TECHNOLOGY AUDIT: METHODOLOGY AND CASE EXAMPLE ppt

TECHNOLOGY AUDIT: METHODOLOGY AND CASE EXAMPLE A paper presented at the Technology Transfer and Implementation Conference (TTI 92), London, 6-8 July 1992 Elizabeth R J Bell 1 , David R Kingham 2 and Anne Powell 3 The Oxford Trust 1 , Oxford Innovation Ltd 2 and Oxford Polytechnic 3 , UK 1 INTRODUCTION Technology audit is a topic of current interest and importance to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the UK, fuelled by two related initiatives from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). These are "Support for Technology Audits" and "Support for Industrial Units". These initiatives have focused the attention of HEIs on the key questions of "What is a technology audit?", "Are there any accepted standard procedures or best practice for such auditing?", "What do we require from an audit?" and "How can we best act on the findings of an audit for the benefit of the institution, departments and individuals concerned?". Anticipating the need to answer these questions a team from The Oxford Trust and Oxford Polytechnic External Relations Centre has conducted a pilot technology audit of part of the School of Biological and Molecular Sciences at Oxford Polytechnic. This paper outlines a methodology for technology audit which was developed during the course of the audit and gives examples of the opportunities identified during the audit. Objectives of Technology Audit For this project the general objectives of technology audit were defined as being: 1. To identify opportunities to generate more income for the Department and the HEI from the available technology, equipment and expertise; 2. To be a source of strategic management information; 3 To motivate staff and increase awareness of the Industrial Unit. A further objective of this particular technology audit was to encourage local technology transfer, particularly involving small and medium sized companies. The methodology for the audit was devised by the team at an early stage of the project and modified as the project progressed in the light of experience and after discussions with others interested in the field. There is a shortage of relevant papers in the published literature and no trace of any accepted best practice for technology auditing of HEIs in the public domain. Two relevant papers concerning technology auditing within the industrial sector were located. Jasper (1) "Inventorying Your Technology" reported that a company's technology is an important resource that is often overlooked in the auditing of other resources. In order to "inventory" in-house technology, employees working closely with the various technologies were asked to provide brief written descriptions of the technologies, including the potential for re-application in other situations, for storing on an in-house database. Information gathered included know-how, documents, processes, techniques, skills, equipment and computer software. Apart from serving as a useful management tool, the information improved internal communications, prevented duplication of effort by promoting internal technology transfer, raised employee awareness of new opportunities, and enabled employees to feel recognized and rewarded for their technical contributions. Goldscheider (2) "The Art of Technology Auditing" gave a description of the benefits that a company could derive from a technology audit and recommended that technological strengths and weaknesses should be identified by a team of people with an appropriate variety of skills and experience. He suggested that some input might be obtained from outside consultants. Published literature on technology auditing from the perspective of HEIs is scarce, although relevant snippets of information can be gleaned from the extensive literature on academic industry relations. Methodologies employed by consultancy organisations interested in this type of activity often have the status of trade secrets. However, the team undertaking this audit have had the benefit of contact with other people involved in technology auditing in HEIs. Dr Margaret Sheen (3) has conducted a technology audit at Strathclyde University. This was carried out to obtain a profile of all industrial linkages within the science and engineering faculties during one academic year. Every member of academic staff was approached personally and details of each individual project were collected in a mainly quantitative questionnaire. The aim was not only to find out where the University was currently successful (areas which can be followed up in depth), but to run the survey as a precursor to developing a systematic database which could be used as a strategic planning tool. The two approaches appear to be complimentary. The Strathclyde approach can be used to survey an institution to locate key areas of interest that might be examined in greater detail. Individuals and departments of particular interest can then be audited in greater depth along the lines of this audit. Dr Geoff Potter (4) has conducted a technology audit of the Department of Chemistry at the University of Warwick. He chose Chemistry because of his own academic background. He interviewed 20 people out of a total of 24 academic staff and found 3 patentable ideas among other opportunities. Dr Potter identifies the following elements of "best practice" for a detailed technology audit of a department: inform staff and gain their cooperation; use a questionnaire (essential questions only); have a steering group (e.g. one or two people from the department, the Industrial Liaison Officer and one external person); the Industrial Liaison Office should be involved; Interviews should be conducted with a guarantee of confidentiality and second interviews should be used if necessary for clarification. Dr Potter feels that the improvement in two-way communication between the Department and Industrial Liaison was a major benefit of the audit. 2 TECHNOLOGY AUDIT METHODOLOGY In outline, the method adopted in this pilot project was: to identify and assess areas of Expertise, Technology or Equipment from department reports and publications, by questionnaire and by interviewing staff members; to identify opportunities; and then to identify the most likely mechanisms or routes for exploitation of each opportunity. Opportunities where a possible mechanism or route for exploitation could not be identified were discounted or treated with scepticism. The audit concentrated on areas of strength which could be built on and did not seek to identify weaknesses of individuals or research groups. Mechanisms or Routes to "Exploitation" Opportunities can be exploited by three broad and overlapping mechanisms or routes: Additional Research funding (e.g. from Research Councils, Government Departments, European Commission, NATO, Medical research and other charities); Technology transfer to industry (e.g. Collaborative or contract research, Patents and Licence agreements, Consultancy, Spin-out companies or joint ventures, Service facilities and laboratories); Training or Teaching Opportunities (e.g. Degrees and long term residential courses, Distance or flexible learning courses, Collaborative placements such as Teaching Company Scheme, Short Courses). Detailed Audit of a Department This pilot project was a detailed audit of a part of one Department. Based on experience with the pilot and wider discussions, the following method is proposed for a detailed audit of a Department. The crucial element is interviews with leaders of research groups and other active researchers, or with those active in consultancy, or with others who may be able to develop these activities. Interviews would normally be conducted by one external and one internal auditor. The external auditor would have a mixed academic and industrial background, current industrial awareness and experience of technology transfer, and would be specifically selected for being able to understand the significance of advanced academic or research work in that Department (or part of a Department). The internal auditor would normally be someone with Industrial Liaison responsib-ilities who should be more than an observer, but should not direct the course of the interview. The external auditor should ask most of the questions, but the internal auditor should help to highlight inter- and intra-department links and can take the opportunity to explain to the interviewee the assistance available from the Industrial Unit (assuming that there is one). The external/internal balance should give sufficient awareness of the particular situation of the Department and the HEI to help identify the most likely opportunities, without excluding the unlikely or unexpected opportunity. Initial phase. The initial phase is important to ensure that the audit proceeds smoothly and effectively. It includes discussion with the Head of Department to explain and agree the purpose of the audit, to modify the questionnaire and the framework for the report to suit the Department, to select those to be interviewed and to confirm the selection of external auditor(s). Initial information about the Department (published and unpublished reports) is gathered at this stage. Analysis of questionnaires should be done prior to the interviews and might be done at an earlier stage, so that selection of those to be interviewed is partly based on questionnaires. Interview phase. This crucial phase needs a balance of structure and flexibility to cover all potentially important areas in the appropriate depth. Once the auditors have introduced themselves and the purpose of the audit, the interview proceeds with a review of initial information and questionnaire responses to draw out more detail in important areas. Additional questions not appropriate for a written questionnaire may then be asked to establish attitudes to exploitation of opportunities. For certain categories of opportunity, the role taken by the academic will be crucial to successful exploitation and it is important to identify whether the key person is an entrepreneur, inventor, manager, teacher, researcher or all of these. The interview should end with a summary and final questions and a tour of laboratory or facilities, if appropriate. Report phase. As the draft report is prepared, using the agreed framework, the external auditor should use his market knowledge to identify mechanisms or routes to exploitation of opportunities. Time considerations are likely to prevent this being extensive market research or marketing and these activities fit better into the action plan developed to act on the findings of the audit. The audit is thus concerned with "uncovering the raw material for exploitation". The draft report should be reviewed by the internal auditor and the Head of Department, and preferably by the individuals interviewed as well, to give an opportunity for feedback prior to the report being finalised. Technology Audit Report Framework. The report should have an executive summary highlighting: key areas for commercial exploitation; areas for strategic development; immediate actions (e.g. patent protection); major areas of inter- and intra-department synergy; and any other issues of major importance. For each person interviewed (or for each research group) there should be a summary of: expertise, technology and equipment; industrial contracts and relationships; research contracts, research funding sources and collaborations; research likely to be pursued in the future; and teaching and training activities. Personal motivation and anticipated career path should be reported where it may be relevant to the exploitation of an opportunity. The crucial part of the audit report concentrates on specific areas of opportunity. For each area; the opportunity should be specified as closely as possible; mechanisms or routes to exploit the opportunity should be identified; Specific actions, or choices of actions, should be suggested and critical decision points should be highlighted. Finally, any other important issues should be addressed, including general factors limiting development of opportunities. 3 CASE EXAMPLE: SCHOOL OF BIOLOGICAL AND MOLECULAR SCIENCES (BMS), OXFORD POLYTECHNIC The pilot audit focussed on the work of five research groups in Biological and Molecular Sciences. All of them proved to be highly co-operative with the audit team. This appeared to be due to the audit's emphasis on early consultation with the departmental head, which established it as a priority, and to consultation and opportunity for feedback from all staff members concerned at each stage of the audit. Emphasis on feedback to correct errors of fact or interpretation resulted in the final report being judged to be accurate and fair by the individuals concerned. TABLE 1: Categories of Opportunity found during the Pilot Audit Category of Opportunity Number of Opportunities Patent 2 Software Product Development 2 Strategic (Long Term) Research Development 6 Tactical (Short Term) Research Development 1 Consultancy 11 Service Laboratory 4 Short Course 7 Industrial Contract Research 1 Media Exposure 1 Joint Venture/Collaborative Product Development 2 note: 3 of these opportunities are included in two different categories The staff felt that an external perspective had been valuable, giving them new insights into their own work and priorities. This was probably due to the audit being orientated towards the interests and needs of the individuals and research teams concerned (i.e. people, rather than technology or institution orientated). Staff confidence in the scientific credentials and biological science background of certain members of the audit team facilitated communication and understanding of the subject matter. A surprisingly large number (34) of potentially exploitable opportunities were uncovered by the audit. A breakdown of the various types of opportunity uncovered is given in Table 1. Examples of Opportunities Identified in the Pilot Audit Patents. Two potentially patentable ideas were identified, one may produce significant environmental benefits, the other is connected with scientific instrumentation. Both require further work to establish their viability. The audit served to highlight these ideas and alert the researcher to the issues of confidentiality. An immediate recommendation was that he should be given confidentiality agreements to use before discussing the matter with potentially interested parties. Software Product Developments. Metabolic control analysis (MCA) techniques have great potential for aiding research in, for example, biotechnology by distinguishing between productive and non-productive targets for genetic manipulation and in medicine by assisting the identification of enzymes for which it would be worth designing site-directed drugs. However the mathematical complexities of the techniques are probably responsible for the lack of assimilation by potential users. A software package is being developed to overcome this problem by making the results of the techniques available to all who need them without requiring detailed understanding of the underlying theories. The audit identified this package as potentially saleable and suggested collaboration with: one firm which might use the package to field test it and give market feedback; and another firm (which develops and sells software to pharmaceutical companies) that might market the package. Strategic (Long Term) Research Developments. BMS has a significant strength in research in food science and nutrition, with extensive synergy between different research groups. This includes research expertise in the functional properties of food and food foams and the properties of extrusion cooked foams. Current research on the full and partial substitution of sugar by polydextrose in cakes is potentially of great importance to the food industry, who face technical problems (in responding to market pressures for dietetic products) in reducing or replacing sugar without loss of product quality. The research might be pursued further in the first instance through an AFRC LINK programme, and later through direct industrial funding. The established Centre for the Sciences of Food and Nutrition (CSFN) would provide the right base for such collaborations. The department has considerable research expertise in the study of human energy metabolism, with respect to the inhabitants of temperate and tropical climates, food technology and in nutritional issues of importance to both developed and developing countries. Important research in this area has included the quantification of malnutrition, refugee nutrition (particularly work on the fortification of basic food stuffs to overcome problems of nutritional deficiencies in refugee camps dependent on food aid), patterns of weight loss in obese and non-obese patients and nutritional implications of new food additives. Complementary to the work on human energy metabolism but not directly linked to it is the work of another individual on metabolic control analysis (MCA). The work is important since much biochemical research in metabolism is directed towards understanding its regulation, but metabolic regulation is difficult to understand because of the complexity of systems of many interacting enzymes. Research and development work in these powerful numerical and mathematical analytical techniques for modelling metabolic systems has strong, long term strategic value. Substantial public research funding should be obtained on a continuing basis. Environmental research by one individual on atmospheric sulphur compounds is relatively new to BMS, but has made a good start, and should tie in well both with the new Polytechnic Environmental Science degree course and with highly topical work in the wider research community on global climatic change. Consultancy and Service Laboratories. One of the scientists has chemical analytical expertise that could form the technical basis of an environmental consultancy service. Water quality analysis (e.g. the measurement of active chlorine levels), domestic, commercial or otherwise might provide one service. Atmospheric sulphur testing is another possibility. Such a consultancy service would be capable of testing for any compound since the necessary equipment is already available either within BMS or other science departments in the Polytechnic. The same scientist could provide a service in pesticide analysis in soil and plants of potential interest to large agro- chemical companies. The department's well equipped electron microscope unit, combined with the present departmental joint venture with a company supplying low temperature sample preparation equipment, could undertake more contract or collaborative work with industry. Contract microscopy could be carried out for local companies or time released on instruments for external use. Profits generated could be used to provide the unit with a high quality light microscope to support further research and extend the facilities of the service laboratory. A specific and unique consultancy service that could be offered by the unit is microscopy (TEM) of ultrafiltration membranes. Media Exposure. One individual has potential to become a media "pundit" because of his credentials in third world and refugee malnutrition issues. His research and the Polytechnic's strength in Food Science and Nutrition could benefit from such media exposure. 4 IMPLEMENTING THE FINDINGS OF THE AUDIT The final report of the Technology Audit aimed to specify opportunities in the most effective way to enable decisions on exploitation to be taken. In most cases routes or mechanisms for exploitation and possible courses of action were identified. The great strength in research and expertise of the School meant that more opportunities were identified than could be exploited with the available resources. Thus some crucial decisions had to be made on which opportunities to exploit, or to attempt to exploit. A draft action plan was drawn up in a series of meetings between the external consultants, the Polytechnic External Relations Centre and the Head of Department. Prioritising the opportunities therefore took place in the context of institutional priorities, internal politics and individual departmental strategy. Criteria used in the assessment included: Size of the opportunity (market volume); Accessibility or receptivity of the market (the chance of successful exploitation); The cost of exploitation (time, money and other resources); The expected time lapse and cost exposure before a return; The willingness of the key individual and Head of Department to exploit the opportunity; The strategy (and internal politics) of the Department and the HEI. Example of an Action Plan The initial action plan for BMS involved the abandonment or shelving of many possible opportunities based on the criteria outlined above. It was decided to pursue two of the service laboratory options. The first was the Electron Microscope Unit (with particular emphasis on further developing an established joint venture in low temperature preparation equipment and techniques). It was decided that a business plan should be prepared and that it was likely that this plan would need resource investment in the form of an additional technician. The other was the creation of an environmental consultancy service which could work with other parts of the Polytechnic. The key BMS member of staff who would provide the core analytical chemistry know-how, might need to have his teaching load reduced to make it feasible. The consultancy service might best be established by offering a technical service to the Environmental Assessment Unit in the Polytechnic Planning Department. Departmental research strategy has been to encourage individual scientists to follow their own interests. The audit showed that this approach has been successful in establishing strong research with much inter-group and inter-departmental synergy. Support would continue to be given to all staff in their applications for public research funds. Long term industrial research partnerships would be sought for the food research. An immediate plan was to invite representatives of a specific major company, which was identified during the course of the audit as having many reasons to be interested in several areas of research in BMS, to visit the polytechnic for lunch, presentations from relevant researchers and a tour of the facilities. It was decided to pursue Polytechnic connections with international charities in connection with the work on third world nutrition. Topical expertise in this particular area was also agreed to be a good opportunity for publicity (the idea of a Polytechnic media pundit was well received). It was agreed that the work on numerical modelling of biological processes should aim for a high profile collaborative research project. It was agreed to pursue the development of an expert software package for metabolic control analyis. This should be developed by computer specialists, with the BMS scientist fulfilling the role of technical advisor rather than being taken away from his research (The audit had identified him as a researcher). The possibility of exploiting the work on computer modelling of food shelf life was noted for re-examination in 1993 when the work is more mature. 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS We are aware that the word audit can sound inappropriate in an HEI and we prefer to refer to a "survey of opportunities based on technology, expertise and equipment". It has been suggested that technology audits should be carried out by external consultants with no internal involvement in interviews. The argument for this seems to be that academic staff will be more open to external people, than they would be if internal people are present. We have found no evidence for this and see no reason to suppose that there is any truth in it. If an internal person is present in the interviews there is far more chance that the essence of an opportunity will be understood internally, and this should improve the chances of successful exploitation. The tangible benefits of an audit are primarily that it uncovers the raw material for exploitation and that it provides valuable new management information. The intangible benefits are that it can be a motivating experience for staff and can improve the awareness of the role of an Industrial Unit. Elements of "best practice". As a result of experience with this pilot project and discussion with interested parties we feel able to propose the following elements of best practice for a detailed technology audit of a department: discuss with Head of Department, inform staff and gain their cooperation; use a questionnaire (essential questions only); keep the Head of Department (or other department representative) informed; have an internal auditor (ideally from the industrial liaison office or equivalent) and an external auditor (with mixed academic and industrial background, relevant industrial experience and able to understand the subject area); confidentiality should be guaranteed; and feedback and clarification should be allowed for prior to the final report. We acknowledge that these elements of best practice are similar to those proposed by Potter (4). Acknowledgements This project has been supported by Oxfordshire County Council, the Leverhulme Trust and the Technology Unit of National Westminster Bank. References (1) Jasper, D P, 1979, Les Nouvelles, June 1979, 125-129 (2) Goldscheider, R, 1981, Les Nouvelles, June 1981, 95-98 (3) Sheen, M, 1992, private communication (4) Potter, G, 1992, private communication A View of Technology Audit Dr David R Kingham, Oxford Innovation Ltd Oxford Innovation first became involved in technology audit through a pilot project that we ran at Oxford Brookes University with Dr Anne Powell. This proved to be a timely and valuable exercise. A large number of opportunities were uncovered for Oxford Brookes University and valuable experience was gained for future audits. We were able to contribute to DTI thinking on technology audit and to their Guide to Best Practice for Technology Audits. Oxford Innovation then undertook seven technology audits under the DTI sponsored scheme and has been involved in a further three technology audits, two of which are still ongoing. In all these technology audits we have used a basically similar approach though we do take care to understand the individual nature of the institution and of the individual schools and departments within that institution and to tailor our method accordingly. The main objective that we see for technology audit is to uncover opportunities to generate more income from technology, equipment and expertise. A particularly important point is that we are not simply looking for commercial opportunities. Instead we are looking for a whole range of opportunities that can generate additional income for a university. This means that we are able to help members of staff to identify the opportunities which most appeal to them, while being alert to issues of strategic importance to the university. We feel that this broad approach is likely to uncover more commercial opportunities than an approach that sets out only to find commercial opportunities, because it is usually welcomed by academic staff. A detailed technology audit of a department is conducted by first talking to the Head of Department to understand the strategy and objectives and to make sure that they appreciate that technology audit can indeed be useful to their department. The Head of Department is asked for guidance on who it would be best to talk to in detail during the audit. The usual procedure is then to send out questionnaires to those selected for interview, or to those who are likely to be selected. In some cases interview check lists are used instead if the Head of Department has indicated a particular problem with "questionnaire fatigue". Prior to the interviews the external auditor will read the available background information including research assessment exercise submissions, department research reports and published papers of the individual member of staff. The idea is for the interviewer to know enough background to be able to establish rapport with the person being interviewed. This leads to a much more effective dialogue than interviewing from cold. After the interview, notes in the form of a draft report are returned to the person interviewed for their comments and corrections, if necessary. This also has the advantage that it allows the person involved to act on the opportunity immediately, if appropriate. The reports on individuals are drawn into a report on a department. General and strategic issues, as well as a summary of the most important specific opportunities, are highlighted in a final report to the university. The team of people we have used for technology audit have a mixed academic and industrial background, experience of technology transfer and are able to understand the significance of advanced research. In all the technology audits we have undertaken we have used a total of six people. This has given us sufficient breadth of coverage of different subject areas without the number of people getting unwieldy, or the expertise becoming diluted. Our view of best practice in technology audit is that: there should be support from Heads of Department and Senior Management; the Industrial Unit should participate; staff should be informed about the exercise and its objectives; a questionnaire (or interview check-list) should be used; key interviews should be conducted by two people, one internal, one external; confidentiality must be guaranteed; feedback and clarification should occur prior to the report being finalised; the report should concentrate on identifying specific opportunities and suggest a plan of action or choices of actions. We look forward to undertaking many more technology audits and opportunity reviews in the future. Commercial Opportunities for University Research The Role of Technology Audit Summary of the Conference and Workshop Dr David Ray, Oxford Innovation Louis Pasteur's quotation, that Fortune favours the prepared mind, has long characterised the strengths of British academic research. The popular perception is that we have been much less successful at taking advantage of the resulting knowledge base, than many of our international competitors. Increasingly, however, a wider constituency of those responsible for influencing the commercial application of our science and engineering has been seeking to redress this imbalance in the process of wealth creation. To this end 120 people attended a two day conference and workshop sponsored by DTI, and organised by Brunel University and Oxford Innovation Ltd. Participants included a broad spectrum of people from universities, public and private research institutions, industry, government and consultants working at the academic-industry interface. The objective of this meeting was to debate and disseminate the general lessons from the recent technology audits backed by the DTI. The first day of the conference was structured around the views of some of those universities that had been successful in attracting DTI support for their technology audit proposals and of the external consultants involved in carrying them out. On the second day, the programme moved on to explore the implications of the findings of technology audit. This was particularly pertinent at a time when the impact of the government's White Paper on Science and Technology is being manifested in the changes in the mission and structure of the research councils and start of the Technology Foresight programme. Indeed reference to the Foresight undertaking and its intent was a recurrent theme with speakers throughout the conference. Our universities encompass a great breadth of interests and direction, reflected in many forms of interaction with industry. It was agreed that the distinction between old universities (some of them relatively new) and new universities (representing what was the polytechnic sector, some with long and distinguished histories) was not very helpful. Nevertheless, these different backgrounds led to complementary views on technology audit and did not prevent consensus on some issues: for example concern that the research assessment by the HEFCs, with its emphasis on peer reviewed publications, was seen to reward basic research at the expense of applied research, and interaction with industry; or that there is a general lack of awareness among researchers of the value of intellectual property, compounded by misconceptions about patents. On the whole, the established universities used the process as a facilitating activity, to strengthen the bottom up approach to research, providing support to individual researchers, and encouraging new interdisciplinary initiatives based on existing strengths. Emphasis was on generating additional income from a range of sources, while recognising the benefits of broader acceptance of the relevance of industrial interactions to teaching and research, and the strengthening of the relationship between researchers and their industrial liaison unit. In many cases, ex-polytechnics have had effective industrial links locally, often with smaller companies. However, they face a problem in turning these links into regular income in the current economic climate. For them, technology audit has often been part of the process of reinforcing a more directly managed top down approach to research, and has been used by their staff to signal their views on a range of issues that reflect the changing environment in which they find themselves. An example of what can be achieved through licensing research to companies was demonstrated by the success of the Medical Research Council, based on the work of a small in-house technology transfer team, in achieving income generation from one in three patents filed. MRC's view was that tightening selection criteria for patenting would risk missing important ones, where market demand did not yet exist. This theme of finding the right compromise in IPR management came out strongly in presentations from those institutions with the longest track record in handling exploitable opportunities from academic research. Most institutions relied on one or two key patents to cover costs and fund internal auditing of opportunities. Market assessment presented problems, but these could sometimes be overcome by judicious use of confidentiality agreements to test industry's response at an early stage. Debate kept returning to what became known as the Thomson gap (after Hugh Thomson of Strathclyde University) in the transition of technology from university to industry. The former only goes as far as laboratory prototypes, while industry needs the confidence of commercial prototypes to justify the costs of production and marketing of a new product. Encouragement came from Venture Link Investors, who have worked with the Welsh Development Agency to establish a new investment product, aimed specifically at financing prototype production where IPR can be secured. The views of industry were represented by two presentations to the conference. In one, BT presented a clear strategy of matching externally funded university projects exclusively to internal projects, inviting academic researchers to contribute to the formulation of the latter, and to bid for the former, leading to support for multidisciplinary research over periods of up to five years. Smith System Engineering questioned whether universities should be seeking to patent research results at all, as that this created a barrier to exploitation without producing a great return to the universities. However, both agreed that the UK gets good value from the public funding of teaching and research, in the quality of trained scientists and engineers. Many useful suggestions came out in discussion, and some lively workshop sessions led to a significant consensus in views. Conclusions are that the audits had identified a substantial number of patentable and exploitable opportunities, and there are signs that technology audit is becoming an integral part of the science base. Collated results from a questionnaire completed by participants highlighted the following key points: • Opportunities review is a better term than technology audit. • Opportunities reviews must be tailored to the needs of each institution. • Institutions should learn to undertake the process for themselves. • There is a substantial, unsatisfied, need for resources for follow up to the audits/reviews. • DTI should stimulate market pull by encouraging companies to become customers of the university sector. . TECHNOLOGY AUDIT: METHODOLOGY AND CASE EXAMPLE A paper presented at the Technology Transfer and Implementation Conference. have used for technology audit have a mixed academic and industrial background, experience of technology transfer and are able to understand the significance