Abstract
Introduction
KTPs are renowned for fostering collaborative partnerships among academia, businesses, and graduates, which result in positive outcomes and innovation for over 40 years (About KTP, 2023). Presently, KTPs engage approximately 800 businesses, 100 knowledge bases, and over 800 graduates. Considering the funds’ quantity and the available publications related to KTP projects, it is evident that there is a greater emphasis on granting technology-related projects with significant economic impacts rather than social impacts.
Some universities have excelled in securing KTP projects. For instance, Essex has rapidly become the preferred partner for businesses seeking innovation in the East of England, London, and across the UK. They have successfully managed 40 KTPs, securing £10.2 million in funding to facilitate their execution (UKRI Innovate UK, 2021). Another noteworthy example is the University of Brighton, which has completed 280 KTP projects to date, boasting an impressive 90% success rate surpassing their objectives and earning A grades, as recognised by Innovate UK (University of Brighton, 2023). On the other hand, Buckinghamshire New University, despite having less experience in KTP, secured funding for a project supporting the charity Oasis Partnership (Buckinghamshire New University [BNU], 2023). This marked the Business and Law school’s inaugural KTP project, with a distinct focus on social impacts rather than purely economic ones.
Existing KTP publications primarily analyse completed projects, emphasizing challenges and benefits. However, there is a gap in understanding project initiation, including funding applications and Associate recruitment. Recent reports highlight application processes and criteria as potential barriers for social/environmental projects, distinct from commercial ones. Charity sector when it comes to mKTP (Management KTP) is an area that is under-researched, particular at the pre-project stages (Arayici et al., 2011; Gertner et al., 2011; Choudrie and Culkin, 2013; Cowdean et al., 2019, Wynn and Jones, 2017; Ali and Haapasalo, 2023). The research about pre-project planning is already overlooked in project management literature according to Camp et al. (2018) and is not addressed in KTP research.
This study, therefore, concentrates on the three stages of funding application before the project commences. The period of interest was from August 2021 to May 2023 as illustrated in Table 3 The pre-project timeline - The different stages of a m-KTP project and stakeholders involved. The definition of pre-project stages—pre, during, and post-success funding application—will be discussed in the Findings section. The primary objective of this project is to construct impactful case studies that encompass all participating entities. The aim of this inaugural paper is to offer recommendations for future KTP projects and provide insights beneficial for universities with less KTP experience, particularly for projects with a greater emphasis on social impact, demonstrating that how to be succeeded in the funding application process as well as overcome the challenges to successfully recruit the Associate within the 9-month requirement after the fund is granted.
The research was conducted using a qualitative case study approach, involving interviews with key stakeholders associated with the project (Vitae, 2023). These stakeholders include the School Senior Leadership Team (SLT) and academics from BNU Business and Law School, Oasis Partnership representatives, BNU KTP managers, the Associate, and BNU HR advisor.
This paper aims to address the following research questions: RQ1: How were different stakeholders involved in the three stages of the pre-KTP project? RQ2: What challenges and issues arise at each stage of the pre-KTP project? RQ3: What strategies can be employed to address these issues and generate impacts for all stakeholders, as well as broader impacts?
The findings from this paper suggest that it may take 2 years from the initial idea until the project can start. This matches the entire length of the official project. There are challenges, but all can be transformed into opportunities in the three stages of pre, during, and post-success applications. These opportunities create motivation for academics and school involvement, support the understanding of the whole process, and establish standards for application and HR processes for all stakeholders involved.
Background of the study
The m-KTP project between Buckinghamshire New University and Oasis Partnership
The Oasis Partnership is a charity that offers high-quality social and psychological support services to enhance people’s health and well-being. They support individuals of all ages and diverse communities. Their mission is to improve quality of life by reducing disadvantage, isolation, and loneliness while increasing skills, confidence, and well-being. They emphasize social prescribing to connect people with community groups for emotional and practical support (Oasis Partnership [OP], 2023).
In 2020, Oasis launched additional services (Recovery Café and Training for Employment) aimed at preventing substance misuse (OP, 2023). These services have been effective and generated a small surplus income stream. Now, the charity aims to develop sustainable commercial services to support vulnerable people. The mKTP project focuses on knowledge transfer in areas like social marketing, pricing, and supply chain strategies. Two new commercial models will be designed and launched: the Café model for sustainable income and the Oasis Business Model for training and consultancy services.
Despite challenges, the project is progressing, and stakeholders seek insights for future endeavours. The literature review will explore KTP projects and related research in the UK, covering pre-project planning, motivation, and social impacts.
Current granted KTP projects
Surfing through the website of UKRI – UK Research and Innovation, and Innovate UK – the funding council for KTP, it is evident that the available funding is mainly for technology-related projects. There is some funding specific to economic impacts.
This proportion seems to align with the current Associate roles joining at the same time as this paper’s KTP project Associate. Among the 40 Associates in the residential training provided by Innovate UK in September 2023, only the Associate from BNU is supporting a charity.
As the results, many publications relating to knowledge transfer were looking at the success and barriers in technology related projects which built partnerships with commercial and industrial businesses. Those gaps in literature will be identified in the next section Literature Review.
Literature review
Pre-project planning
Pre-project planning is neglected in the project management literature. There are few research about pre-project planning but mainly in construction project management literature (Tuyakayeva and Kerimova, 2021; Haponava and Al-Jibouri, 2009; Mneimneh et al., 2017; Weerasinghe et al., 2007).
Buser et al., (2014) expand the PMBOK (Project Management Institute, 2021) indicate the ‘first step in management for any project is planning to plan. By identifying the key components of the project, the initiation groundwork is laid for planning in the next phase’ (p. 36). The identification of requisite activities in the pre-project phase encompasses the formulation of a charter, the assessment of pertinent issues, and the delineation of key stakeholders (Buser et al., 2014). This procedural framework for pre-project planning has been implemented in the effective management of workload within library workplaces, with indications that customisation is essential to address the unique needs of individual libraries (Daugherty and Hines, 2018). Notably, existing literature on KTP has yet to specifically address the domain of pre-project planning.
A recent and broader systematic review paper by Rybnicek and Königsgruber (2019), spanning from 2000 to 2017 and incorporating the need for third-party funding, suggests a framework that might be helpful in determining the success of University-Industry collaboration. The study excludes articles not referring to success factors, it does not identify any risks and challenges that some projects may encounter. In contrast, while gaining insights into the channels and preferences of interaction between universities and industry and the mechanisms of implementing University-Industry Collaboration process (UIC) at individual or organisational levels, Nsanzumuhire and Groot (2020) identified the barriers and challenges faced by partners in implementing UIC activities. However, this study neglects to address the risks and challenges faced by universities, especially at the pre-project phrase.
The subsequent proposition underscores the imperative to study the pre-project phases inherent in a KTP project. This involves the identification of key stakeholders and the evaluation of challenges and issues at each stage. These facets are to be addressed in Research Questions 1 and 2.
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in higher education and KTP context
Self-Determination Theory has gained prominence in comprehending both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, particularly within higher education (Akosile and Ekemen, 2022; Ryan and Deci, 2020). Nevertheless, the majority of research employing this framework has predominantly occurred in controlled laboratory settings and educational environments, with a focus on specific contexts such as educational attainment, language acquisition, sport psychology, and health and nursing studies (McCleary, 2016). With the exception of Lam’s studies (Lam, 2005, 2010), which centred on the application of this theory to research commercialisation within research-intensive institutions, McCleary’s (2016) investigation utilised a qualitative case study approach. This approach involved interviewing 15 academics in STEM subjects in Northeast England to comprehend the motivation continuum in the context of university-industry collaborations.
The singular study addressing academic motivation within the KTP context acknowledges a limitation conceded by the researcher (McCleary, 2016). This limitation pertains to the exclusive focus on participants from STEM disciplines and the male demographic within universities with greater KTP experience, aligning with the predominant emphasis in KTP funding on technology and economic impact projects. Consequently, the applicability of these findings to post-1992 universities, characterised by limited KTP experiences, and to projects emphasising social impacts over technological considerations may be constrained.
Social impacts
Projects with a social impact, compared to technology-oriented endeavours, often face difficulties in defining and achieving tangible outcomes. This complexity stems from the delayed and long-term nature of the effects of addressing social issues, as some societal problems may require a generational change to produce noticeable impacts. Moreover, regarding knowledge transfer, previous studies have noted the inherent challenge in observing and evaluating impact consistently and effectively, due to the complexities involved in capturing and measuring such outcomes (Chowdhury et al., 2016; Research Council UK, 2011) . This complexity is mirrored in the social marketing approach adopted in the specific KTP project, where innovative knowledge transfer initiatives from BNU Business and Law School to Oasis Partnership further underscore the challenges in assessing impact in the dominion of social initiatives. Definition of social marketing: “Social marketing is the adaptation of commercial marketing technologies to programs designed to influence the voluntary behaviour of target audiences to improve their personal welfare and that of the society of which they are a part.” (Andreasen, 1994, p.110)
The systematic literature review of knowledge transfer practices in University-Industry collaborations by de Wit-de Vries et al., 2019 which found 75 papers on knowledge transfer in the selected period from 2002 to 2016. According to them and Perkmann et al. (2013), literature on academic engagement did not exist before that period. Despite using search terms that did not exclude ‘social impact' and explicitly using ‘technology transfer' to yield more relevant results, their findings may only be applicable to technology-related papers. Furthermore, the definition of academic engagement and partnership in this paper is based on the definition from Perkmann and Walsh (2007, p.263): “high relational involvement in situations where individuals and teams from academic and industrial contexts work together on specific projects and produce common outputs”. Therefore, it is not necessary that among those found papers, they specifically pertain to KTP projects.
However, despite the intangible outcomes and challenges of measurement, there is a need for developing a case study that addresses social impacts at both the university and school levels. Additionally, this aligns with the directives outlined by the United Nations (United Nation, 2023) and the guideline of Education for Sustainable Development from the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA, 2021).
Summary of gaps in literature
While some above systematic literature reviews are with no clear identified whether the Universities – Industry Collaborations are actually KTP projects, the publication from the specific cases that are granted KTP fund are mainly about technology transfer (Arayici et al., 2011; Gertner et al., 2011; Choudrie and Culkin, 2013; Nielsen and Cappelen, 2014; Cowdean et al., 2019).
Nevertheless, all the aforementioned research projects related to KTP have been undertaken subsequent to the completion of the projects. None of the published papers have delved into discussions pertaining to the pre-project stages, specifically before the Associate assumes the role. This phenomenon may be attributed, in part, to the prevailing tendency to finalise publications at the conclusion of the project to comprehensively assess its impact. Secondly, while successful projects may publish their outcomes, the less successful or failed ones may not be documented. Even the systematic literature review paper has excluded research that does not mention success factors (Rybnicek and Königsgruber, 2019). The absence of instances of failure in both academic and practitioner publishing has been posited by Akbar et al. (2021). This is attributed to the perception among researchers that their findings may lack publication potentiality (Franco et al., 2014). Additionally, various constraints associated with the practitioner landscape, including issues of accessibility, capacity, cost, and funder expectations, have been underscored in the works of Gordon et al. (2016) and Parsons et al. (2017) and stakeholder tension and conflict in Alexander et al. (2020).
One of the key criteria of REF2029 is the research environment (Research England, 2023); therefore, this study’s findings could support addressing how to engage academics in research and knowledge exchange. It also offers potential research ideas for each stage of the KTP project, facilitating the creation of impact during the project and fostering collaboration across multiple disciplines within the University and with external partners.
To identify the impact, especially social impacts, it is necessary to develop an impact framework, commencing from the pre-project phase, as addressed in Research Question 3. In alignment with the calls for social impact by QAA and the United Nations for the 17 ESG goals, it is suggested that during the pre-project phase, this project has already contributed to 8 goals, as will be discussed in the findings.
Methodology
The research context and period of interest was from the initial idea development (August 2021) and overcome challenges to recruit Associates within the 9-month requirement after fund approval, to when the project commenced (May 2023).
Research approach and methods
The research was conducted using a qualitative case study approach, involving semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders associated with the project. Semi-structured interviews are an effective method for engaging stakeholders in a project because they combine the flexibility of unstructured interviews with the consistency of structured ones. This approach allows interviewers to explore stakeholders’ perspectives and experiences in-depth while maintaining a focus on key topics (Magaldi and Berler, 2020). ‘Stakeholders are people or organisations who have an interest in your research project or affect or are affected by its outcomes. Stakeholders include those who are both supportive of your research, as well as those who may be less supportive or indeed critical of it.’ (Vitae, 2023)
These stakeholders include the School Senior Leadership Team (SLT) and academics from BNU Business and Law School, Oasis Partnership representatives, BNU KTP managers, the Associate, and BNU HR advisors.
Sample size and data collection
Ten interviews have been conducted in July and August 2023 via Microsoft Teams, with some being deferred due to the unsuitability of the timeframe during the summer, when many individuals take leave. This platform has been cited as a useful means of collecting qualitative data and saving time for researchers in transcription (Keen et al., 2022). However, there may be some ethical concerns associated with its use, primarily in health research (Maldonado-Castellanos and Barrios, 2023). The research was acquired ethical approval from BNU’s ethical committee on 15th July 2023. Recorded function on Teams were enable during the interview, the transcripts were edited and coded by a research assistant with the supervision of the research team. The interview excerpts used in the paper were sent to participants for their review to mitigate potential bias.
Participants/Stakeholders detail.
The Senior Leadership Team (SLT) served as the academic lead, joining during the recruitment of the Associate with some prior knowledge of the application process but without involvement at that stage.
Three academics from School of Business and Law were interviewed:
AC1 was involved in the initial idea stage when the project idea was still in development.
AC2 joined when the project idea was reinstated and has been the main and sole academic supervisor since then.
AC3 joined partly to act for AC1 during their absence during-application stage.
From Oasis Partnership:
O1, the Chief Executive Officer, has been involved in the project since its initial idea stage.
O2, the operational manager, joined Oasis when the application was completed and is now the business-based supervisor, overseeing the Associate’s work during the 24-month granted project.
A KTP manager in BNU’s Research and Enterprise Department, R1, was involved from the initial stage until the application was submitted, then stepped back. Another KTP manager, R2, took over R1’s role after the project was granted and later handed it back to R1 when the Associate started working for 3 months.
From the BNU HR team, the plan was to interview three HR officers, but only one agreed to participate, who is the HR advisor (HR1) for the recruitment of the Associate.
The Associate (A0) was going through the recruitment and HR process to be in post.
Details about the timeline and their involvement will be provided in Figure 1 and will be discussed in the findings. Opportunities and responsible stake holders to create the impacts at 3 stages of pre-project phrase.
The limitation of the research was the inability to interview certain stakeholders, including the KTN advisor from Innovate UK and the two BNU HR advisors. Additionally, as defined by (Vitae, 2023) stakeholders should also include those who are less supportive or critical of the KTP projects to provide a more diverse range of opinions. It is argued that two academics (AC1 and AC3), who were not necessarily unsupportive of the project, could not prioritise KTP due to constraints, have contributed for more diverse points of view.
The research instrument - the interview guides
Each stakeholder requires a different set of questions based on their involvement with the KTP project. While the main set of interview guides is being developed, questions and prompts will be tailored to different stakeholders.
For example, the study involved different participant groups, each focusing on specific stages of KTP projects. Academics discussed pre-application aspects and motivations for future involvement, while the Associate and HR advisor addressed post-success application stages. KTP managers, with experience in other projects, highlighted differences, challenges, and recommendations. These diverse perspectives contribute to identifying opportunities related to Research Question 3.
Thematic analysis
Codes and Themes of Data findings.
Findings and discussion
In this section, we present the findings and discussion of our research, which explores the multifaceted dynamics of KTP applications. Our investigation is structured around three primary research questions (RQs). Firstly, we examine the involvement of stakeholders at different stages of the KTP application process (RQ1). Understanding stakeholder engagement is crucial for identifying how their contributions influence the pre-project phrase. Secondly, we address the challenges and issues encountered across the three defined stages of the KTP application (RQ2). These stages include the pre-application stage, the during - application development stage, and the post-success stage, each presenting unique obstacles that can impact the project’s success. Lastly, we explore the benefits and opportunities that arise from stakeholder involvement at all stages, focusing on the motivations, comprehension of the KTP process, and human resources standards and processes (RQ3). Additionally, we consider the impacts observed during the pre-project phase, providing a comprehensive overview of the project’s initial conditions and their implications.
Stakeholders involvement in different stages of the KTP application – RQ1
Conducting interviews with stakeholders involved in this KTP project revealed that it took nearly 2 years from the initial idea until the project could commence (when the Associate started working). Over these 2 years, the project went through various timelines, which can be divided into three stages: pre, during, and post-success application. Consequently, each stage involved different individuals who understood different aspects of the project idea. Furthermore, only a limited number of people had a comprehensive understanding of the project’s core purpose and followed it from the initial idea to its conclusion.
Moreover, while the fundamental purpose of KTP may be evident in various UKRI materials and publications for those interested, for the stakeholders involved, it is their individual and organisations’ aims and values that hold importance and need to be comprehended to successfully contribute to the KTP application. As the CEO (O1) emphasised “The KTP is a key part of that because it enables us to do some of the things we aspire to achieve.”
For academics, their individual research interests and the core values of the university have motivated their involvement in the KTP. Academic 2 (AC2), with expertise in social marketing as defined by Andreasen (1994) – the utilisation of marketing techniques to enhance individual and societal welfare – can make valuable contributions to the charity mission, as demonstrated in Extract 01. Extract 01:
The pre-project timeline - The different stages of a m-KTP project and stakeholders involved.
It is evident from Table 3 that only the Business representative (O1) has been present in all three stages. In contrast, within the knowledge partnership (the University), multiple stakeholders were involved at different stages, necessitating someone or something to be accountable for connecting the entire project. The Business may not fulfil this role, as it lacks the motivation and authority outside of the knowledge base partnership.
Challenges and issues over the 3 stages of the KTP application – RQ2
Defining the 3 stages of the KTP application
As argued by Camp et al. (2018), project management literature has largely neglected pre-project planning, and it is absent in KTP research as identified in the gaps in literature. Therefore, the findings from RQ1 contribute to formulating definitions of the three stages in pre-project planning for KTP. The three stages of the application can be defined as follows:
Pre-application stage: From the Initial Idea to Re-instated, when the business idea was developed within the business (O1), and the KTP manager (R1) matched up with relevant academics from the school/faculty/department.
During-application stage: This is when the business (O1), KTP manager (R1), and academics (AC2, AC3), with the support from the KTN advisor (the funder), collaborated to complete the application and prepared for submission.
Post-success application stage: Following the successful application, the business (O1, O2), KTP manager (R2), and academics (AC2, SLT) worked together and with HR to recruit the Associate.
Challenges and issues in the Pre-project phase and in each stage.
Pre-application stage’s challenges
At this stage, academics faced challenges in finding motivation to join the project due to heavy teaching and other responsibilities. The absence of a clear workload system hindered commitment, and uncertainty about achieving success affected dedication. Similar to McClearly’s (2016) study, administrative and managerial aspects were identified as motivation hindrances. The BNU Business School’s lack of prior KTP experience further contributed to uncertainty about project success. Academic 1 (AC1) expresses his concern, using phrases such as ‘throw some minimal resources,' ‘seriously concerned about the odd record of underinvestment,' ‘waiting for it to fall over,' and ‘expecting it to… Die and disappear into thin air.' (AC1)
Academic 2 conveyed an account of committing substantial time to the application process for the project in Extract 02. Regrettably, there was an absence of support concerning workload alleviation during this phase, and uncertainties persisted regarding the future trajectory even in the event of a successful application. Extract 02: ‘I did not imagine that how much times I should spend on completion of the application only for my part. Especially, how to fit around with teaching and other responsibilities. It was also challenged to find the time to sit with the team to complete the application. There is not clear whether I could have any reduction for my teaching load if I involved in this KTP once it is succeeded’. (AC2)
The findings about motivation parallel with McClearly’s (2016) study in which tangible rewards were ineffective motivators, but individuals sought acknowledgment, appreciation, and opportunities for research publication and career advancement. The study also highlighted barriers, including lack of recognition in job descriptions, questions about knowledge transfer’s legitimacy, and inadequate research environments in newer universities.
If the main challenge for the academics is motivation, the business also struggled with whether the KTP project is the right path for them, considering they need to contribute one-third of the funds while the UKRI funds the remaining two-thirds (UKRI, 2023). For corporate businesses, one-third of the total fund might not be a large sum, but for a charity, this represents a significant investment requiring approval from their trustees, not just from the CEO as in industrial businesses (GOV.UK, 2021). The lack of academic involvement due to their constraints made the business hesitant to continue with passion for the project. This reluctance was evident during the period when the project idea was delayed and only reinstated after nearly 6 months. Extract 03: ‘And actually, initially now remembering we did engage another academic and who then went off for quite a long period of time. So that. That in itself stalled the project development, but. In some respects, it worked for the charity, because it was also a lot for them to take on so...’ (R1)
The business began the reinstatement process when they observed the relevant knowledge capacity and commitment level from the academics. In the end, the three-way partnership involving the business and academics emerged as two crucial components, with the KTP manager serving as the coordinator. The Associate, while constituting the third partnership, is not explicitly presented here in this pre-project stage.
During application stage’s challenges
The lack of knowledge about what, how, and when to start, along with a lack of experience in understanding the standard requirements for a successful KTP project, persisted from the pre-application stage into the during-application stage. The time-intensive nature of completing the application, from planning in January/February 2022 to the submission deadline in April, added pressure for stakeholders involved. The academics’ starting teaching term, coupled with the busy schedule of the business CEO and the KTP manager, made holding meetings, some required the present and guidance from the KTN advisor, a significant challenge. Extract 04: ‘With our KTP meeting with him (KTN advisor)…that was kind of good. But it also reminded me about the importance of the wider KTP agenda and also kind of saying the amount of leads of this project to actually get together and kind of say...So it's all learning for all of us.” (O1)
Even if the meetings could be organised and stakeholders were able to complete the application, the intensive feedback from the advisor and the level of changes needed to meet the standard were significant, downgrading the confidentiality of involved stakeholders. Extract 05: ‘From my perspective, the biggest challenge, Getting the organisation and the academic into a room together. And getting them on the same page and getting the project sort of nailed down and…I have found ever a repetitive challenge and because there is, you know, there's obviously so many other demands on your time.’ (R1)
Subsequently, the April deadline was not met, and the team decided to pursue the June deadline. However, this adds pressure as the edited application needs to be completed before the KTP manager goes on leave by the end of May. Another concern is that with the KTP manager (R1) away for 12 months, there is uncertainty about what will happen with the project if it gets granted and whether the replacement KTP manager (R2) will work well with the team.
Fortunately, the June deadline was met with approval from the KTP advisor, indicating that the application met the required standards and was ready to be submitted. However, he also made the team aware that there might be more favour towards technology projects with high economic impact rather than non-profit organisations. It is paralleled with discussion of the background of available funding from UKRI as well as gaps in publication relating to KTP in the literature review.
Post-success application stage’s challenges
Two months later, the team was proud to celebrate the success of the application, but new challenges arose within the School of Business and Law. Due to changes in the structure of senior management, for 3 months since the project secured funding, there was no member of the senior management team able to assume the role of academic lead—a crucial role required by UKRI for the granted project. Furthermore, at this point, there was only one academic (AC2) in the team, as the other academic (AC3) could not be involved due to other responsibilities. This adds to the challenge of the requirement to recruit the Associate within the 9 months after the grant letter; otherwise, the funds will be withdrawn, risking the wasted efforts of the team.
Extract 06: ‘At the time, I was the only one from the academic side. We did not have a head of the school for various reasons. I inquired with the interim senior management team regarding the workload, the need for another member of the academic team, and an academic lead, but it was not successful. Essentially, it was just me who grasped the idea that this project is very important, and I will persist in contributing to it until the end, despite all challenges and the unclear future whether it will be acknowledged and reflected into my workload. For some time, I felt undervalued!’ - AC2
Fortuitously, the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) agreed to resume involvement and assume the role of the academic lead. However, this presented a challenge, as the individual had not been engaged in the initial two stages and could only participate partially in the subsequent post-stage as showing in Extract 07 Extract 07: ‘There was nobody to contact to say you know. How did you do this? What are the steps? What are the issues? What are the challenges? …the school had previous experience of managing or leading a KTP project. But colleagues in Red Unit team were very familiar with KTP Projects. So they were able to guide us through the process step by step and telling us what we need to do…So yes, it was very difficult because there wasn't any experience in the team.’ (SLT)
Nonetheless, challenges persist for the Senior Leadership Team (SLT), particularly in relation to time constraints and other managerial responsibilities, further compounded by the contextual nuances associated with the nascent status of the school as illustrated in: ‘
The significant challenges at this stage revolved around recruiting the Associate including (1) Discussion to agree on job description, (2) HR process for posting the job, first and second round, (3) Quality level of candidates, (4) Agreement on candidate selection and expectation and (5) Working term conditions for the Associate.
The team convened to create a job description that met BNU HR’s requirements and covered relevant interview questions. Despite preferring in-person interviews, most were conducted remotely due to the post-COVID landscape and candidate requests. However, the job title (“Strategic Business and Innovation Manager”) didn’t attract experienced candidates due to an unattractive salary scale. The limited Christmas break advertisement window resulted in few applicants. Remote interviews were held for three shortlisted candidates, with one stronger candidate invited for a second interview. Concerns arose when the candidate insisted on remote interviewing despite the role requiring full-time work at the business premises. Ultimately, no candidate was offered the position after the second interview. Extract 08: ‘The first challenge was initially the recruitment process. It was around the, I guess the lack of quality that I'd expected, and I think the reason being I think we were looking at master's students… I had an expectation of being quite high level... I think I just had a different expectation, but the interview process was a little worrying cause it was also like if you don't get someone recruited by June, you know you won't be able to continue given all the hard work we've done that put the pressure on us.’ (O1)
The second recruitment round became inevitable. In this iteration, different requirements and information for the job description needed to be crafted to attract the right candidates. Adding to the pressure was the necessity to conduct interviews and appoint the post before the Easter break to ensure that the HR process could be completed, placing the Associate in the role before the 9-month deadline in June. Extract 09: ‘Yeah, I think the recruitment of V., very lucky to find her. She's amazing…But also we learned about, you know, went back to that advert. We changed the wording…we learned a lot of stuff along the way. I understand that the pressure of recruiting someone by a certain date or the project won't go ahead.’ (O2)
The challenge arose with disagreements among the interview panel regarding offering the post to candidates. One member favoured a candidate with more research experience, suggesting they might be more committed to the project. Others argued that the Associate’s role is primarily in project management rather than academic research. Later clarification from the KTN advisor confirmed that academic research falls under the responsibility of the academic, while the Associate focuses on the project itself.
Another challenge involved certain business requirements that the business wanted to incorporate into the Associate’s contract. However, the contract template of BNU is standard and may not be altered. Additionally, despite working full-time for the business, the Associate is on the payroll of the University, receiving the benefits and working conditions of the University. While Oasis Partnership, being a sympathetic charity, readily accepted this arrangement, it might not be the same for other projects working with commercial businesses – The KTP Manager 2 (R2) shared the experience working with other KTP project involving a business partner which is not a charity in Extract 10. Extract 10: ‘The business wasn't happy with our benefits because they can't align their benefits. Our HR was not prepared to give to negotiate on that. So everybody working for BNU has the same working conditions and the same benefits and employment terms. So it was a take it or leave it, and yet we could not meet in the middle for this. But at the end they OK with that, right? They say they need to accept it. Well, because the granted offer letter is very clear. The parties need to reach an agreement prior to starting.’ (R2)
In Extract 11, the Human Resources (HR) advisor (HR1) elucidated the conflict that emerged concerning the recruitment process and expectations between the University and the business in recruiting the Associate. Extract 11: ‘It's sort of a bit confusing because whilst they were funding for the role, they were BNU employee. I also want to make sure that we covered everything as we would normally do but they wanted to add sort of a lot more requirements… A challenge I guess really trying to get them to understand why we do things really.’ (HR1)
Benefits and opportunities to the impact at all stages on and for all participants involved – RQ3
Despite the challenges encountered across the three stages, there are valuable learning opportunities that can yield positive impacts for all stakeholders involved. Consequently, these experiences can be advantageous for broader business partnerships, the university, and ultimately contribute to social and economic impacts. The opportunities and responsible stakeholders to create impacts have been illustrated in Figure 1 and will be discussed in this section.
Motivation
The findings from RQ1 and RQ2 provide evidence that motivation is the primary driver behind the involvement of academics. Consequently, it supports academics in their career progression, contributing to academic promotion, particularly as the project aligns with the strategic direction of the university. This opportunity was showing in the case of AC2 in the Extract 12.
This aligns well with intrinsic motivation finding from McCleary (2016) indicate that a primary intrinsic motivation is a passion for knowledge and learning, coupled with the desire for autonomy to demonstrate competence. However, the withdrawer from AC1 and AC2 are in contrast with other conclusion from McCleary (2016) which suggest that extrinsic motivators encompass opportunities to establish connections with industry, transfer knowledge, link research to teaching and learning, and facilitate networking for potential future collaborations. In the context of this paper, it is observed that extrinsic motivation has not proven sufficiently compelling to stimulate interest and participation among other academics.
One concern should be well addressed is surrounding the workload for the academic. The workload system should not only be established but also be transparently shared with other academics, allowing everyone to access and view each other’s workloads. This ensures that the system serves the purpose of equality and inclusion effectively. Several scholars have emphasised the necessity of implementing a workload system in higher education to uphold and sustain Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) practices (Dewidar et al., 2022; Watson et al., 2023).
There is a positive confidence expressed by the Senior Leadership Team of the school, suggesting that the workload is now deemed more manageable, and colleagues have the capacity to engage in KTP projects, as illustrated in Extract 13. Extract 13: ‘I think it is true that the school went through a difficult time because we were heavily lack on the resource…Now that we've doubled in staff…I think colleagues will now be much more motivated now to participate in the KTP.’ (SLT)
Nevertheless, the academic team may not concur with this perspective, given the lack of clarity and transparency in the workload system, both during the pre-project phase and at present. Academic 3 (AC3), involved during the application stage but withdrew participation post-succeed, elucidated the reasons for the lack of interest in KTP, as articulated in Extract 14. Extract 14: ‘Just not having enough time to dedicate to it. It was really interesting and good. But for you coming in because you didn't have all this other stuff kind of piled up already. So I think it was suited to someone coming in fresher… If you know if I wasn't being asked to do all course leading, cluster leading, employability leading, you know, all those extra add-ons and then it was like no, you just need to do research and teaching and then that would probably.’ (AC3)
In a manner analogous to AC3, Academic 1 expresses apprehension regarding the prevailing circumstances, which mentioned “new teaching expectations” and a lack of clarity regarding workload and academic expectations. This contributes to the perceived “complexity of the situation” when queried about the possibility of returning the project as the academic supervisor. Responses from AC1 and AC3 indicate that for academic engagement in future KTP projects to be encouraged, there is a perceived necessity for the establishment of a fully defined and transparent workload system (Martinez-Vazquez, 2023).
Finally, there should be a promotion of support from experienced and more senior academics to others, making the process less complicated for anyone wishing to be involved in the KTP project. This support should also be recognised within the workload, serving as motivation for building a research environment, in line with the requirements of the REF2028 framework (Research England, 2023). The acknowledgment of this concern has been noted by the Senior Leadership Team, as evident in Extract 15. Extract 15: ‘To make sure we have as much time as possible to prepare for the initial application …To set up a team and who will then be given time to spend on the application. But also identifying colleagues with the right expertise who can be involved and be more productive. I think the other challenge is obviously is colleagues taking ownership of the project… make it their own. Support also, administrative support is important... Making sure colleagues who are involved in that project, there are time and effort is recognised and reflected in their workload. (STL)
Understanding the whole process and standard of KTP application
The challenges highlighted in RQ2 emphasize the necessity of implementing a system to help stakeholders understand the entire KTP application process. An initial solution involves maintaining a project journal from idea development onwards. Additionally, designating a knowledgeable coordinator within the partnership ensures effective oversight. This coordinator should grasp KTP’s core values, business context, and academic motivations. Extract 16: ‘Task for the company and the academic to be taking on. And so yeah, my role is really just to keep reminding people why they got into this process in the 1st place and the opportunity that will come if we if we get it over through to application stage.’ (R1) Extract 17: ‘I guess it was quite a new thing. So it kind of getting your head around how it all works cause there's so many different people who are involved... So I guess that was a bit of having different people coming in and out, including me, you know. And so I think the consistency could have been better.’ (AC3)
Another finding is that, despite the challenges of working with feedback from the KTN advisor, their support was instrumental in the success of the application. While most of the KTP team had less experience with the KTN advisor, KTP manager R1 had the most experience with him, allowing for a clear transfer of standards and understanding to the rest of the KTP team. Extract 18: ‘Similarities to help guide me and us as a team towards a project that would get funded. And he's got so much experience of what does and doesn't work within KTP. He could quickly pick up on ideas that were nonstarter and was able to guide us towards what would work and what would get funded…Yeah, he was very supportive in a in a challenging, supportive, supportively challenging. But for the better, for the better outcome.’ (R1)
Furthermore, several actions could be implemented to support the strategy of having a system in place. Firstly, a poster outlining the core aims of businesses and their knowledge gaps should be created. Secondly, for the KTP, factsheets or mini notebooks can be used as handouts for anyone interested. This handout should include the following information: an overview of KTP, examples of successful KTP projects, potential partnership ideas, and a checklist, along with details on the KTP application process, including a timeline and calendar. Blank pages should be included for notetaking. Extract 19: ‘Partly just to keep reminding the academic of the benefits of the project trying to. Like finding the right academics who are excited by projects as well, who are motivated in it by themselves. And but also being flexible in the application deadline. Is also managing the relationship with the organisation and helping them understand why things are maybe taking a bit longer than they would expect.’ (R1)
HR standard and process
This challenge only occurred at the post-success application stage, but it added to the pressure, as the fund might be withdrawn if the Associate cannot be recruited within the 9 months, potentially nullifying all efforts in the last years. Therefore, suggestions include the creation of the following resources: a poster outlining the HR standard process for recruiting within the University, complete with an estimated timeline for each step; a short note providing guidance on recruiting the KTP Associate; a requirement for the job description content to be made available to the business; a poster detailing the HR standard process for onboarding requirements; and a poster outlining the HR process for line management of the Associate. Extract 20: ‘I think one thing that was sort of potentially a little bit of a challenge or just I will just go with it is possibly and we understand you are large organisations, HR processes, but it kind of was very restrictive..And that because those HR issues were potential time delays or potential blockers. I know KTP's link to the uni, …maybe what we need to be as a clear process of what the HR process is. So we can put time it into our timelines.’ (O1)
Impacts at pre-project phrase
Those opportunities and recommendations have indirect impacts on broader participants who may not be involved with the KTP project. Firstly, within the business partnership, staff and volunteers can perceive this project as the future of sustainability for the business, and the success of the project provides promising additional value for service users. Secondly, for the knowledge base partnership, other schools within the University can learn how to motivate academics to get involved in KTP, and research impact centres can achieve their aims of supporting research projects that contribute to impactful case studies. Another benefit for the University is for the students, who can experience the project through learning, assessment, and other involvement, which will be discussed in more detail in the Contribution. Extract 21: ‘The organisation that we work with in terms of expertise and networking… I think a lot of colleagues would like to be involved because these are the kind of practical things you can do that enhances not only your own learning and experience, but that of students too…You're putting theory to practise…I'm very keen and aware that they need to be making a difference in terms of impact they are making to society.’ (SLT)
Thirdly, for UK graduates, even though a project may only hire one or two Associates, the awareness of existing KTPs could bring numerous opportunities for graduates to work for KTP projects. KTP stands out as a significant career platform for skilled graduates and postgraduates in the UK. To date, there have been over 12,000 KTPs spanning nearly every industry sector and encompassing companies of various sizes, from micro-sized businesses to global giants like Unilever and Rolls Royce. Currently, more than 100 knowledge bases and over 800 graduates are actively engaged in KTPs (About KTP, 2023). Extract 22: ‘I think I learned about in March and I remember that having a conversation when I had come into the and it really, really changed everything about my application because I think after I had a conversation with you, I really recognise what the role was about rather than just reading about it, I did an application all over again because I really wanted it to sort of reflect what how I felt about the role and what I was looking to achieve from the role. So I had to do a whole new application, a whole new cover letter to show that I was really interested in the role and this is what I could bring to the role. And I think that really worked in my favour.’ (A0)
The ultimate objective is to achieve broad social impacts after 2 years since the project commenced and approximately 4 years since the initial idea started.
In conclusion, our research highlights the critical role of stakeholder involvement throughout the KTP application process. The findings underscore that active and strategic engagement of stakeholders can significantly enhance project outcomes by addressing challenges and leveraging opportunities at each stage. The pre-application stage, the during - application development stage and post-success stage each present distinct challenges, yet they also offer unique opportunities for stakeholder contributions to drive project success. The benefits of stakeholder involvement are evident in the improved understanding of the KTP process, enhanced motivation, and adherence to high human resources standards. Furthermore, the pre-project phase’s impacts reveal the foundational importance of early stakeholder engagement in setting the stage for successful project execution. Overall, our study emphasizes the necessity of a holistic approach to stakeholder management in KTP projects, ensuring that all participants are effectively integrated, and their contributions maximized for the project’s benefit.
Contribution and implications for further research
Theoretical contribution
Firstly, the findings for RQ1 have significantly contributed to the theoretical framework (Camp et al., 2018) by clearly defining the three critical stages of pre-project planning for a KTP. These stages are identified as the pre-application stage, the during-application stage, and the post-success application stage. This delineation provides a structured approach to understanding the temporal dynamics and preparatory activities essential for the successful execution of KTPs. By mapping out these stages, the study offers a comprehensive guide for future research and practice, highlighting the specific actions and considerations necessary at each phase to optimize project outcomes.
Secondly, the study has expanded the existing body of knowledge on motivation within the context of higher education (Lam, 2005, 2010), particularly in relation to KTPs (McCleary, 2016). It has elucidated the roles of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, demonstrating how KTP involvement can enhance both types of motivation among participants. The research posits that intrinsic motivation—driven by personal satisfaction and the inherent value of the work—is more crucial than extrinsic motivation, which is influenced by external rewards and recognition, in the context of KTP engagement. This insight underscores the importance of fostering an environment that nurtures intrinsic motivation to achieve sustained commitment and high performance in KTP projects. The study’s findings thus provide a nuanced understanding of motivational dynamics, offering valuable implications for designing and managing KTPs to maximize their educational and practical benefits.
Thirdly, the study suggests that during the pre-project stages of a KTP, a social impact framework can be developed for both direct and indirect stakeholders (Figure 2). Even at this early stage, KTPs can contribute to 8 out of the 17 ESG goals (Goals 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17) by leveraging opportunities. For instance, academic motivation supports decent work and economic growth (Goal 8), while a well-defined workload system promotes staff well-being (Goal 3). Additionally, efficient application processes and robust HR practices enhance stakeholder well-being. A possible impact framework of pre-project stages for a KTP.
Additionally, experiential involvement in a KTP project has the potential to enhance education quality (Goal 4) by allowing academics to integrate project experiences into their teaching. Additionally, a robust HR process can address inequality (Goal 10) by ensuring equal opportunities for Associate candidates. Successful KTP outcomes contribute to business innovation (Goal 9) and sustainable communities (Goal 11), as project benefits support current service users. This strengthens BNU’s resilience (Goal 16) and fosters partnerships with businesses and graduates (Goal 17).
Practical contribution
Firstly, the research proposes specific, actionable strategies for each stage of the KTP process—pre-application, during-application, and post-success application—that can effectively support all stakeholders involved. These strategies are designed to address the unique challenges encountered at each stage, ensuring a smoother and more efficient project execution. By providing a detailed roadmap, the research equips future KTP projects with the tools needed to navigate potential obstacles such as time and resources and enhance stakeholder collaboration and engagement.
Secondly, the findings related to academic motivation offer valuable insights into how KTPs can foster a culture of knowledge exchange and create a robust research environment conducive to achieving Research Excellence Framework (REF) goals. By highlighting the importance of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors, the study underscores the need for institutions to cultivate an environment that encourages academic curiosity and innovation. This, in turn, can lead to more impactful research outcomes and a stronger academic community.
Thirdly, the research addresses the challenges associated with recruiting KTP Associates by identifying effective strategies to increase the visibility and attractiveness of KTP opportunities among graduates. By understanding the barriers to recruitment and proposing targeted outreach and engagement initiatives, the study aims to enhance the appeal of KTP roles, thereby attracting a larger pool of qualified candidates. This focus on recruitment is crucial for ensuring that KTP projects have access to the talent needed to drive success.
Finally, the development of two commercial products/services within this project has facilitated the integration of KTP principles into the teaching and assessment framework of the Business and Law (B&L) school. This integration not only enriches the curriculum but also provides students with practical, real-world applications of their learning. By embedding KTP-related activities into academic programs, the school can offer a more dynamic and relevant educational experience, preparing students for future professional challenges and opportunities.
Limitation and implications for further research
Firstly, the three stages identified in the pre-project phase may have contextual specificity limited to this particular Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) project. Further research is needed to explore different contexts and determine whether additional stages could be added and how each stage affects the success of the KTP, both in the pre-project and post-project periods.
Secondly, the findings related to academic motivation within the framework of this KTP project imply a preference for intrinsic motivation over extrinsic motivation, but this conclusion may not be generalisable to wider KTP involvement. Future studies should examine this assumption across various types of KTP projects.
Thirdly, the impact framework developed for the pre-project stages of this specific KTP project indicates potential impacts that may be difficult to measure. Follow-up investigations could assess the impact after the project completion and progression, evaluating how the business has defined its objectives and comparing them with the actual outcomes.
Fourthly, the use of KTP in the context of teaching and assessment has been shown in a unique university setting. However, there is a lack of research on how KTP can improve the identity and alignment of Higher Education (HE) brands. Especially noteworthy is the unexplored area presented by the current challenges facing HE post-COVID, along with the increasing influence of technology (Advance, 2020), which may create many opportunities.
Fifthly, when exploring the benefits and challenges that persist during the pre-project phase, it is important to consider how social network dynamics could enhance the outcome of KTP applications from less experienced institutions, as suggested by Gubbins and Doodley (2014).
Lastly, further research efforts could investigate which disciplines within each academic school can contribute to specific among the 17 ESG goals.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
It is part of the KTP project between Buckinghamshire New University and the Oasis Partnership, funded by Innovate UK. We acknowledge the contributions of stakeholders who participated in the interviews for this project.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Impact Centre of Environment Enhancement and Innovation - Buckinghamshire New University.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.