indicate premature release of projects into a commercial

environment where they may find it difficult to survive. Again, then, success here is about

making appropriate choices as part of a commercialisation strategy, and naïve pressure to

spin out more companies than a rival university merely for the benefit of league tables

should not be succumbed to.



Opportunities for other initiatives

       Universities' own commercialisation and technology transfer offices are, in

themselves a way of forming links between business and academia, even if the

collaborations formed are one-offs (such as outright sale of rights to an invention). There

is potential, as more UK universities dedicate more resources to commercial activity, for

this to become a major activity, integral to the university's mission, much as it has become

at MIT, with a very clearly defined IP policy [37]. A wider clarification and better

understanding of IP issues could be a boon across the spectrum of university-business

collaboration; "research collaborations might be made easier to agree if model contracts

could be developed on a voluntary basis to cover the ownership and exploitation of

                                                                                                13
intellectual property" [1]. Innovation relay schemes, such as the international IRC

Network [42] or Yet2 [43] could be significant here in allowing access to a wider set of

issues--both for businesses needing solutions and universities looking for potential

technology purchasers.

       The introduction of top-up fees for undergraduate courses will surely--whether

intentionally or not--drive many universities towards much more corporate-style

marketing techniques, as the university `brand' becomes ever more important. This has

already happened with MBA advertising by many universities' business schools, and

recent comments from university administrators such Michael Beloff, president of Trinity

College, Oxford, in favour of leading universities `going private' [38] (perhaps along the

pioneering lines of the University of Buckingham [39]) indicate some further tendency

towards this kind of consideration.

       As an extension of age-old reputation-based commercial operations--such as

Oxford and Cambridge University Presses--university branded or endorsed products and

services could become a significant way for universities to become more entrepreneurial,

generate additional income and promote themselves as businesses. Whilst names and

logos are already routinely licensed to companies to be printed on clothes and souvenirs,

it would be an interesting extension of this idea if products employing technologies

developed at the universities themselves were to be proudly `branded' in this way. For

example, Henry Kloss's Cambridge SoundWorks [40] may have been named after

Cambridge, Massachusetts rather than after MIT or Harvard themselves (or indeed the

UK's University of Cambridge), but the name has sufficient gravitas and a perception of

excellence to give valuable perceptions of cutting-edge research to the buyer. Oxford

Instruments, Cambridge Consultants, Cambridge Silicon Radio and others also play on

these associations.

       It would indeed be cynical if the extent of universities' entrepreneurial activity in

this area were to licensing their names or endorsement to entrepreneurial businesses;

however, if a scheme genuinely employing innovations developed by a university-business

                                                                                               14
collaboration could benefit from such branding then the exercise may be more

worthwhile.

       For example, the author has previously proposed an initiative [41] to Brunel

University, London, whereby its technology transfer office would each year select a

number of viable student product innovations from its School of Engineering & Design

courses and seek, in partnership with relevant companies, to commercialise the products

(which, being mainly from undergraduates, are innovative but well within the realms of

what could be brought to market relatively quickly) under a brand such as `Brunel

Design,' with the aim of achieving a reputation similar to the Dyson name. Publicity and

commercial recognition would go in hand with building links with businesses, revenues

from investment in the venture, and an enormous boon for the students involved. This

sort of scheme could surely have some merit.

       Lambert [44, 45] suggests another initiative: utilising alumni and a database of

academics with relevant qualifications to build closer relationships with companies, both

through becoming non-executive directors and through engaging alumni already working

for companies.

       Parallel initiatives in encouraging innovation, especially R & D among SMEs, such

as the SBIR-style programme proposed by David Connell of TTP Ventures [46] may also

benefit university-business collaborations, since many SMEs will need a research partner;

R & D tax credits can also be applied to this work.




                                                                                           15
Conclusion

       The main recommended actions are outlined in the executive summary; the aim is

to build on the best practice of existing schemes, avoiding some of the pitfalls whilst

introducing some new ideas in addition. Overall, it is clear that the increasing commercial

awareness of universities, and their responses in dealing with commercial considerations,

are major factors; equally, encouraging businesses to make the most of possibilities

offered by university collaboration is also a common theme as well as something of a

challenge.



                                                                        3,999 words exactly




                                                                                          16
References




[1] LAMBERT, R. Lambert Review of Business-               [10] Innovation Report: Competing in the global

University Collaboration--Final Report, Her               economy: the innovation challenge, Department for

Majesty's Stationery Office, December 2003: page 4        Trade & Industry, December 2003

[2] `The BTG Story ­ 50 years of shaping the future' on   [11] The Cambridge Phenomenon: The Growth of

BTG plc website,                                          High Technology Industry in a University Town,

http://www.btgplc.com/about/historical_overview.ph        Segal Quince & Partners, 1985; updated version The

p                                                         Cambridge Phenomenon Revisited, Segal Quince

[3] MINSHALL, T & WICKSTEED, W. University spin-out       Wicksteed, 2000.

companies: Starting to fill the evidence gap, Gatsby      [12] MYINT, Y, VYAKARNAM, S & NEW, M. The Rôle of

Charitable Foundation, January 2005: `UK context for      Serial Entrepreneurs in the Cambridge High-

university spin-outs 1998-2002'                           Technology Cluster: The Effect of Social Capital in

[4] JACOBSON, D. `Founding Fathers,' Stanford             New Venture Creation & the Cluster Growth Process,

Magazine, July/August 1998. Available at                  Centre for Entrepreneurial Learning, University of

http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1998          Cambridge, 2004

/julaug/articles/founding_fathers/founding_fathers.h      [13] HERRIOT, W & MINSHALL, T. Cambridge

tml                                                       Technopole: An overview of the UK's leading high-

[5] ROSENBERG, D. Cloning Silicon Valley,                 technology business cluster, St John's Innovation

Reuters/Pearson Education, 2001 : `Technology             Centre, Cambridge, Autumn 2004

clusters: network architecture'                           [14] `Students & schools,' on Core77 forums,

[6] GROMOV, G. "A few quotes from Silicon Valley          http://boards.core77.com/viewforum.php?f=1

history," on NetValley.com                                [15] Cambridge University BP Institute for Multiphase

http://www.netvalley.com/svhistory.html                   Flow wesbsite, http://www.bpi.cam.ac.uk/

[7] About CMI, Cambridge-MIT Institute, November          [16] `Enterprise Tuesday,' on Centre for

2002. Available at                                        Entrepreneurial Learning website,

http://asp2.miuk.com/cmilive/documents/CMIABOU            http://www.entrepreneurs.jims.cam.ac.uk/programme

T.pdf                                                     s/enterprise_tuesday/prog_enttues.htm

[8] `Realising Our Potential,' on British Council         [17] MCCLELLAND, D. The Achieving Society, Van

website, http://www.britishcouncil.org/gost/rop.htm       Nostrand, Princeton, 1961. Available at

[9] LAMBERT, R, supra                                     http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=10299666




                                                                                                              17
[18] ROBERTS, C. "About UKSEC" on UK Science             [30] `University Challenge,' on Office of Science &

Enterprise Centres' website, 25 January 2005.            Technology website,

http://www.enterprise.ac.uk/about_us                     http://www.ost.gov.uk/enterprise/knowledge/unichal.

[19] `Reith talks focus on technology,' on BBC News      htm

website, 6. iv. 2005,                                    [31] Partnership in Accessible Research & Knowledge

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4417269.stm        website, http://www.unipark.org.uk

[20] MINSHALL & WICKSTEED, supra: `Synthesis of          [32] WestFocus website, http://www.westfocus.org.uk

findings'                                                [33] Knowledge Transfer Partnerships website,

[21] FORD, L. `Lecturers threaten legal action over      http://www.ktponline.org.uk

Brunel redundancies,' Guardian, 17. iii. 2005.           [34] Faraday Partnership: INREB website,

Available at                                             http://www.faradaypartnerships.org.uk/inreb.html

http://education.guardian.co.uk/universitiesincrisis/s   [35] Southampton Enterprise Hub website,

tory/0,12028,1440271,00.html                             http://www.southamptonhub.com

[22] `Azara Blog: Bob Metcalfe and Hermann Hauser,'      [36] LINK website, http://www.ost.gov.uk/link

on Cambridge 2000 website, 11. ii. 2005,                 [37] Guide to the Ownership, Distribution and

http://www.cambridge2000.com/azara_blog/html/2           Commercial Development of MIT Technology,

005/02/20050211_metcalfe_hauser.html                     Massachusetts Institute of Technology, June 1999.

[23] LAMBERT, R, supra: page 1                           Available at

[24] ibid, page 3                                        http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena/org/t/tlo/www/guide

[25] ibid, page 11                                       .pdf

[26] ibid, page 13                                       [38] Ward, L. `Oxford could go private in 15 years, says

[27] ibid, page 21                                       head of Trinity College,' Guardian, 6. x. 2004.

[28] `London Technology (LTN) Partners,' on London       Available at

Technology Network website,                              http://education.guardian.co.uk/universityaccess/stor

http://www.ltnetwork.org/Partners.htm                    y/0,10670,1320547,00.html

[29] London Innovation website, http://www.london-       [39] University of Buckingham website,

innovation.org.uk                                        http://www.buckingham.ac.uk




                                                                                                           18
[40] `The history of Cambridge SoundWorks,' on       [46] Connell, D. Exploiting the UK's Science &

Cambridge SoundWorks website,                        Technology Base: How to fill the gaping hole in UK

http://www.cambridgesoundworks.com/store/categor     Government Policy, TTP Ventures, Melbourn,

y.cgi?category=about_press_history                   December 2004

[41] Author's proposal to Brunel University, April   [47] HART, D. `Entrepreneurship Policy: what it is and

2005                                                 where it came from,' in The Emergence of

[42] Innovation Relay Centre Gateway website,        Entrepreneurship Policy, Cambridge University Press,

http://irc.cordis.lu                                 October 2003: page 13

[43] Yet2 website, http://www.yet2.com               [48] GILL, D, MINSHALL, T & RIGBY, M. Funding

[44] LAMBERT, R, supra: page 31                      Technology--Germany : Better by design?, Wardour

[45] ibid, page 32                                   Communications, London, June 2003




                                                                                                       19