Summary of responses to the HE-BCI evidence gathering survey 2023/24

The majority of participants use the definition of KE presented by the KE Concordat. 

Spin-offs 

71% use the HESA definition of spin-offs internally. 

Some participants feel that ‘spin-out’ is a more appropriate term compared to ‘spin-off’. 

79% of respondents view a spin-off to be HE provider owned in all cases where the HE provider has an equity stake or shares. 

Clarity is needed on the term ‘public funds’. Especially if funding from Innovate UK is eligible for return.  

51% believe that a spin-off ceases to be a spin-off when the HE provider sells all shares (or ends any other type of investments) in the company.  

63% are able to distinguish between unknown and missing income from a spin-off company. 

60% determine the year of new registration for a spin-off company as the date of registration at Companies House (or similar).  

Start-up companies 

93% use the HESA definition to categorise start-up companies. 

Examples provided of formal business support included: workshops, 1 to 1 support, financial and research development support, attendance at events. 

63% collect company registration numbers for student/graduate start-ups. 

Licences and licensees 

The majority of respondents highlighted that a licence is a formal agreement or contract with a third party which gives them rights to use the intellectual property (IP). 

58% can distinguish between unknown and missing income from licences in their data.  

Disclosures, patents and other forms of intellectual property (IP) protection 

84% of participants use HESA’s definition of disclosure. 

79% of respondents all record: 

IP application numbers which are registered or applied for in the UK. 

The type of IP they are seeking protection for. 

IP application numbers submitted to overseas equivalents of the UK IPO. 

53% of participants who record IP application numbers record them in a central database. 

70% collect data on patent families. 

83% of participants who responded to question 83 understand ‘patent families’ to be a group of patents which relate to the same invention or technology. 

65% can distinguish between unknown and missing income from patents and other protected IP. 

HE providers in Scotland see risks of duplication and inconsistency if categories from the Scottish Funding Council’s (SFC) KE metrics return were featured in HE-BCI. 

98% of respondents hold social and cultural interactions in non-provider owned spaces. 

Most respondents separately record the following interactions hosted on different platforms: 

• In person 
• Hybrid 
• Online 
• Broadcast media (TV and Radio) 
• Podcasts 

Question 5: How do your organisation define or understand knowledge exchange? 

We received 39 responses to this question. The majority of respondents stated that they use the definition provided by the KE Concordat. The KE Concordat define KE as: 

“…a collaborative, creative endeavour that translates knowledge and research into impact in society and the economy. KE includes a set of activities, processes and skills that enable close collaboration between universities and partner organisations to deliver commercial, environmental, cultural and place-based benefits, opportunities for students and increased prosperity.” 

Other KE definitions mentioned include ones by Research England, the Office for Students, and Section 93 of the Higher Education Research Act 2017, Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, and Ulrichsen (2014, p.14).   

There is broad agreement amongst the majority of definitions presented that KE should be beneficial to, and impact upon the economy and society.  

Some definitions highlight the collaborative element of KE, and state that KE should be mutually beneficial for the HE provider and external partners.  

Other participants emphasise that KE is a two-way process, and identify that this is different to knowledge transfer, which is described by one respondent as “a one-way process”.  

Within the definitions reported, there were views on who is involved in KE. This included: 

• Academic staff 
• Undergraduate students 
• Alumni 
• External stakeholders/partners 
• The public. 

Spin-offs 

Question 6: What definition(s) do you use to categorise spin-off companies internally 

72% of respondents indicated that that they only use the HESA HE-BCI definition when categorising spin-offs. 10 people selected ‘other’ and were asked to provide more information in question 7. 

Some respondents indicated that whilst they use the HESA definition for the purposes of the HE-BCI return, they use alternative definitions internally. For example, one respondent stated that they use the TenU University Spin-out Investment Terms (USIT) 2023 guide. This defines spin-offs as: 

“A new company formed primarily through the transfer of knowledge, technology, assets and/or people originating from the university, to further develop and exploit the technology. The university will ordinarily hold equity and/or is licensor of the relevant IP to the spin-out.” (p.93). 

2 participants recognise know-how in their definitions. Know-how is defined by the Government Office for Technology Transfer (2023, p.16) as covering “all forms of information, knowledge and skill, technical or otherwise, e.g. a procedure, a process, an identifiable knowledgeable way of doing something”. 

Other definitions of spin-offs included: 

• Where the HE provider receives economic benefit when an equity event happens but does not hold the shares directly. 
• A company made active for the purposes of exploiting research and commercialising university IP. 

Question 8: If you find HE-BCI definitions challenging to use to determine whether a company is a spin off, please say why this is, to help us improve. 

16 participants responded to this question. Some participants explained that they do not find the HE-BCI definitions challenging, calling them “helpful”, “straight forward” and “sufficient to determine whether a company can be classed as a spin-out”.  

We received feedback that the term ‘spin-out’ would be a better suited term for the definition, with one person stating that “the term spin-off is potentially mis-leading in a contemporary context, as it suggests that the nature of a business is in somehow related to the core business of the university, which they are not”. 

Responses highlighted several areas where they felt like the definitions were not providing enough clarity. Examples of these areas include: 

• How long a company can be counted as a spin-off for. 
• Where a royalty model is adopted. 
• Ownership (e.g. continued, or when ownership changes). 
• Wholly owned subsidiaries that provide a service to the market, and where this should be reported. 
• Non-shareholder companies. 
• Eligibility of inclusion for spin-offs where the HE provider has assigned licensed IP but has no equity stakes or shares.  
• Broader enterprises that result from student work/projects or the support to set-up an enterprise. 

Question 9: How do you understand the concept of HE provider ownership of a spin-off?

79% of those who responded to question 9 believe that a HE provider owns a spin-off in all cases where the HE provider has an equity stake or shares. 

Question 10 asked for more information if the participant selected ‘other deal terms not covered by the above’. We received 6 responses. 2 participants highlight that they consider a financial involvement with no equity/shares to be spin-offs. For example, the HE provider may have invested in the company, and have negotiated a percent of profits. Another example given was receiving the economic benefit when an equity event happens.  

One person provided an example of when a supervised PhD student owns the IP and stays in contact with the HE provider. Another raised the HE provider having an equity stake/share in the company, but the company not being a wholly owned subsidiary of the HE provider. Licensing or assignment of certain IP owned by the HE provider into the company was also mentioned as another deal term. 

Question 11: HE-BCI Table 4 guidance contains the following phrase in the definition of spin-offs: “All investment from the [HE provider] and external partners should be included with the exception of public funds to support KE activities, such as the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) in England and its equivalents in the devolved nations should be excluded.” 

• What do you understand to be included within this concept, and what notable exclusions are there from it? 
• Can you separate out public funds specifically designed to support KE activities from other types of public grants spin-offs might receive? 
• How could it be improved? 

There were 36 responses to Question 11. When responding to their understanding of the phrase, 8 participants raised conflicting views on eligibility of funding from Innovate UK. 5 participants interpret the phrase to indicate that public funding from Innovate UK is excluded. However, one respondent suggested that the exclusion of “non-dilutive funding that promotes and catalyses spin-off activity and business growth (e.g. Innovate UK) might not provide a true reflection of ‘investment’ and inclusion of such funding could offer an enhanced understanding of spin-off activity”. In comparison, 3 respondents stated that they include Innovate UK funding if it was awarded directly to the company (e.g. their Scaleup programme.). 6 participants identified that the guidance could be improved by having sources of funding that are included/excluded for clarity, and by including a clearer definition of ‘investment’. 1 person specifically stated that further clarification was needed around investment from Innovate UK, and another highlighted that there were grey areas with funds such as the Lachesis fund.  

3 participants view the above statement to be inclusive of in-kind investment, such as academic time. 

7 respondents indicated that they were able to separate out public funds specifically designed to support KE activities from other types of public grants spin-offs might receive. 

Question 12: How do you determine when a spin-off ceases to be a spin-off? 

51% of participants determine that a spin-off ceases to be a spin-off when the HE provider sells all shares or ends any other type of investment in the spin-off. 10 respondents selected ‘in some other way’. Question 13 asked for more information if participants selected this option. We received 14 responses. 2 people stated that a spin-off would always be a spin-off “regardless of the University’s future involvement” and “even if its reliance on the IP diminishes”. In comparison, 2 participants consider a spin-off to cease being so when the company no longer uses or has access to the IP or know-how.  

1 person stated that they consider a spin-off to be a spin-off “for its entire life until it is no longer a recognisable entity”. They provided the example of if the company had folded or had been subsumed into a larger business that does not keep the spin-off “as a separate visible operation”. 5 additional participants agreed with part, or all of this definition.  

Another respondent suggested that there should be a mandatory time-based cut-off point.  

Question 14: Does your organisation maintain any form of relationship with a spin-off following the sale of HE provider shares or equity? 

37% of participants maintain a relationship with a spin-off in some cases, following the sale of HE provider shares or equity. Question 15 asked for more information if participants selected either of the ‘Yes’ options. 21 participants responded. 

62% of participants indicated that they maintain a relationship with a spin-off for collaboration or engagement purposes. Some of the examples provided included contract research, graduate employment opportunities, student placements and facilities access. 2 responses said that the relationship is dependent on whether the spin-off continues to be local to the region.  

7 respondents stated that the relationship with the spin-off is maintained if there is an ongoing licence agreement. 4 participants highlight the personal nature of the relationship, stating they continue this contact if the founder is employed both at the spin-off and the HE provider.  

3 participants highlighted that they maintain a relationship for the purposes of Research Excellence Framework (REF) impact case studies.  

Start-up companies 

Question 39: What definitions do you use to categorise start-up companies?

In response to question 39, 93% of participants stated they use HE-BCI definitions of start-ups. In comparison, 6 respondents use their own typology. Question 40 asked for more information on HE provider’s own typology, and the challenges faced when using HE-BCI definitions. 13 people responded to question 40. 

1 person indicated that they view graduate/student start-ups to be recognised “when either a registered organisation is formed, or when a trading entity is identified which has recognisable badges of trade”. The respondent defines a ‘registered organisation’ as a “Limited company, partnership, charity or registered society”.  

Some respondents highlighted the issue of the HE-BCI definition enforcing a two-year period for start-up companies. 1 person stated that the HE-BCI definition “significantly reduces the representation of the work done by our staff, students and alumni”. Another recognised that graduates beyond the two-year period make up around 40% of their start-up support programmes. In addition, one participant highlighted that especially in cases of sole traders, it is not always clear when the start-up was set up, and whether it comes under the two-year rule. The company registration may also fall outside of the two years, despite the student being influenced and guided by the support they received whilst at university. 

1 participant stated that they extend the definition to non-recent graduates beyond the two years. Another said that they annually track start-ups which haven’t been incorporated, to see if their status changes. 

Question 41: What tests do you apply to determine if something counts as formal business/enterprise support for the purpose of the return of data on student/graduate start-ups? 

We received 34 responses to this question. Examples of formal business/enterprise support stated by participants included: 

• Attendance at events 
• Workshops 
• 1 to 1 support 
• Early-stage financial support 
• Researcher development programmes 
• Drop ins 
• Completing a business support module. 

Some respondents highlighted difficulties with the HE-BCI definition. 2 people believe that the word ‘formal’ is subjective. Another person said that this is a “changing landscape” and “…the nature of entrepreneurship may introduce new forms of support activities that may not align with existing criteria”. 1 person also indicated that the support may not be formally recorded.   

Licences and licensees 

Question 60: How do you define or classify what counts as a 'licence' for the purpose of your HE-BCI return? 

Question 60 asked participants to provide how they define a licence for their HE-BCI return. We received 36 responses to this question. 10 participants state that they use the HESA HE-BCI definition of a licence.  

The majority of respondents highlighted that a licence is a formal agreement or contract with a third party which gives them rights to use the IP. 1 person stated that this can be either income generating or not. Another participant specified that the agreement must have been active for a least part of the reporting period.  

1 respondent provided more detail on what the agreement should include. They stated the agreement: 

“(i) defines a discreet piece of intellectual property that is subject to the licence, (ii) defines the duration and circumstances (e.g. function, territory) in which the intellectual property can be used, and (iii) has been signed-off by an authorised signatory at both parties.” 

Disclosures, patents and other forms of intellectual property (IP) protection 

Question 75: HESA’s definition is “Disclosure is the point at which academic staff disclose their idea through a formal process with the prospect of seeking protection.” Do you use this definition? 

Question 75 asked if participants use HESA’s definition of disclosure. 84% of respondents selected ‘Yes’ whilst 7% selected ‘No’. For participants who use HESA’s definition, we asked how they understand the definition in question 76. 34 people responded. 

15 participants view the HE-BCI definition to mean the completion of a disclosure form. Some participants provided more information on their understanding, with some saying the form also would need to be submitted to the Technology Transfer Office for review. Others stated that the form needed to have been signed by academic staff/inventors. 

Other participants view disclosure as informing the HE provider of an invention or discovery from research, which has the potential to be commercialised. 

In comparison, question 77 asked what formal or working definition HE providers use, if they use their own definition of disclosure. We received 36 responses. This question produced similar results, with most participants stating that they view disclosure to be completing an invention disclosure form, and then submitting this to the HE provider’s research office.  

Question 78: Do you record the application numbers of intellectual property (IP) applications being registered or applied for in the UK (e.g. patents applied for at the IPO)? 

79% of respondents indicated that they record application numbers of IP applications which are registered or applied for in the UK.  

Question 79: Do you record the type of intellectual property you are seeking protection for (e.g. patents, copyrights, designs, trademarks, etc)? 

79% of participants record the type of IP they are seeking protection for. 

Question 80: Do you record the application numbers of intellectual property (IP) applications submitted to overseas equivalents of the UK IPO (e.g. the EPO, USPTO, etc.) 

79% record IP application numbers submitted to overseas equivalents of the UK IPO. 

Question 81: If you answered ‘Yes’ to either of the two previous questions, how are application/registration numbers recorded? 

53% of participants indicated that applications are recorded in a single data base. 

Question 82: Do you collect data on patent families? 

70% of participants collect data on patent families.  

Question 83: What do you understand the term 'patent families' to mean? 

35 participants responded to this question. 29 respondents understand patent families to be a group of patents which relate to the same invention or technology. In addition, 19 participants highlighted that these patents may be either national or international. Other additions to this understanding included the applications being related through priority claims. 

Question 94: Data items from the SFC’s KE metrics return (on external research grants and contracts, continuing professional development, licensing, consultancy, enterprise schemes, translational awards, venturing, outreach) in some cases have direct equivalents in various HE-BCI tables, and in other cases do not. What risks of definitional overlap do you foresee from including these categories within the HE-BCI return? 

We received 28 responses to question 94. However, this question was aimed at HE providers in Scotland. Therefore, we will only be considering responses from Scottish HE providers in this question.  

One participant said that the two data sets should be consistent in order to reduce burden. Another highlighted that data such as consultancy and CPD is duplicated in both returns, whereas other categories such as venturing and licensing is captured and presented differently. This respondent also stated that the Scottish Funding Council’s definitions in the KE metrics return are very clear, and makes reporting more robust in comparison to some areas of HE-BCI. 

Question 106: Do you hold social and cultural engagements in non-provider owned spaces? 

Question 106 asked participants if they hold social and cultural engagements in non-provider owned spaces. 98% selected ‘Yes’. Respondents who selected ‘Yes’ to this question were asked to provide more information in question 107 on the kind of spaces, and types of engagement held. 40 participants answered this question. 

Examples of the spaces HE providers hold these engagements in include: 

• Bars/Cafés/Pubs  
• Hospitals 
• Schools 
• Community centres 
• Prisons 
• Privately owned galleries/museums 

Some of the engagement activities respondents raised were: 

• Lectures 
• Concerts 
• Exhibitions 
• Workshops 
• Participatory research 
• Policy/public/community engagement 

Several participants explained the importance of holding engagements in non-provider owned spaces. 1 person stated that these spaces improve the engagement experience as they are neutral and are a place the community feels more at ease in. Others also highlighted the importance of using non-provider owned spaces, as the engagements are more inclusive and can target a wider audience. 1 respondent recognised that these spaces can remove barriers such as travel time and cost.  

Question 108: Do you separately record interactions hosted on different platforms? 

The majority of respondents separately record the following interactions hosted on different platforms: 

• In person 
• Hybrid 
• Online 
• Broadcast media (TV and Radio) 
• Podcasts 

Question 109 asked participants to provide more information if they selected ‘something else’. We received 11 responses. Examples of other interactions included: streaming, festivals where academics are disseminating outputs, conference participation, and outreach.  

Some respondents highlighted that despite answering question 108, not all of the activity is recorded in a central way. This therefore makes the data inconsistent and difficult to retrieve.  

Spin-offs 

Question 16: Are you able to distinguish between zero and null (unknown/missing) income from spin-off companies in your own data? 

Many participants were able to distinguish between unknown and missing income from spin-off companies in their own data. 63% were able to from spin-offs with some HE provider ownership, whilst 26% could from formal spin-offs which are not HE provider owned.  

Question 17: How do you determine the year of new registration for a company? 

60% of participants use the date of registration from Companies House (or similar) to determine the year of new registration for a company. Question 18 asked for more information if participants selected ‘in another way’. We received 6 responses.  

Participants identified the year of registration being when the spin-off has gone through completion. Examples of steps involved in this include registration at Companies House, the IP licence being assigned, and shares being allotted to the HE provider under a shareholder agreement.  

Question 19: Do you differentiate between licensed intellectual property (IP) and assigned IP in your records of IP that has been transferred-in? 

65% of respondents differentiate between licensed and assigned IP in their records that has been transferred in. 

Question 20: Do you record the company registration numbers for provider-owned spin-offs? 

63% record the company registration numbers for HE provider owned spin-offs. 

Question 21: Do you record company registration numbers for HE provider spin-offs with no provider ownership? 

44% record company registration numbers for HE provider spin-offs with no provider ownership, compared to 10 who do not. 

Question 22: If you answered 'Yes' to the previous question, for how long do you keep records of company numbers for spin-off companies with no remaining provider ownership? 

25 people responded to this question. 23% stated that they keep records for spin-offs with no remaining provider ownership for longer than 15 years. 8 participants indicated that they do not keep this information at all. 

Question 23: What other identifiers do you keep records of for spin-off companies? 

65% of participants either stated that they do not collect this information or found the question to be not applicable. Charity registration numbers and details of registration under accreditation schemes associated with social enterprise were the most common identifiers participants kept records on. 

Question 24 asked for more information if participants selected ‘something else’ to the previous question. 4 people responded to this question. Other identifiers presented by participants included: 

• Company name 
• Company location 
• How the spin-off is defined in their incorporation documents 
• Overseas company registration numbers. 

However, one person recognised it is not always possible to obtain overseas company registration numbers. Furthermore, another highlighted that they selected that they do not keep the information because the information is not kept in a searchable form in their databases.  

Question 25: What mechanism, process, or data source do you utilise to estimate staff, turnover and external investment for spin-offs, and what problems and limitations do you face when producing them? 

34 people responded to question 25. 28 participants (82.4%) explicitly stated that they contact the spin-off directly. The ways in which they do this can be through email and/or surveys. Another method reported was using Companies House. This could be either to quality check the information the spin-off has provided or gather information in cases where there has been no response from the spin-off. One participant stated that they utilise company databases such as FAME and Pitchbook, as they use an API with Companies House. 

In addition, respondents stated that they use a range of other external data sources such as Beauhurst, Dun and Bradstreet, Endole, and CreditSafe. Other mechanisms and processes raised include: 

• Internet/social media searches (e.g. LinkedIn, company website, news stories). 
• Formal agreements (e.g. data sharing agreements). 
• Board observer rights. 
• Stock exchange data. 
• Shareholder approvals. 

Respondents raised a number of limitations with the above approaches. Firstly, with contacting spin-offs directly, the process was identified as time consuming, as it involves chasing for information. If the spin-off does provide the information, the time taken to check this against Companies House was acknowledged as a limitation. Some participants also highlighted limitations with using Companies House for information. Examples included: 

• The data not always being accurate or up to date. 
• Companies House is limited in the information it can provide. 
• Overseas registered companies are not required to publish data in the same way. 
• Definitional inconsistencies between companies on what is included in their employee numbers is up for interpretation by accountants. 
• Companies relying on small companies' exemption to publish balance sheet information, which means turnover cannot be gathered. 

The timing of information was recognised as a limitation, as 1 participant highlighted that spin-offs’ financial accounts are not always formally signed off by the HE-BCI submission deadline. 

Question 26: Do you record the country or state within which each company has been incorporated? 

51% of respondents record the country or state within which each company has been incorporated. 

Question 27: Do you record whether your staff or students/graduates are involved in the spin-off company? 

56% of participants record when staff are involved in a spin-off company, compared to 39% for students. 18 participants stated that this question was not applicable, or that they do not record this data.  

Start-up companies 

Question 42: Do you collect company registration numbers (or similar) from staff or student/graduate start-ups? 

63% collect company registration numbers, or similar, from student/graduate start-ups.  

Licences and licensees 

Question 61: Are you able to distinguish between zero and null (unknown/missing) income from licences in your own data? 

58% of respondents can distinguish between unknown and missing income from licences in their data.  

Disclosures, patents and other forms of intellectual property (IP) protection 

Question 84: Are you able to distinguish between zero and null (unknown/missing) income from patents or other protected IP in your own data? 

65% can recognise the difference between zero and null income from patents or other protected IP.