7. Conclusion
This study has focused on UK universities' experience in knowledge transfer and considered the relatively low efficiency and productivity of TTOs/KTOs in the UK and the very complex institutional arrangements in UI interactions. Our purpose was to produce a holistic approach to unfold complexities and offer grounds for organizational alignment. Consequently, the U–I alignment framework supports a strategic and inclusive process for business engagement in universities, considering the multitude of traditional ‘players’. The framework was revised and refined within an exploratory–instrumental case study.
Despite its small scale, the case study has revealed some important differences in visions between interviewees. On the one hand, those in decision units think first about HEIF, income generation and winning grants, pointing out that the enterprise strategy is, in fact, the HEIF strategy. On the other hand, individuals in boundary positions think first to knowledge users, innovation potential and absorptive capacity, considering that ‘business engagement is not about what we can do, but about what business want to do’ (EDU). Some interesting differences in boundary units can also be observed on a push-pull axis: the ‘push’ approach is specific to those whose role is to push expertise outside the university, acting as selling agents, or to those who do not fully understand their boundary role. The demand-led approach, with attention being paid to market needs and to simultaneously meeting knowledge producers and users expectations, is the one that favours strategic thinking and organizational alignment. Not least, to some extent, knowledge producers are ‘blamed’ for some difficulties in UI interactions, as “for those that have been academics all their life, it is very difficult to understand how businesses work” (CBU).
