Ssh ...
May 2018
This article is about commercialisation in the Social Sciences, Humanities and Arts. The academic disciplines involved are variously grouped under the headings of SSHA, AHSS, SSAH, SSH. It is a popular topic.
There is a difference between knowledge transfer in SSHA and commercialisation in SSHA. This article is about commercialisation. Knowledge transfer is broad and includes as wide a range of possible interactions between universities and businesses, foundations, charities, institutions, and governments as you can imagine. Commercialisation in SSHA is narrower than this; it involves trying to make some financial return; there is the whiff of money about the thing.
ASTP-Proton and PraxisAuril have developed and delivered a new European training programme in ‘Knowledge Exchange in the Social Sciences Arts and Humanities’. ASTP-Proton has established a Special Interest Group on SSHA Knowledge Transfer. The Special Interest Group held an excellent meeting in Oxford in May, examining many of the key questions in some detail. One of the four parallel tracks at this week’s PraxisAuril Conference is titled ‘Lessons from Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences’.
What’s new
In the UK, the 2014 Research Excellence Framework introduced a measure of the ‘Impact’ of university research activities on society. Twenty per cent of the points available to an academic Department to show off its research excellence involved demonstrating Impact, through case studies and strategies. This changed everything. In the 2021 Research Excellence Framework exercise this increases to 25%. Impact is getting bigger.
For a broad understanding of what knowledge transfer in SSHA involves, reading the REF 2014 Impact case studies from SSAH departments across the universities in the UK is truly uplifting in terms of finding out the brilliant ways UK university researchers are having an impact.
In many ways the 2014 REF sounded the starting gun for the new wave of KT and commercialisation in SSHA. Researchers were attentive to Impact, and this often led to contact with the nearby TTO, KTO, Research & Enterprise division etc. These offices were unsure how to react, not sure what to do, and are now working out how to help.
One of Oxford University’s newest spin-outs is PalaeoPi, from the Social Sciences Division, which provides high quality, research-grade, relatively low cost 3D scanning and digitisation techniques primarily geared toward the heritage and university sectors, also applicable to fields such as indie game development and CGI design. This is one of the new wave of commercialisation projects coming through Oxford University Innovation Ltd, where the AHSS work is being led by Dr Mark Mann. Oxford University Innovation now has two staff dedicated to managing the commercialisation of these projects, now numbering over fifty.
In other ways of course there’s not much new under the sun. In 2001 there was another spin-out from the Archaeology Department at Oxford. Oxford ArchDigital was spun-out from the University, through Isis Innovation Ltd (since renamed Oxford University Innovation).
Back in the day (~2001), Isis Innovation experimented with a group called Business Innovation & Consulting. The Business Innovation part was aimed at supporting researchers whose projects fell outside the conventional patent, licence and spin-out model of technology transfer; in other words an early go at commercialisation in SSHA. A few projects got going, I think the BI part gradually dissolved back into the Consulting part, and Consulting has become the main way that the TTO supported SSHA academics for many years.
So, what is new? There are two main answers: a new emphasis from SSHA academics on generating impact, including through commercial routes; and a new understanding from the TTO, KTO or whichever bit of the university’s administration is involved, that they need to develop ways to help academics in SSHA departments.
What’s the difference?
Commercialisation in SSHA in universities is new. Commercialisation in the other, non-SSHA departments, let’s call them the technological sciences, in universities was new 25 years ago; it is now 25 years old, mature, possibly grown-up.
The conversations with SSHA academics today are similar to the conversations with physical and life scientists 25 years ago. Back then, there was a shortage of experience, a shortage of expertise, shortage of role models down the corridor, shortage of successes, little track record, less institutional acceptance, more fear of reputational damage. Today, these features no longer characterise the technological sciences, but they do characterise SSHA.
Some data *
SSHA spin-outs are small in number and attract very little investment.
‘Economic and Social sciences’ and ‘Humanities and Arts’ spin-outs make up only 11% of all spin-outs. ‘Economic and Social sciences’ and ‘Humanities and Arts’ spin-outs attract only 9% of the investment as that going into ‘Engineering and Physical sciences’ spin-outs. That 11% comprises 10% from ‘Economic and Social sciences’ spin-outs and 1% from ‘Humanities and Arts’ spin-outs (2011-2017).
The twelve institutions attracting most spin-out investment for all sectors account for 90% of the total amount of spin-out investment raised, in 2016. These top twelve institutions attract 90% of the investment into spin-outs.
So, if you want to start a spin-out in SSHA and you are not at one of the leading twelve institutions, you are heading into new territory.
[* These data are drawn from two recent reports: ‘University Spinouts: An imperfect ecosystem. An in-depth look at the way in which private and public funding is affecting the success of UK spinouts’ – Anderson Law, April 2018; and ‘Academic Spinouts: A Report on the Funding of UK Spinouts 2016-2017’ - Penningtons. Both reports are based on data from Beauhurst (a searchable database of the UK’s high- growth companies), although timescales and analyses are different; however, the overall message is clear. (The Beauhurst data set is different to the Beaufort scale, which measures wind.)]
Characteristics of SSHA commercialisation
Do you need money?
The classic technological sciences spin-out is based on research outputs that are being protected by patent applications, require substantial £millions of investment finance to develop the technology towards marketable products and services in order to add sufficient value for an exit to an existing large company or growth into a sustainable business. There is little expectation of revenues or profits for many years.
SSHA spin-outs may be based on technology, and a small proportion of these opportunities may fall into the same category as technological spin-outs described above. However, the general expectation is that technology will not be central to creating value in the company. Referring back to PalaeoPi from Oxford, this business is based on using technology to capture three-D images of archaeological samples. The technology is application specific, but not unique, with plans to develop into new fields. It’s a service model; use the technology to provide a service, capturing data images which are made available to the customer. A few years ago, 2005, there was another spin-out from Oxford with technology to capture three-D images: Eykona, now Fuel 3-D. This one was all about the technology, a brilliantly clever way of capturing three-D data with a device which could move independent of the target. PaleaoPi is based on a known application, using a neat technology. Eykona was a unique technology looking for an application to make large amounts of money. Maybe SSHA spin-outs have a clearer understanding of the target market.
One of the distinctions is that SSHA spin-outs are unlikely to need substantial investment to reach customers. SSHA spin-outs are always likely to need a few £thousand to get going, buy the bits, do the legals, website, travel etc. However this is likely to be at levels met from credit cards, supportive university TTO’s, loans; rather than at a level which involves external investors.
A consequence of this is that founder shareholders can set their own pace for company growth and manage the company based on their own expectations, without pressure from financial investors. Their motivations may well be different to those of external financial investors. Needing other people’s money changes everything.
Do you want to make money?
If you control the company you can decide this yourself. If you have external financial investors they have predetermined the answer. There is an old saying from the technology transfer world describing academics thoughts on motivations: ‘it’s not about the money … until there is some’. And for sure, money changes things.
However, most academics do not set out to maximise profits from their research outputs; they do set out with a clear desire to see their research outputs used in constructive ways, and increasingly realise this could involve making a lot of money for other people, and themselves.
If making money is simply not part of the aim, and some say this is a feature of SSHA academics, then commercialisation may sit uncomfortably within the SSHA culture.
Consulting and Beyond
University KTO’s, TTO’s have been helping SSHA academics with their consulting projects for many years. For many years the common TTO response to how they are helping with SSHA commercialisation was to refer to this consulting support. The follow-on response about SSHA spin-outs was to describe the possibilities for converting a stream of consulting contracts into a viable business. They key was first the ability to codify the expertise in such a way that it could be delivered by company staff and not only the brilliant, busy academics, and second to find an individual with enough knowledge of the expertise to take up a management role in the company.
This remains one of the strongest opportunities for SSHA commercialisation. In fields where the expertise and data are now far more highly valued, then universities should be encouraged to develop new consulting businesses.
Networks
Successful TTOs will have developed extensive networks of supporters, helpers, service providers and advisers who comprise the local innovation community. The community of people and organisations that the TTO needs to be part of will be different for SSHA commercialisation. There will be some overlap, amongst lawyers and accountants for example, but the organisations, associations and events that the TTO staff should be attending to get to know the right people will be different.
A typology
Social Sciences, the Humanities and the Arts are not all the same, they are all different. This initial wave of interest has grouped them together to give the topic some focus and attract attention. Even at these early stages it is useful to recognise that the subject areas are different, and are likely to create different types of opportunities in terms of the models for commercialisation and the target market sectors.
SSHA disciplines are different in the way that STEM subjects are of course not all the same. Aligning the academic disciplines and their research outputs with industry sectors is as important in SSHA as elsewhere. Social Sciences projects are less likely than Arts projects to appeal to the booming Creative Arts industry; and vice versa for the global consulting business sector.
Perhaps, there is a need for a typology of different types of SSHA commercialisation routes and spin-outs. Here is a rough fist draft:
And another thing
The UK technology transfer community is familiar with the stream of government commissioned reports commenting on their profession. The latest was published in February 2018 (1). One of the conclusions is as follows:
“Respondents reported that the most influential factor on commercialisation is the skills and experience of university commercialisation staff (the TTO).” (page 78 of 140)
Universities should readily understand this. If you want a bigger and better Engineering Department you get bigger and better Engineers. If a university is serious about supporting SSHA academics with their commercialisation plans, it needs university commercialisation staff with appropriate skills and experience.
The paragraph continues:
“The research confirms that stakeholders view universities as resource-constrained in terms of the numbers and skills of staff, the available time for commercialisation activity, and funding for staff and to invest in IP to take commercialisation forward, despite the influence of the REF and the development of university strategies to drive KE and commercialisation.”
My take from this is that universities continue to struggle with the idea that they need to pay for the KTO, the TTO. They know they need to pay for libraries, for example, and the host of other central services university administrations comprise, but for some reason ….
(1) A Report for the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) prepared by RSM PACEC Ltd “Research into issues around the commercialisation of University IP” February 2018.
Conclusion
One of my earlier articles (December 2017) concluded: The next step, not to the exclusion of any others, will be to turn attention to developing the commercial opportunities arising from social sciences, humanities and arts research outputs. This will be a major focus in the coming years. Employing someone in the TTO who knows about social science is a good place to start.
Recognising that commercialisation in SSHA is new (notwithstanding any past outliers) and different and requires people in the TTO with different backgrounds to complement existing TTO practices is essential. Listen to the SSHA academics, understand what they want to do, and help the ones who want help.
Acknowledgement
With thanks to Christoph Köller and Felix Schneider at Görgen & Köller GmbH for organising the Special Interest Group event in Oxford, and Mark Mann at Oxford University Innovation Ltd for hosting the event.
There is a difference between knowledge transfer in SSHA and commercialisation in SSHA. This article is about commercialisation. Knowledge transfer is broad and includes as wide a range of possible interactions between universities and businesses, foundations, charities, institutions, and governments as you can imagine. Commercialisation in SSHA is narrower than this; it involves trying to make some financial return; there is the whiff of money about the thing.
ASTP-Proton and PraxisAuril have developed and delivered a new European training programme in ‘Knowledge Exchange in the Social Sciences Arts and Humanities’. ASTP-Proton has established a Special Interest Group on SSHA Knowledge Transfer. The Special Interest Group held an excellent meeting in Oxford in May, examining many of the key questions in some detail. One of the four parallel tracks at this week’s PraxisAuril Conference is titled ‘Lessons from Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences’.
What’s new
In the UK, the 2014 Research Excellence Framework introduced a measure of the ‘Impact’ of university research activities on society. Twenty per cent of the points available to an academic Department to show off its research excellence involved demonstrating Impact, through case studies and strategies. This changed everything. In the 2021 Research Excellence Framework exercise this increases to 25%. Impact is getting bigger.
For a broad understanding of what knowledge transfer in SSHA involves, reading the REF 2014 Impact case studies from SSAH departments across the universities in the UK is truly uplifting in terms of finding out the brilliant ways UK university researchers are having an impact.
In many ways the 2014 REF sounded the starting gun for the new wave of KT and commercialisation in SSHA. Researchers were attentive to Impact, and this often led to contact with the nearby TTO, KTO, Research & Enterprise division etc. These offices were unsure how to react, not sure what to do, and are now working out how to help.
One of Oxford University’s newest spin-outs is PalaeoPi, from the Social Sciences Division, which provides high quality, research-grade, relatively low cost 3D scanning and digitisation techniques primarily geared toward the heritage and university sectors, also applicable to fields such as indie game development and CGI design. This is one of the new wave of commercialisation projects coming through Oxford University Innovation Ltd, where the AHSS work is being led by Dr Mark Mann. Oxford University Innovation now has two staff dedicated to managing the commercialisation of these projects, now numbering over fifty.
In other ways of course there’s not much new under the sun. In 2001 there was another spin-out from the Archaeology Department at Oxford. Oxford ArchDigital was spun-out from the University, through Isis Innovation Ltd (since renamed Oxford University Innovation).
Back in the day (~2001), Isis Innovation experimented with a group called Business Innovation & Consulting. The Business Innovation part was aimed at supporting researchers whose projects fell outside the conventional patent, licence and spin-out model of technology transfer; in other words an early go at commercialisation in SSHA. A few projects got going, I think the BI part gradually dissolved back into the Consulting part, and Consulting has become the main way that the TTO supported SSHA academics for many years.
So, what is new? There are two main answers: a new emphasis from SSHA academics on generating impact, including through commercial routes; and a new understanding from the TTO, KTO or whichever bit of the university’s administration is involved, that they need to develop ways to help academics in SSHA departments.
What’s the difference?
Commercialisation in SSHA in universities is new. Commercialisation in the other, non-SSHA departments, let’s call them the technological sciences, in universities was new 25 years ago; it is now 25 years old, mature, possibly grown-up.
The conversations with SSHA academics today are similar to the conversations with physical and life scientists 25 years ago. Back then, there was a shortage of experience, a shortage of expertise, shortage of role models down the corridor, shortage of successes, little track record, less institutional acceptance, more fear of reputational damage. Today, these features no longer characterise the technological sciences, but they do characterise SSHA.
Some data *
SSHA spin-outs are small in number and attract very little investment.
‘Economic and Social sciences’ and ‘Humanities and Arts’ spin-outs make up only 11% of all spin-outs. ‘Economic and Social sciences’ and ‘Humanities and Arts’ spin-outs attract only 9% of the investment as that going into ‘Engineering and Physical sciences’ spin-outs. That 11% comprises 10% from ‘Economic and Social sciences’ spin-outs and 1% from ‘Humanities and Arts’ spin-outs (2011-2017).
The twelve institutions attracting most spin-out investment for all sectors account for 90% of the total amount of spin-out investment raised, in 2016. These top twelve institutions attract 90% of the investment into spin-outs.
So, if you want to start a spin-out in SSHA and you are not at one of the leading twelve institutions, you are heading into new territory.
[* These data are drawn from two recent reports: ‘University Spinouts: An imperfect ecosystem. An in-depth look at the way in which private and public funding is affecting the success of UK spinouts’ – Anderson Law, April 2018; and ‘Academic Spinouts: A Report on the Funding of UK Spinouts 2016-2017’ - Penningtons. Both reports are based on data from Beauhurst (a searchable database of the UK’s high- growth companies), although timescales and analyses are different; however, the overall message is clear. (The Beauhurst data set is different to the Beaufort scale, which measures wind.)]
Characteristics of SSHA commercialisation
Do you need money?
The classic technological sciences spin-out is based on research outputs that are being protected by patent applications, require substantial £millions of investment finance to develop the technology towards marketable products and services in order to add sufficient value for an exit to an existing large company or growth into a sustainable business. There is little expectation of revenues or profits for many years.
SSHA spin-outs may be based on technology, and a small proportion of these opportunities may fall into the same category as technological spin-outs described above. However, the general expectation is that technology will not be central to creating value in the company. Referring back to PalaeoPi from Oxford, this business is based on using technology to capture three-D images of archaeological samples. The technology is application specific, but not unique, with plans to develop into new fields. It’s a service model; use the technology to provide a service, capturing data images which are made available to the customer. A few years ago, 2005, there was another spin-out from Oxford with technology to capture three-D images: Eykona, now Fuel 3-D. This one was all about the technology, a brilliantly clever way of capturing three-D data with a device which could move independent of the target. PaleaoPi is based on a known application, using a neat technology. Eykona was a unique technology looking for an application to make large amounts of money. Maybe SSHA spin-outs have a clearer understanding of the target market.
One of the distinctions is that SSHA spin-outs are unlikely to need substantial investment to reach customers. SSHA spin-outs are always likely to need a few £thousand to get going, buy the bits, do the legals, website, travel etc. However this is likely to be at levels met from credit cards, supportive university TTO’s, loans; rather than at a level which involves external investors.
A consequence of this is that founder shareholders can set their own pace for company growth and manage the company based on their own expectations, without pressure from financial investors. Their motivations may well be different to those of external financial investors. Needing other people’s money changes everything.
Do you want to make money?
If you control the company you can decide this yourself. If you have external financial investors they have predetermined the answer. There is an old saying from the technology transfer world describing academics thoughts on motivations: ‘it’s not about the money … until there is some’. And for sure, money changes things.
However, most academics do not set out to maximise profits from their research outputs; they do set out with a clear desire to see their research outputs used in constructive ways, and increasingly realise this could involve making a lot of money for other people, and themselves.
If making money is simply not part of the aim, and some say this is a feature of SSHA academics, then commercialisation may sit uncomfortably within the SSHA culture.
Consulting and Beyond
University KTO’s, TTO’s have been helping SSHA academics with their consulting projects for many years. For many years the common TTO response to how they are helping with SSHA commercialisation was to refer to this consulting support. The follow-on response about SSHA spin-outs was to describe the possibilities for converting a stream of consulting contracts into a viable business. They key was first the ability to codify the expertise in such a way that it could be delivered by company staff and not only the brilliant, busy academics, and second to find an individual with enough knowledge of the expertise to take up a management role in the company.
This remains one of the strongest opportunities for SSHA commercialisation. In fields where the expertise and data are now far more highly valued, then universities should be encouraged to develop new consulting businesses.
Networks
Successful TTOs will have developed extensive networks of supporters, helpers, service providers and advisers who comprise the local innovation community. The community of people and organisations that the TTO needs to be part of will be different for SSHA commercialisation. There will be some overlap, amongst lawyers and accountants for example, but the organisations, associations and events that the TTO staff should be attending to get to know the right people will be different.
A typology
Social Sciences, the Humanities and the Arts are not all the same, they are all different. This initial wave of interest has grouped them together to give the topic some focus and attract attention. Even at these early stages it is useful to recognise that the subject areas are different, and are likely to create different types of opportunities in terms of the models for commercialisation and the target market sectors.
SSHA disciplines are different in the way that STEM subjects are of course not all the same. Aligning the academic disciplines and their research outputs with industry sectors is as important in SSHA as elsewhere. Social Sciences projects are less likely than Arts projects to appeal to the booming Creative Arts industry; and vice versa for the global consulting business sector.
Perhaps, there is a need for a typology of different types of SSHA commercialisation routes and spin-outs. Here is a rough fist draft:
- Like STEM ones – IP, patents, need money, to make money
- Modest profit – Lifestyle business – modest, unambitious, but aim to make money
- Consulting business – codify the expertise, use data sets
- Social enterprise – aim to do social good, may involve making money
- Not for profit – is this a social enterprise? Maybe company limited by guarantee
- Just don’t know – fair enough, but the clearer the answer the better to avoid confusion.
And another thing
The UK technology transfer community is familiar with the stream of government commissioned reports commenting on their profession. The latest was published in February 2018 (1). One of the conclusions is as follows:
“Respondents reported that the most influential factor on commercialisation is the skills and experience of university commercialisation staff (the TTO).” (page 78 of 140)
Universities should readily understand this. If you want a bigger and better Engineering Department you get bigger and better Engineers. If a university is serious about supporting SSHA academics with their commercialisation plans, it needs university commercialisation staff with appropriate skills and experience.
The paragraph continues:
“The research confirms that stakeholders view universities as resource-constrained in terms of the numbers and skills of staff, the available time for commercialisation activity, and funding for staff and to invest in IP to take commercialisation forward, despite the influence of the REF and the development of university strategies to drive KE and commercialisation.”
My take from this is that universities continue to struggle with the idea that they need to pay for the KTO, the TTO. They know they need to pay for libraries, for example, and the host of other central services university administrations comprise, but for some reason ….
(1) A Report for the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) prepared by RSM PACEC Ltd “Research into issues around the commercialisation of University IP” February 2018.
Conclusion
One of my earlier articles (December 2017) concluded: The next step, not to the exclusion of any others, will be to turn attention to developing the commercial opportunities arising from social sciences, humanities and arts research outputs. This will be a major focus in the coming years. Employing someone in the TTO who knows about social science is a good place to start.
Recognising that commercialisation in SSHA is new (notwithstanding any past outliers) and different and requires people in the TTO with different backgrounds to complement existing TTO practices is essential. Listen to the SSHA academics, understand what they want to do, and help the ones who want help.
Acknowledgement
With thanks to Christoph Köller and Felix Schneider at Görgen & Köller GmbH for organising the Special Interest Group event in Oxford, and Mark Mann at Oxford University Innovation Ltd for hosting the event.