Higher Education Commission:
Knowledge Exchange Strategic Plan (KESP)
July 2012- July 2017
Release date: February 2012
Developed by Jo Chaffer with HEC
PART ONE
Table of Contents
Section A: Context................................................................................................................................... 4
HEC’s mission and challenges ................................................................................................................. 4
Mission .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Challenges ............................................................................................................................................... 4
A1
the HE sector ............................................................................................................................... 4
Historical background ......................................................................................................................... 4
Current situation highlighting SWOT .................................................................................................. 4
A2
Knowledge exchange (KE) ........................................................................................................... 6
Definition ............................................................................................................................................ 6
A3. An appraisal of the current situation of KE in Pakistan .................................................................... 6
A3.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 6
A3.2 Specific countrywide initiatives (strengths) ............................................................................... 8
A3.3 Gaps (and opportunities) ............................................................................................................ 9
A4
Knowledge exchange & economy international context .......................................................... 10
A5
The political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental context for KE in
Pakistan ................................................................................................................................................. 10
A6
Drivers / motivators for KE strategic development .................................................................. 13
A7
Limiting factors / barriers to KE strategic development ........................................................... 14
Section B: Fit ......................................................................................................................................... 16
B1
other HE strategies and policies ............................................................................................... 16
© HEC 2012
1
B2
other knowledge economy and exchange relevant policies .................................................... 17
B3
relevance to HEC’s mission and mandate ................................................................................. 17
Section C: Leadership, management and governance of KE nationally ............................................... 18
C1
Leadership of KE........................................................................................................................ 18
C2
Other international, national and regional organisations involved in KE development .......... 18
C3
HEC internal structure, processes and capacity for management of (inter)national KE .......... 18
Section D: Metrics, Monitoring and Evaluation .................................................................................... 19
D1
Metrics for measuring impacts (hard and soft) and relative success of knowledge exchange
activity and development ..................................................................................................................... 19
D2
Monitoring parameters and targets for this strategy ............................................................... 19
D3
Evaluation approach ................................................................................................................. 19
D4
Strategy review framework ...................................................................................................... 19
Section E: Baseline information ............................................................................................................ 20
E1.
Online survey ............................................................................................................................ 20
E2 Focus Group Discussions and input from key informants ............................................................ 20
E3 Desk Study..................................................................................................................................... 21
E4 UK expert input ............................................................................................................................. 21
E5 Financial baseline .......................................................................................................................... 21
© HEC 2012
2
Preamble
The need for this strategic approach arose from several drivers: a way of manifesting the
direction detailed in the current HEC Medium Term Development Framework (MTDF); the
British Council-HEC Regional Policy Dialogue in November 2010 and a constricting funding
environment where further investment in Higher Education (HE) must deliver the highest
possible returns for the nation.
This Knowledge Exchange Strategic Plan (KESP) aims to provide a cohesive approach to the
development of knowledge exchange activities set within a long-term direction and offering
best possible use of resources for maximum educational, economic and social impacts.
The KESP has been developed using a Pakistan evidence base and drawing on expertise and
experience from global, specifically UK, knowledge exchange apex bodies, universities,
business and other stakeholders. This will place Pakistan at the forefront of thinking and
development approaches to knowledge exchange giving the country an opportunity to leap
frog quickly up the world performance tables (with regard to the knowledge economy and
exchange). Assuming the operating environment remains favourable and there is relative
stability, whether the country is able to capitalise on this advantage will be down to the
effectiveness and motivation of implementation and implementers respectively.
The KESP is the guidance for HEC to drive knowledge exchange activity in Pakistan.
However HEC will rely on the buy-in and support of apex bodies and key stakeholders from
the other exchange communities i.e. business, public and third sector, to be effective. This is
part of HEC’s role as described in the Plan Part Two.
The document provides specific achievable goals and overview action plans and guidance on
how to meet these goals. It stops short of providing the tool kits or support resources
recommended: these should be developed in the period before implementation (March June 2012). It is anticipated that this will form a baseline document, a starting point for new
teams, KE professionals and leaders from which they will develop their own thinking and
actions, their own ways of achieving the objectives described. We expect knowledge
exchange in Pakistan to evolve in an iterative process: this document’s role is to set the
scene, provide the scope and give direction.
The timeline for development and delivery of the KESP is:
September – December 2011: evidence and support gathering
16th January 2012: first draft delivery
16th Jan – 28th Feb 2012: consultation period
29th Feb – 15th March: re-write and amends
16th March Final KESP ready for launch
March – June 2012:
awareness raising and engagement of remaining stakeholders
Development of tool kits and other resources
Capacity building in HEC
July 2012: full implementation begins
© HEC 2012
3
PART ONE
Section A: Context
The background from which this KESP emerges, the context in which it must sit and external
factors that will enable or hinder its success.
HEC’s mission and challenges
Mission
The Higher Education Commission will facilitate Institutions of Higher Learning to
serve as Engines of Growth for the Socio-Economic Development of Pakistan
HEC provides central support, direction and drivers to the HE sector promoting
consistency in standards whilst encouraging differentiation between HEIs in terms of
target audiences, offers and areas of excellence
Challenges
HEC is faced with three key challenges (a) Quality (b) Access and (c) Relevance to
national needs. Building leadership is the final key area of focus.
Dr Naqvi may like to add a statement here
A1 the HE sector
Historical background
In the years since its inception HEC has made great inroads into developing both the
teaching and learning and research missions of the university sector in Pakistan in terms of
capacity and quality.
The number of HEIs has also increased and is still increasing at a fast rate. This has been
achieved through substantial investment in capacity building of academics, leaders and
researchers; physical infrastructure; technology and centralised standards, metrics and
management systems. It was driven by the first development framework and energised,
visionary, highly capable leadership and teams at HEC and within certain HEIs.
Current situation highlighting SWOT
There are currently (Jan 2 2012) 74 public universities / degree awarding institutes and 60
private universities / DAIs (total 134) (www.hec.gov.pk )
Within HEC there is significant activity in many areas of HEI governance and leadership:
developing and implementing metrics systems to improve the level of data on all aspects of
HEI activity – this is the information backbone from which HEC operates ; the recent roll-out
of the Quality Assurance Framework and expansion of Quality Enhancement Cells placed
within universities (now standing at 24) driving the consistent improvement in quality of
award programmes; leadership development programmes for new and existing Vice
Chancellors; a focus on pedagogical skills and approaches is continuing to drive performance
in teaching & learning; placement of returning PHDs, research funding and the expansion of
the Offices of Research, Innovation and Commercialisation pushing standards of research
© HEC 2012
4
higher up the international rankings with a gradual shift towards more applied research for
development into business proposition. The investment in technology continues with the
digital library programme, the interconnectivity of all HEIs through PERN (now in stage 2)
and other essential back office software both in HEC and with HEIs.
These are the areas where HEC has excelled and which now provide a strong base from
which to move forward into a knowledge economy role.
HEC’s excellent relationships with international and national partners and donors such as the
British Council, USAID, Microsoft and World Bank have provided strength and credibility and
enabled it to continue to push forward often in the face of adverse political and local climes.
The international linkages forged between universities and HE apex bodies from all over the
world are a credit to HEC’s work in this area and are proof of the high standards being
achieved in the burgeoning HE sector.
Some HEIs have excellent teaching and learning approaches, worthy of any international
university and many are also excelling in specific research fields. Some management and
leadership, notably in private sector HEIs, is modern with global approaches that provide
strong strategic direction and drivers. With student numbers increasingly rapidly, universities
have so far done well in meeting demand, although in some sectors such as medical health
this may be heading for an over-supply situation in the longer term. Expansion of access
models (and some means tested sponsoring) and diversification of the learning offer in
terms of virtual and flexible courses is helping to meet growing demand and ensure
universities continue to be inclusive.
As with any organisation and sector there are weaknesses in both HEC and HEIs. Within
HEC siloing of departments means efforts are not being capitalised on as well as they could.
External communication could also be stronger, particularly in terms of telling the story of
successes. Uncertainty over the organisation’s future has led to a loss of some talented and
experienced team members and there appears to be no clear policy for mitigating this
through internal team development. The on-going recruitment freeze is exacerbating this
situation.
Across the HEI sector there is some differentiation in terms of mission, specialisms and
target audiences. In the public sector there are very few drivers for improving performance
and increasing specialisation (with the exception perhaps of world rankings for a selected
handful). There is some competition for the top students but overall public universities
appear not to consider attracting students to their graduate programmes in terms of the
complete student experience (including preparing students for careers and as socially active
citizens). In the majority of non-vocational curricula there is a detachment from the careerapplication of the content and very little focus on developing skills (as opposed to
knowledge).
Leadership, governance and internal management structures and systems in many
universities, particularly public ones, leave room for modernisation and would benefit from a
link to organisational and educational performance.
There is very little vertical integration and coordination with Skills and Vocational Training
establishments, affiliated colleges and schools. This limits the preparedness of students for
HE, young people’s ambitions and life expectations and reduces the flexibility and nature of
learning pathways available. Global experience has shown that when HEIs strengthen
relationships with their educational community partners this benefits all involved and the
helps achieve wider educational and academic goals.
© HEC 2012
5
A2 Knowledge exchange (KE)
Definition
Knowledge exchange (KE) refers to the role that universities can play in stimulating and
contributing to innovation and social and economic growth. This role is in addition to the
two missions of teaching and research, complimenting and enhancing these. KE unlocks the
deep expertise, ideas, new knowledge and skills created by universities and, through
exchange with expertise, ideas and knowledge held by communities and business works to
the mutual benefit of all engaged partners plus, importantly, the benefit of society and
economy as a whole.
For the purposes of the KESP we categorize knowledge exchange activities into the following
groups:
A. Facilitating knowledge / research exploitation and process
B. Skills and human capital development
C. Knowledge sharing / diffusion
D. Supporting the community / public engagement / developing government
E. Enterprise education and entrepreneurship
F. Exploiting the university’s physical assets
(from HEIF, UK)
See Appendix for full details and examples.
A3. An appraisal of the current situation of KE in Pakistan
A3.1 Overview
The HEC MTDF explicitly puts ideals of knowledge exchange at the centre of the HE
development for its 5 year period: this recognition of and desire to unlock and exchange the
knowledge and expertise held by the universities for the benefit of communities, economies
and leadership is a strength. This KESP is an attempt to turn these ambitions into practice.
Without an existing KE mapping and metrics system in place it is very difficult to quantify
the existing level of KE activity in Pakistan’s HE sector. However through research for this
plan we can say that current awareness both within HEIs and potential partner sectors is
very low and there is limited engagement at a policy, strategy or management level in HEIs.
Institutional strategic approach: At this point virtually no universities have either
specific KE strategies or have a KE strand within their core organisational strategic action
plan. This means if activity is happening it has grown organically through individuals’ actions
and these are unlikely to be recognised or possibly even know about by the HEI leadership
leaving no room for expansion and development of the activities – there is rarely
infrastructure or process that would capture and support grass- roots KE activities.
Many universities appear to operate in a slight vacuum with relation to their local and
interest communities (business or social) with little or no internal infrastructure, staffing and
/ or expertise to either go out with a marketable package of the universities offers or
network exposure to bring external stakeholders in.
© HEC 2012
6
There is very limited capability within universities to engage and deliver KE at the
moment i.e. the supply side has a huge opportunity for optimisation. Equally there is almost
no capacity within organisations (business etc) to connect with, engage and then form
partnerships with universities and in many cases the desire to do this is non-existent.
Within the limitations of the research there are no web entry points for external partners
promoting the universities’ existing KE services on HEI websites.
The development, placement, role and locations of careers services within universities is
patchy. They have yet to play an integrated, cross-faculty role in pushing skills for
employability and entrepreneurship. The links with ORICs and other pockets of KE activity
have not been established. This is probably due to the lack of awareness and low levels of
strategic thinking generally in many universities. The joining-up of careers, enterprise and
skills / human capacity development activities would provide a strong unified platform for
increasing and strengthening university – business – community links.
Encouragingly, there are also strong pockets of activity in individual (departments /
teams in) universities. These are around student social enterprise, collaborative research,
commercialisation of existing research, community engagement (student) and some
examples of external partners contributing to course delivery and development.
Business Incubation Centres now exist in a few universities hosting university evolved
spin-outs and start-ups and some externally sourced start-ups, and there are plans for
Technology/ Science Parks in the coming year. One or two HEIs have commercial
organisations working on their premises.
There are now 12 established Offices of Research, Innovation and Commercialisation
(ORIC) in universities across the country with others in the pipeline. HEC has released
indirect funding to encourage the set-up of these. ORICs still largely concentrate on
research funding activities but development is progressing well towards more and better
business- university links, a start has been made on expanding the ORIC role to cover all KE
activities and towards acting as a gateway to the university.
Several universities also have dedicated external facing services for enterprise and
innovation e.g. NUST, and for social responsibility e.g. IQRA.
Some universities have statements in their missions related to their role in societyeconomy in terms of preparing skilled and employable students / leaders, working with
business or engaging communities/ their civil society function.
e.g. LUMS: “Engaged with the society and a change agent for economic growth and
development”
e.g. TIP: “Every effort will be made to provide TIP’s facilities to industry and government
such as, but not limited to, lab services, consultancy, policy advice, management of issues
and opportunities etc.”
e.g. IMS, Peshawar: …. “in order to prepare our students as well as faculty for diverse and
challenging roles in a complex domestic and global environment. We pursue our vision in
the belief that our academic network founded in excellence, integrity, and innovation will go
a long way in producing a new generation of leaders and entrepreneurs.”
© HEC 2012
7
A3.2 Specific countrywide initiatives (strengths)
The British Council and HEC have been working together to support the development of
KE activities and strategic thinking in HEIs over the past 6 months. This has been realised in
KE training for ORIC staff and KE leads, academics, Vice Chancellors; a grant programme
supporting universities to develop institutional KE strategies (DISKE) in conjunction with
their UK HEI partners’ KE teams; extension of existing international research collaborations
with KE activities (SPEKE) and initiation of talks to create sector specific university-industry
groups that will guide strategy and activity. This KESP is part of the British Council-HEC drive
for KE development.
Supporting student enterprise development: TiE, YESNetwork and the Global
Entrepreneurship Week (GEW) Pakistan group have been leading the support of student
enterprise clubs (e.g. TiE’s Youth Enterprise Societies), embedding of enterprise modules in
curricula (e.g. YESNetwork) and development of enterprise activities including social
enterprise projects (e.g. as part of GEW promotions). Enterprise networks and a resource
platform are also being planned. Several international enterprise support organisations,
including UnLtd and SIFE, are poised to enter the Pakistan HE sector. There are numerous
business planning / enterprise competitions for students and staff alike, some leading to
entry into regional or world competitions e.g. TiE All Asia Business Plan Competition in late
2011.
The new Associate Degree programmes (2 years, developed in conjunction with local
business) are an excellent step forward in addressing employability, skills and experience
needs of students and for opening up access to wider audiences. These are currently
running in just a handful of centres but should be supported and expanded across the wider
country as a whole, particularly in universities centred in industry cluster zones (see
description below and appendix).
Funding streams: to date there has only been one national dedicated funding stream
available for KE, specifically for research commercialisation. HEC has been offering
University- Industry Technology Support Programme grants from its R&D Department for
several years.
“The purpose of these grants is to promote scientific research in applied sciences in the
country, to strengthen the indigenous capacity for industrial competition in the world
market. The research grant will be provided for a maximum period of two years with a
budget up to Rs. 6.0 Million.” HEC
Whilst these aim to drive commercialisation the reporting from the first rounds shows that
rather than create links with industry many recipients of the UITSP awards have instead
taken their research to a semi-product stage without an understanding of the potential
market niche, scalability, route to market or overall business proposition viability. There are
also some notable successes, largely in support of agricultural enterprises through service
provision and in-service training. Lessons learned are that commercial or public agency
partners need to be engaged at the earliest stages and involvement of university KE
professionals with contracting, IP, business analytics and other expertise will ensure a
smoother process that allows the academic to concentrate on the core product or service.
Patent filing: HEC have been facilitating (people in) universities US patent filing as part of
an on-going programme that is likely to extend to national (Pakistan) patent filing in the
next year: HEC provides financial support to university based inventors to file their patents
in the US. Alongside fees HEC provide technical and legal support too.
© HEC 2012
8
A3.3 Gaps (and opportunities)
In addition to the weaknesses identified above regarding awareness of the concept, KE
professionals and infrastructure within HEIs, HEI exposure to business/ community practice
and needs and there are also gaps in support and guidance for KE above the individual HEI
level.
The most fundamental gap is in the lack of a metrics and mapping system: without this we
have no base line information to understand the current situation, nothing with which to
direct funding and support and no ways of capturing success and impacts. There is an
urgent need for metrics – carefully chosen to drive the ‘right’ type of KE development
(noting that performance often follows the criteria upon which it is measured); and simple
but robust enough to have take-up and then credibility.
There is a gap in funding streams to support the build of KE infrastructure, create a
professional KE force and seed new activities. The UK’s experience has been that until a
non-competitive funding stream was introduced KE development was limited in terms of
infrastructure development and also unstable (HEIs were not able to plan long term).
There is little collaboration between universities: few have considered joining forces to
develop KE activities or to market their services to business with a single voice. This is an
opportunity not to be missed – again the UK’s experience shows that it is extremely difficult
for individual HEIs to sustain an effective KE model (particularly for young, small HEIs) and
where they have collaborated, for example in Scotland and N Ireland, with each other and
with colleges, they have produced highly desirable and sustainable offers to business and
industry. There is a big opportunity here for the development of (internationally) recognised
centres of excellence marketed professionally internally and abroad to MNCs and other
major partners.
A significant gap exists at sector and national levels in terms of multi-stakeholder
collaborative bodies with the market intelligence of their sector, a strategic view and an
ability to identify and drive both research and technology development that will meet their
sectors’ current and future needs. Without intelligence and guidance at these ‘overview’
levels university-industry linkages can grow organically at ground / local level but the
country may neither be optimising its investment choices nor enabling Pakistan to capture
and hold relevant international market positions.
The other significant gap in terms of overview is around geographical clusters. There are
many instances across Pakistan where certain industry sectors and their supply chains are
clustered in one locale. There are also universities in these locales yet there are minimal
links either in terms of technology / research development or supply of suitably skilled and
experienced graduates as employees or entrepreneurs. Experience around the world,
notably in Singapore and the US West Coast, shows the importance of geographical
proximity to the supply chain.
Whilst there are currently no super-scale technology development centres (sites with highly
sophisticated, large scale shared facilities and clusters of companies and universities) these
may be approached cautiously as an opportunity. Requiring very high initial and ongoing
investment these Centres may produce the ‘black box’ technologies of the future but also
run a high risk of failure without comprehensive ownership and wholehearted collaboration
from the partner HEIs and companies. (In many cases named collaborators have ended up
competing for the same research / development funds hence synergies have been lost).
© HEC 2012
9
New models of open-source innovation collaboration are worth exploring as are single
company to HEI consortia MOUs supporting KE at multiple levels and from many faculties
and teams (cross-working or separately). P&G’s relationship with Durham University and
partners are an example of this.
See Appendix for more details
A4 Knowledge exchange & economy international
context
At his time of global economic turmoil, development of the knowledge economy, innovation,
skills and enterprise are viewed by many countries (OECD, BRIC, many of the N11) as the
cornerstones from which to emerge as successful players in the world markets and essential
to overcoming global challenges around energy, water, food security etc. Universities are
rightly being recognised as critical players in this drive both as creators of new knowledge
and as producers of skilled employees and entrepreneurs.
Many countries also recognise the role of universities as agents of social cohesion,
community development and regeneration for the locales in which they sit.
Governments and their agencies are providing push and pull mechanisms to grow
knowledge exchange and start to realise the return on tax payers’ investment in the higher
education systems to create countrywide competitive advantage and stimulate growth.
Having already made substantial investments in developing its HE sector Pakistan cannot
afford not to demand and enable outputs that will have direct social and economic impact
(and contiguously drive performance, quality and relevance in its HEIs).
All countries have taken different initiatives to stimulate and support knowledge exchange:
there are numerous models from around the world from which Pakistan can learn lessons
and create its own pathway that will avoid many pitfalls and leapfrog practice to producing
both quick wins and long term growth.
This strategic plan has taken a broad sweep look at different global practices and then indepth study of the UK KE environment and activities.
A5 The political, economic, social, technological, legal
and environmental context for KE in Pakistan
Focusing on the factors that will influence universities and their relationship with business
and communities the major factors to consider are:
The demographic – Pakistan is the 6th most populous country in the world with 50% of
people living in towns of 5000 people or more and around 36% in larger urban centres. With
103 million people (63% of total population) under 25 years old the audience for higher
education is very high and will get higher if education reforms at primary and secondary
levels and improved life chance policies are effective. Catering to a large audience from
diverse backgrounds to provide education that is not only of a high academic standard but,
critically, produces employable, enterprising skilled graduates is a big challenge for the HE
sector. This creates a strong driver for knowledge exchange activities particularly in the
areas of skills development, enterprise and community engagement to ensure graduates
have positive career and life prospects on leaving HE. The growing HE audience may also
put strain on resources and funding if not managed appropriately and flexible,
technologically enabled learning solutions not developed. However reduced overall financing
© HEC 2012
10
again will create a strong motivator for university leaders to look for diverse investment
streams and collaborative agreements with business and other sources.
Brain and skills drain a deep concern with industry and across society is the increasing
trend for the brightest and best minds to look abroad for graduate and postgraduate
education. The likelihood of these graduates bringing the fruits of their education and
western cultural experiences home to the benefit of Pakistan is limited: negative perceptions
around quality of life and employment opportunities abound. The ‘West is best’ argument
has decreasing merit though as Pakistan’s universities flourish and unscrupulous foreign
educators get more aggressive in their attempts to mine the Pakistan fees bounty. West is
not always not best and can be a very expensive poor second.
Debunking this myth should be a strong motivator for better university-business and
university-community linkages. Prospective employers who are engaged with their local
universities at multiple levels are well-placed to attract, try out and the recruit graduates at
very early stages of their degrees. Working hand–in-hand with pro-active careers teams on
raising student expectations and awareness of work choices from Year 1, a focus on skills
and practical understanding in courses and in extra-curricular options and placements,
internships and other choices universities and employers should be able to at least partially
plug the graduate drain.
And for those graduates who wish to hone their research skills, opportunities for contract
and collaborative research with leading local /international businesses and or wish to
commercialise their research locally having a supportive proactive KE service at their HEI
operating in an entrepreneurial atmosphere would be strong motivators for remaining in
Pakistan. The prospect of increased reputation, opportunities to work with experts in their
field and to put their research into practical use are strong motivators that need to be
marketed to domestic researchers once an enabling KE environment is in place (Ref UK IRC
report: Knowledge Exchange Between Academics and the Business, Public and Third Sectors
2010)
Skills gap
Many industrial sectors report a gap in the skills they require to operate competitively and
the skill level and range of young graduates. This has been reported in ICT, cotton and
textiles, manufacturing, engineering, finance and many other sectors. Whilst part of the
problem will be solved through more and better vocational training offers there remains an
onus on Pakistan’s universities to play their part in the skills supply chain and transform
purely knowledge based learning into one that nurtures both knowledge and skills.
An example of KE in action to fill the skills gap in the dairy industry – a university, business,
farm supply chain collaboration: http://www.reaseheath.ac.uk/wordpress/?p=12682
Security and social cohesion: the challenges around security and social cohesion in
Pakistan are well documented and highly publicised internationally. So how does this affect
knowledge exchange development? Universities are part of communities: both the
geographical ones they sit and communities of interest. They are influential in shaping the
local social economic environment as employers, as bringers of wealth through their supply
chains and through their culture and values which pervade outwards. By reaching out and
welcoming communities in they can raise aspirations providing positive life choices for young
people and others who may otherwise become disenfranchised. By working together with
community groups they can be vital brokers and facilitators of change and more than this
they can share expertise to develop localised, sustainable solutions to all sorts of societal
challenges.
© HEC 2012
11
In such unpredictable times there is a moral duty on everyone that can, to act as a force for
social change. Universities can and should be agents of social change through a more proactive engagement with the public, communities and civil society.
Currently few Pakistani universities actively engage with their communities or the public at
large and only a handful have explicit strategies to do this.
Legal: Pakistan is a member of the WIPO agreement on IP regulation and process. “Being
a signatory to Trade Related Intellectual property Rights, Agreement (TRIPs) under WTO,
Pakistan required upgradation of its intellectual property infrastructure in tandem with global
trends. Accordingly the existing legislation on Intellectual Property i.e. Copyrights, Patents
and Trademarks has been upgraded and the revised laws have been promulgated”, IPO
Pakistan
The IPO website holds a 2007 document showing 49 IP coordinators based in universities
though it is not clear what the current situation is.
ORIC contributors to this KESP have suggested that the legal framework for domestic IP is
weak and complex.
On the positive side there are relatively few bureaucratic and financial obstacles to business
start-up, entrepreneurialism and innovation compared to Europe and other countries.
However this lack of regulation also has had negative impacts on the venture capitalist
market with very few motivated, able external investors e.g. wealthy Pakistani diaspora,
willing to take the risk of lending and investing into an unprotected market. The national
market for venture capital and commercial investment in R&D is also very small: awareness
of opportunities is very low amongst venturers and there appears to be no culture of
investment in opportunities on the low end of the technology readiness scale.
Economy: growth and change
Growth rates in 2010 have slowed to around 4%. A large inflation rate of 24.4% and a low
savings rate, and other economic factors, continue to make it difficult to sustain a high
growth rate.
Given the slowing growth rate and challenging economic climate globally it is imperative that
Pakistan focuses on transforming new knowledge into high growth technologies and
enterprise and releases the investment in knowledge experts through consultancy and skills
development with business. Innovation and improving efficiencies and effectiveness of
existing industry will be one of the keys to successful emergence from the world trade dip.
Pakistan's GDP is US$167 billions, which makes it the 48th-largest economy in the world or
27th largest by purchasing power adjusted exchange rates. The structure of the Pakistani
economy has changed from a mainly agricultural base to a strong service base. Agriculture
now only accounts for roughly 20% of the GDP, while the service sector accounts for 53%
of the GDP.
Thus, whilst agricultural practice can be modernised and productivity increased through
skills and research exchange there are also strong drivers for universities to look towards
collaborations with the service sector and its supply chains.
The priority economic sectors for Pakistan are: energy, textiles, minerals and mining, water,
food security. Universities can play an important role in supporting these sectors through
creation then application of new knowledge and through increasing use of skills and
expertise.
© HEC 2012
12
A6 Drivers / motivators for KE strategic development
The drivers for KE development are multiple but will centre on HEIs being galvanized to
improve organisational and academic performance through smarter use of funding and
achieving prominence in national and international markets.
Many of the drivers for knowledge exchange development are listed above in A4.
Central to these arguments is the question: What are universities for? In many cases
universities were “created by leading citizens, communities and their societies with a larger
vision of achieving goals of social and economic transformation” (Melvyn Bragg, Service to
Society, HEFCE & UUK 2010). Knowledge exchange offers a way for universities to use
their missions educating people and creating new knowledge to achieve societal and
economic transformation and to do this quicker and better. In the past universities were
commonly referred to as ivory towers when the term ‘ivory tower’ was viewed as a good
thing. Today an ivory tower has negative connotations: today what we need are universities
that are enmeshed in both their local and the global working with partners for mutual benefit
and the greater good. How this happens, with whom and in what forms is for individual
universities to identify for themselves based on the drivers that are relevant to them and their
surroundings. And to ensure this happens coherently within an individual HEI and that
resources are best utilised there needs to be a strategic approach, with identified leaders
and champions.
Secondly, the higher education market is global: if Pakistan’s universities are not connected,
are not working in ways which are relevant to society and economies, they will not compete.
World rankings have driven universities to perform to the highest standards notable in
international class research. However there are other measures on which universities are
judged: employability and entrepreneurialism of graduates through the quality and
relevance of the teaching offer and the overall student experience are strong drivers for
where students will choose to spend their fees in increasingly restricted economic times.
Perception by key industry players as HEIs as suitable partners for inward investment and
consequent growth of technopoles or similar hubs is a strong driver coming not just from
the quality of research but the ability of the university to respond and act in a business-like
manner as an effective organisational entity itself.
Universities therefore have strong drivers to improve their reputations and knowledge
exchange is a robust and sustainable way of achieving this.
At the next level HEC also has a driver to improve and consolidate its reputation for leading
and developing the HE sector with many different stakeholders: government, international
HE agencies such as QAA; donors and partners such as British Council and World Bank and
of course its key audience, Pakistan’s HEIs. Putting universities at the heart of economic
and societal growth, as the engine of the knowledge economy is a sure way to realise these
ambitions.
Pakistan also needs to ensure its place in the world’s knowledge economy: as an N11
country there is an expectation of development and success that is important not just for
the country but for S Asia and the world economies. To play a part the country must have a
dynamic and growing knowledge economy.
Finally, we come to one of the most important drivers for taking a strategic approach to
knowledge exchange: money. HEC has indicated that universities should have the capacity
to generate their own funds and become self-sustaining in the near future (Chairman’s
Forward to the MTDF, 2010). Being relevant, being a force for change, having marketable
© HEC 2012
13
resources, services and products with the people that can champion these will have a strong
influence on where external partners choose to invest. Inward investment will depend on all
these things driven by modern, accountable governance and leadership.
Looking beyond the universities own internal financing we recognise that KE creates wealth:
In the UK in 2009-10 KE created £3billion for the UK economy and the cost of this creation
was low: for every £1 invested in KE development the UK returned, on average, £6-7 (for
some universities this is around £11 per £1 invested)
Even in these difficult economic times SME spending on KE has grown year on year.
KE wealth creation has a growth rate of around 4%/year – it is driving recovery.
(ref HEFCE website January 2012)
All of the above drive a well-thought through strategy for knowledge exchange development
that allows for differentiation but enables government and others to have an understanding
of the activities and impacts as a whole.
A7 Limiting factors / barriers to KE strategic development
There are several very high barriers to KE development in Pakistan at the moment:
7.1.
Folklore – ‘universities are no use to us or society’ from business / ‘businesses
aren’t interested in anything we have to offer – they are too hard to work with’ from
universities. There are many examples where this simply isn’t true but the myth,
based partly on past experience and some poor examples today, exists as a
perceived barrier. Equally many university people feel ‘enterprise’ is a dirty word and
is not a part of their academic aspirations or ethos
7.2.
Mindset – many people in universities have a very internalised view:
academia for academia’s sake:
“We treat our opportunities to do research not as a public trust but as a reward for
success in past studies”
“Rewards for research are deeply tied up with the production of academic hierarchy
and the relative standing of institutions” BUT “Public support for universities is
based on the effort to educate citizens in general, to share knowledge, to distribute it
as widely as possible in accord with publically articulated purposes” (Craig Calhoun,
American sociologist)
7.3.
Low awareness – very few people in universities (staff, students, leaders)
are aware of the opportunities and benefits of KE
7.4.
Lack of data – there is currently no metric used to map and measure KE
activities and impacts: if we don’t know what is happening, what works and what
doesn’t, it is very hard to support growth. Equally if we don’t know what the impacts
are (relative to investment) is very difficult to persuade government to invest more.
7.5.
Know how – if they are aware, the next hurdle is ‘how do I….?’ At the
moment there is insufficient promotion of existing good practice, there are few
toolkits or resources and critically no one to guide new KE practitioners through the
process and no network of peers to sustain initial momentum
7.6.
No reward or recognition for KE: academics are not recruited or rewarded on
KE / external experience1; there are no awards or public recognition systems for
excellence in enterprise, community / public engagement or skills development; only
1
HEC’s published tenure track system seems to allow for ‘professional experience in the relevant field’
to be counted at Assoc Prof / Prof level but this does not appear to happen in practice
© HEC 2012
14
a handful of awards for research commercialisation (and no domestic ones) and most
importantly, good work is not promoted in general to the public and key
stakeholders. For business people and those in the third sector there is also little in
the way of peer / sector reward and recognition of excellent KE work at personal or
organisational level. KE is not feted by the media or key influencer groups.
7.7.
Government, beyond HEC, has limited awareness of KE and its potential
benefits. It also does little to support KE: whilst this is not an actual barrier it is not
an enabler either
7.8.
Leadership – whilst HEC wishes to drive KE it has not, until recently, been
proactive in leading KE. There is no named KE lead in the organisation – this is a
barrier. KE champions are also needed in other government agencies representing
business and communities. At institutional level there are only a handful of vice
chancellors with awareness of KE and taking a strong position on this. Without
authorisation, direction and drive from the top the environment for individuals to
develop KE activities will be disabling and their efforts uncoordinated and therefore
less impactful
7.9.
Access to audiences: one of the key business audiences is SMEs who
currently contribute to around 80% of GDP. This audience is notoriously difficult to
reach being nebulous in nature and having few representative bodies.
7.10.
Funding – there is currently no dedicated funding stream available to support
development of KE infrastructure within HEIs, to aid KE activities or to promote and
showcase best practice. Similarly there are no funds available to release business
people from core duties to engage with university staff/ students. There is no seed
funding available for start-ups or other entrepreneurial (social or for-profit) activities.
This strategic plan will provide ways to overcome or remove the above barriers where
possible and to use motivators to drive development.
Back to top
© HEC 2012
15
Section B: Fit
How this document sits alongside other national policies and higher educational objectives
B1 other HE strategies and policies
The following information is taken from HEC’s MTDF and web site
Faculty Development: HEC aims to improve the quality of teaching and research in
institutions through programmes to improve faculty pedagogical skills and qualifications.
Whilst this aim of improving pedagogical skills is conducive with a KE developmental
approach the objectives by and large focus on development through staying within the
higher educational system (international research, degrees etc). To fit better with KE
strategy, faculty development should widen its approach to include professional experience
development (through placements, through recognising and attracting business, public and
third sector professionals into academia).
Quality Assurance: HEC has recently implemented a Quality Framework and is working
with the UK QAA to align Pakistan’s QA process with other international QAAs. This is
therefore an opportune moment to look at the QA process for co-developed curricula and
other KE activities: the evolution of QA and KE should synchronise and complement each
other.
Excellence in Governance, Leadership and Management: HEC has supporting
excellence in HE leadership and governance and management in its MTDF. It aims to
achieve this with a raft of objectives. One of these is the HEC-BC capacity building
programmes to build strategic planning, leadership and management capabilities of senior
university staff are currently being extended to include entrepreneurial leadership. The
continuation and expansion of this programme is an essential building block in KE strategic
development.
Research, Innovation and Enterprise: surprisingly, despite this being the area where
strategies should have most commonality, the aims here focus purely on high quality
learning experiences for students and increasing capacity to carry out cutting-edge research.
There is no overriding objective towards innovation and enterprise.
Within the objectives establishment of ORICs, provision on university-industry linkage
grants, business incubation centres and technology parks and knowledge transfer
programme aims are all integral to KE development.
Review of the research assessment framework to include ‘impact’ in research effectiveness
and a greater focus on driving entrepreneurial mindsets would bring the two strategic
directions closer together.
Improving Equitable Access: HEC aims to maximise opportunities for acquisition of
higher education for 17-23 year old age group. KE strategy will support this ambition
through diversifying the learning options and pathways, making direct tangible links
between employability / enterprise and education and supporting access from otherwise
hard to reach audiences with flexible learning offers, community engagement and CPD /
short courses.
Financial Management and Sustainability: in line with restrictions in the funds available
from government and a drive towards improved leadership and performance (see above)
16
© HEC 2012
HEC is reviewing financial management and accountability to improve efficiency and reward
productivity.
As described above financial sustainability, inward investment and economic impact are core
drivers for KE strategy and the attainment of these aims must be met through better
financial acumen on the part of HEI leaders – being smart with existing funds and
generating other revenue streams.
At the heart of KE strategic thinking is the concept that finance put into higher education is
viewed as an investment rather than an expenditure from the public purse. KE is about
leveraging the return on this investment.
B2 other knowledge economy and exchange relevant
policies
There is no national Innovation Policy or policy relating to IP.
For a list of all Ministries and agencies affected by / effecting the success of KE in Pakistan
please see the appendices.
Currently waiting for information from ORIC contributors
B3 relevance to HEC’s mission and mandate
The mission of the HEC is “to facilitate institutions of higher education to serve as an engine
of growth for the socio-economic development of Pakistan”. It is achieving this through well
placed investment and direction in teaching and research. Knowledge exchange helps
leverage the return on this investment towards achieving the same goal in a more proactive
out-reaching manner.
Universities building Communities, Universities building Leadership and Universities building
Economies – this is the foundation of HEC’ Medium Term Development Framework: KE
strategic planning delivers on all three of these areas. It is a core action area for HEC.
Back to top
© HEC 2012
17
Section C: Leadership, management and
governance of KE nationally
C1 Leadership of KE
At present, HEC are the only body with national scope taking a lead on knowledge exchange
in its widest form. It is hoped that the Ministry of Industries; Commerce; Science and
Technology; IT and the various Ministries associated with specific industry and facilities such
as Water & Power and those concerned with HRD and training will take a more active,
engaged and leading role in conjunction with HEC in the next years.
C2 Other international, national and regional
organisations involved in KE development
There also appear to be little activity or leadership with KE in the provincial governments.
Certain interest-organisations are engaged in and leading on some aspects of KE such as
enterprise or research commercialisation and some of these have national spread.
For a current list of agencies with a potential interest in KE please see the appendices.
Internationally there are many organisations working to develop knowledge exchange, or at
least elements of knowledge exchange, and that are interested in supporting Pakistan in
their endeavours. Some of these are government led e.g. British Council, USAID World
Trade; some UN e.g. UNIDO, some from the business sector e.g. TiE, EO and social
enterprise sectors e.g. SIFE, UnLtd and of course from the HE sector itself e.g. IEEP, AURIL
(see glossary)
C3 HEC internal structure, processes and capacity for
management of (inter)national KE
HEC has formed a coordinating team for implementation of KE development comprising
personnel from R&D, SIU and Finance. All department heads have been brought into the
conversation around KE from the earliest stages and there is a reasonable level of
awareness across the organisation about KE and its implications for HE sector functions and
direction.
Currently the lead for KE lies with the HEC Executive Director although DG of R&D has taken
a very hands-on role, leading dynamically on a day-to-day basis.
HEC will need a more consolidated cross-organisational matrix system of working in order to
be able to deliver on the actions suggested in this strategic plan. The cross-departmental
teams will need a strong lead whose sole focus is KE and becomes a KE champion.
HEC are supported in the development of KE thinking and strategy by an experienced multistakeholder steering group. It is envisaged that this group will stay together throughout the
implementation stages (although individuals may change within the group).
Back to top
© HEC 2012
18
Section D: Metrics, Monitoring and Evaluation
D1 Metrics for measuring impacts (hard and soft) and
relative success of knowledge exchange activity and
development
HEC are currently adopting and adapting the Higher Education- Business Community
Interaction survey (HEBCI) with the support of the Higher Education Funding Council for
England (HEFCE) and the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). HEBCI maps and
measures KE activity using income as a proxy for impact. It feeds a formula that directs
allocation of innovation funding. It provides useful statistics for individual HEIs to measure
their own performance (and those of competitors and collaborators)
Whilst by no means perfect, HEBCI is a robust, low-burden survey that provides sufficient
useful data to understand trends, drive development and reward excellence.
The pilot version of HEBCI will go out to around 40 HEIs in January 2012 using an online
return. The full version of HEBCI will go out to all HEIs in November 2012 bundled with
other financial returns requests.
One HEBCI is embedded HEC will look at an additional qualitative metric system such as
HECEM to understand and measure community, public and policy areas of knowledge
exchange.
D2 Monitoring parameters and targets for this strategy
Will be added once the action plan is written – parameters and targets will be based on
critical control points and milestones in the action plan
D3 Evaluation approach
The KESP will have formative evaluations at 6 monthly intervals in Year 1 and 2, then yearly
evaluations in Years 3 and 4. Year 5 will have a summative evaluation doubling as a
formative evaluation for the second KESP.
Evaluation will be alternately conducted or undertaken by the KE steering group and
external evaluators.
Evaluation criteria will be based on the monitoring parameters / action plan deadlines
(above)
D4 Strategy review framework
This strategic plan will be reviewed and adjusted at yearly intervals from March 2013
onwards with development of the next forward strategy beginning in September 2016.
In year one the strategy will also be reviewed at 6 months (September 2012).
Review criteria will be: fitness for purpose, user-friendliness, relevance, overall direction and
speed of development.
Back to top
© HEC 2012
19
Section E: Baseline information
This is the information and evidence used to develop this strategic plan
E1. Online survey
We ran three online surveys targeting academics, students and stakeholders. The surveys
were incentivised by the chance to win a smartphone. We received over 5000 responses.
The surveys asked about the respondents, their understanding of the concept, their attitude
to and experience of different types of KE, their motivation and the barriers they perceived
to getting started in KE activities.
All three groups placed skills and human capital development and entrepreneurialism as the
areas they felt were most important / they would like to be engaged in. Commercialisation
through consultancy and then collaborative or contract research and community / public
engagement with an emphasis on building government capacity were also strong areas.
Motivators were on all levels (personal, career and for the good of society and economy)
and the level of motivation (to engage in KE) was generally high.
Barriers are largely around not knowing how to start / who to go to for help and guidance
with lack of funds coming in a close second. No career based reward / recognition is a
barrier for academics. Other barriers noted by stakeholders are around the lack of flexibility
and willingness of academics to engage and their sometimes antiquated approach
People felt help could be best given through creation of opportunities to get together with
potential partners (networking events etc), guidance and support, funding to seed activities
People said they felt it was most important for universities to work with private sector
organisations (for economic growth) and then public sector / government bodies. Third
sector (communities, charities etc) were felt to be less important partners.
Of the national issues KE should focus on, energy was the top priority with better
governance and political effectiveness second ranked.
Please see appendices for full results
E2 Focus Group Discussions and input from key
informants
We ran three small focus group discussions: two with mixed academic / stakeholder groups;
one with students.
In addition we have conducted brief presentations on KE with Q&A / discussion follow ups
with a further 8 academic audiences and had talks with half a dozen groups of business and
industry representatives. We’ve visited around a dozen HEIs (public and private) for
presentations and informal talks with students, staff and senior leaders.
The British Council hosted CONNECT, a show casing, discussion and networking event on KE
for all stakeholder groups in November 2011. With 400 participants, 4000+ people following
on the live webstream and over a million media hits CONNECT generated a great deal of
interest and discussion around KE which has been used to inform this strategic plan.
Back to top
20
© HEC 2012
E3
Desk Study
We ran an extensive desk study looking at KE practices around the world. This included
understanding of WIPO in developing countries, the impact of legislation in the US,
intellectual asset management in UK universities; drivers to innovation in the OECD
particularly Scandinavia; models of KE brokerage from Australia, Ireland and the UK;
government policy and its impact in S Korea, China, US, UK and others; motivating factors
and KE activity of academics in Italy, US and UK; stimuli for social enterprise models
globally; metrics on KE; metrics on research (and its impacts); funding mechanisms for KE;
entrepreneurial mindsets and enterprise development; low cost commercialisation;
employability and enterprise of graduates; KTPs in Africa and UK; networks for KE and for
KE professionals; CPD for KE professionals; reviews of UK KE practice (Sainsbury, Lambert)
E4
UK expert input
We have consulted with many of the key UK apex agencies for KE acros the HE sector to
gain advice, guidance and information on their experiences of developing and leading
various aspects of KE activity of the last 15+ years. The aim has been to understand their
learning, consider the models they have used, challenges faced and solutions found then
present these as options for adaption or not in the Pakistan context.
We also spoke with several universities: to leaders, academics, students and KE
professionals on their experience of KE on the ground.
The UK agencies and others supporting HEC include:
National Centre for Public Engagement (NCPE)
National Council for Enterprise in Education (NCEE) (formerly NCGE)
QAA
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA)
Dr Colin Wyatt (CIHE, Consultancy)
Prof Thomas Lawton
Prof Sir Tim Wilson (leading the KE UK review)
Higher Education Funding Councils for England, Wales, Scotland and DEL, N Ireland
Interface, Scotland
AURIL
Institute of Knowledge Transfer (IKT)
Technology Strategy Board (TSB)
Council for Industry and Higher Education (CIHE)
Confederation of British Industry (CBI)
University of Liverpool
Cambridge University
University of West England (UWE)
University of Cumbria
Coventry University
E5
Financial baseline
There is no information available to describe major trends of the current KE finances (costs /
income generation) nationally or provincially. This will start to become available from March
2012 with more comprehensive data available from January 2013 through the HEBCI return.
Back to top
© HEC 2012
21