The review identified 1) the factors reported to influence the success of university-industry collaboration (categorised under five domains: institutional, relationship, output, framework and moderating factors) and 2) an applied evidence-based framework for promoting these factors and facilitating successful university-industry collaborations (designed and implemented at the Imperial College London). Examine the current state of evidence describing the benefits and academic innovation costs of university-industry collaborations.Describe the role of intermediary organisations in facilitating university-industry collaborations and.Identify and report any specific evidence-based approaches or frameworks designed to facilitate university-industry collaborations,.Identify the factors which influence the success of university-industry partnerships,.In order to inform the process for identifying potential partnership candidates, a scoping review of best practices in industry-university collaborations was conducted.
File: Performance-based Funding Evidence Review Report (PDF, Size: 1.2MB)įactors Facilitating Successful University-Industry Collaborations In addition, there is currently no evidence examining how the measures were selected to identify whether the selection was based on selection of a given measure or was constrained by data collection methods in place prior to the model design. For example, the number of student completions is reported to be assessed as either: 1) the number of graduates, 2) the completion rate, 3) the share of the total number of graduates in the higher education system or 4) the number of completions within a given study timeframe. Thirdly, within the measures selected for inclusion in the PBF models, we observed a wide variation in the measures used, suggesting that there is no consensus on which measures are the most appropriate for each indicator. The contract based target selection approach recognises and supports the diversity of tertiary education providers, differences in institutional missions and may also reflect the growing understanding of the impact of student characteristics (which are beyond the control of the institution) on student outcomes. Secondly, the literature reports a recent shift in the performance targets of PBF models towards a contract based target selection approach which involves an agreed target between each institution and government/funding body as opposed to standard targets applied to all institutions. That is, the models are dependent on the government context and local setting and do not subscribe to a 'one size fits all' approach. Firstly, the variation in the objectives, design, indicators used and proportion of government funding attached across the 49 models highlights that there is no universally adopted approach. The scoping review of models of PBF revealed three main findings. The number of metrics included in each model ranged from 2 to 18, with evaluations identifying that approaches with >10 metrics were the most challenging to implement and maintain. models based on a contract of performance targets between each institution and the governing body. models which include a standard performance based assessment across the entire jurisdiction orĢ. The differences in model design can be classified into two categories:ġ. Results: The review identified 49 different PBF approaches from 25 countries including information from 22 states within the USA. Highlight any unintended consequences identified from PBF approaches.Compare and contrast approaches to determine which components are the most common and/or evaluated to be the most effective and.Detail the performance metrics included in each of the funding approaches (eg retention measures, graduate outcomes, increase in participation of under-represented groups etc).The aim of PBF is to tie university funding to performance against a range of specified metrics. Group of Eight & Universities Australia Dataĭepartment of Education, Skills and EmploymentĪn evidence review was performed in order to identify, compare and contrast established approaches to higher education performance-based funding (PBF) models.
0 kommentar(er)
