Today I am joined by two guests; Cullum Clark and Christian Blackwell. Cullum is the Director of the Bush Institute SMU-Economic Growth Initiative and Christian is the Managing Partner at Opus Faveo Innovation Development, and their combination of skills and experience is a force to be reckoned with! The purpose of today’s episode is to unpack the report which was produced by Cullum, Christian, and a number of other colleagues of theirs (who are all acknowledged by name towards the end) titled the Innovation Impact of US Universities: Ranking and Policy Conclusions. The concept of innovation impact centres around the success of higher education institutions in having their research findings be brought to life in the world outside the walls of academia. After explaining the value of this kind of measure, as well as how the data was collected, Cullum and Christian do a deep dive into the factors which are responsible for determining levels of impact innovation productivity (including one which has never before been cited in a report before), the universities which ranked the highest in their respective categories (categories were based on the size of the institution), and recommendations for leaders in all sectors who are interested in enhancing impact innovation (something that everyone should be interested in!). In This Episode:[00:50] An introduction to today’s two guests, and their educational and professional backgrounds. [03:22] Cullum and Christian explain the focus of the work being done by the George W. Bush Institute and Opus Faveo. [05:18] Where the idea of the importance of innovation impact originated. . [09:16] Aims of the collaboration between Opus Faveo and the Bush Institute (which resulted in The Innovation Impact of US Universities: Rankings and Policy Conclusions paper). [11:00] What research shows about the nature of spill overs from higher education institutions to the business sector. [13:13] An explanation of the concept of innovation impact, and the process that was developed to measure outputs. [16:06] Two quantifiable variables of innovation impact. [18:01] As cliché as innovation impact sounds, it is actually very meaningful. [18:55] Universities which were included in the innovation impact ranking done by the Bush Institute and Opus Faveo. [20:09] Problems with the way innovation impact has been measured in the past, and why this method was better (although not perfect). [22:34] A limitation of the data used in the study. [23:40] Fear that some Tech Transfer offices have around looking at rankings, and why this fear is unfounded. [24:48] Scrutiny that a lot of higher education institutions are currently under, and how measuring innovation impact can help to relieve them of this. [26:25] What can be learned from looking at the licensing revenues coming into institutions compared to the amount they are spending on research. [27:42] Universities which came out top of the rankings. [28:45] The number of high-ranking universities that are private. [29:33] How the innovation impact productivity rankings were calculated. [30:30] Results of the innovation impact productivity rankings (including some that were very surprising). [32:36] Major differences that exist between institutions in terms of innovation impact productivity, and why this finding excites Cullum and Christian.[35:12] Value of basic versus applied research[38:12] Case studies that were done on the top institutions in each category, and an overview of the learnings from these.[41:55] Christian shares a story of a university which changed a city. [43:47] How leaders should be thinking about innovation impact. [44:07] Cullum shares the top 10 rankings in the small and medium size categories. [45:38] Top ranking medical and pure research institutions.[46:40] The two goals of the rankings report. [47:16] How the size of an institution relates to innovation impact productivity. [48:31] Ways that a university’s geographical position impacts innovation impact productivity.[49:12] The correlation between foreign born/immigrant populations and innovation impact productivity. [51:10] Surprising and unsurprising findings about how the technology transfer office of a university affects its innovation impact productivity ranking. [53:20] Why the findings about the contribution of technology transfer offices to innovation impact productivity make Christian feel optimistic. [54:51] The negative correlation between innovation impact productivity and research funded by industries. [57:01] Possible explanations for the negative correlation between innovation impact productivity and research funded by industries. [01:00:33] Work that needs to be done to align university and industry cultures. [01:01:11] Examples which highlight the mismatch between industry and university cultures. [01:04:30] What anecdotal evidence shows about younger faculty members at universities. [01:05:36] How innovation impact plays a role in the competition amongst universities for students.[01:06:00] The role of innovation impact in attracting philanthropists. [01:07:20] Recommendations for universities looking to improve their innovation impact productivity rankings.[01:09:33] Problems with the programmatic approach adopted by many universities.[01:10:53] An argument to increase public sector and philanthropic funding for high quality research. [01:13:25] Something that funders of institutions should take into account. [01:14:07] What places (towns, cities etc.) should be doing to improve innovation impact. [01:17:11] The circular nature of the previously mentioned factors.[01:18:26] What the people making resource allocation decisions need to realize about technology transfer offices. [01:19:12] Discoveries that Cullum and Christian have made about the heads of technology transfer offices.[01:21:42] Findings that came out of the quartile analysis that was done for this report.[01:23:00] Acknowledgments of the colleagues who worked with Cullum and Christian on the report.[01:24:40] The global potential of the findings from this study. Find Cullum:Email Find Christian: Email

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related