knowledge transfer partnerships - open · pdf filethe knowledge transfer partnerships (ktp)...

Version 12 - March 2013 1

Version 12 – March 2013

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER

PARTNERSHIPS

GUIDEBOOK FOR KTP

ADVISERS AND OFFICES


Contents

1. CRITERIA 8

1.1 OVERARCHING CRITERIA 8

1.2 ENGAGING WITH INSTITUTIONS IN ADDITION TO HEI AND FE COLLEGES 9

1.3 KTP ENGAGING WITH THE FE SECTOR 10

1.4 POST-GRADUATE RESEARCHER KTP PROJECTS 11

1.5 KTN PARTNERSHIPS PARTICIPATION IN KTP 12

1.6 POLICY ON THE USE OF THE KTP MODEL 12

1.7 POLICY ON THE PARTICIPATION OF PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANISATIONS AS THE ‘BUSINESS PARTNER’ IN KTP PROJECTS 13

2. OPERATIONAL - THE APPLICATION AND APPROVALS PROCESS 14

2.1 KTP GUIDANCE NOTES FOR EXPRESSION OF INTEREST (EOI) SUBMISSION PROCESS 14

2.2 CHECK LIST FOR FULL PROPOSALS 24

2.3 REQUIREMENTS OF THE FULL PROPOSAL - THE PROCESS IN BRIEF 27

2.4 CLASSIC KTP PROPOSALS RECEIPT OF SIGNED COPIES 29

2.5 SHORTER KTP PROPOSALS RECEIPT OF SIGNED COPIES 29

2.6 REPORTS ON PREVIOUS KTP ACTIVITY 29

2.7 GUIDE TO ADVISER ACTION FOLLOWING THE PAG MEETING 30

2.8 ACCEPTING THE TERMS & CONDITIONS OF THE GRANT OFFER LETTER 31

2.9 EXPLOITATION OF THE IP AND OUTCOMES FROM A PARTNERSHIP 31

2.10 CHANGES TO PARTNERSHIP ACADEMIC SUPERVISOR 33

2.11 PARTNERSHIP MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 34


2.12 ASSOCIATE RECRUITMENT CLASSIC KTP 35

2.13 ASSOCIATE RECRUITMENT SHORTER KTP 35

2.14 INFORMATION TO HELP INITIATE A CLASSIC KTP 36

2.15 ACTION REQUIRED TO INITIATE A SHORTER KTP 37

2.16 CLASSIC KTP ON-LINE CLAIMS PROCESS 38

2.17 SHORTER KTP ON-LINE CLAIMS PROCESS 38

2.18 GUIDE TO CLASSIC KTP REVISIONS AND EARLY COMPLETION OF PARTNERSHIPS 38

2.19 GUIDE TO SHORTER KTP REVISIONS AND EARLY COMPLETION OF PARTNERSHIPS 42

2.20 THE CLASSIC KTP FINAL REPORT PROCESS 43

2.21 THE CLASSIC KTP FINAL REPORT GRADING PROCESS 43

3. ASSOCIATE SUPPORT 45

3.1 GUIDE TO ADVISER MEETINGS WITH CLASSIC KTP ASSOCIATES & PROJECT TEAMS 45

3.2 GUIDE TO ADVISER MEETINGS WITH SHORTER KTP ASSOCIATES & PROJECT TEAMS 46

3.3 APPOINTMENT OF ASSOCIATES - JOB SHARE 46

3.4 APPOINTMENT OF CLASSIC KTP ASSOCIATES 47

3.5 APPOINTMENT OF SHORTER KTP ASSOCIATES 47

3.6 APPOINTMENT OF KTP ASSOCIATES – ENGLISH PROFICIENCY 48

3.7 ASSOCIATE SALARY LEVELS AND ‘TOP-UP’ BY COMPANY PARTNERS 48

3.8 AGE DISCRIMINATION ACT 49

3.9 ASSOCIATE TIME MANAGEMENT 49


3.10 OBTAINING A HIGHER QUALIFICATION 49

3.11 PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP FEES FOR KTP CLASSIC KTP ASSOCIATES 50

4. PROJECT TEAM SUPPORT 50

4.1. SELECTION OF ACADEMIC STAFF TO SUPPORT PARTNERSHIPS 50

4.2 ATTENDANCE AT A CLASSIC KTP SUPERVISOR WORKSHOP 51

4.3 KTP SUPERVISOR WORKSHOP – SHORTER KTP 51

4.4 THE ROLE OF THE FACILITATOR 51

5. ASSESSMENT OF AN ORGANISATION TO BE CONSIDERED SUITABLE AS A COMPANY PARTNER 52

5.1 KTP GUIDANCE NOTES ON THE ASSESSMENT OF THE FINANCIAL VIABILITY OF A COMPANY OR RTO AS THE POTENTIAL COMPANY PARTNER 52

5.2 FURTHER ASSESSMENT OF AN ORGANISATION TO BE CONSIDERED AS A SUITABLE COMPANY PARTNER 64

5.3 DEFINITION OF AN SME 65

6. BUDGET GUIDANCE 66

6.1 KTP PROJECT BUDGET GUIDELINES FULL ECONOMIC COSTING (fEC) 66

6.2 KTP STANDARD (NON fEC) BUDGETS, ELIGIBLE COSTS AND GRANT AMOUNTS APPLICABLE FROM 1 APRIL 2013 75

6.3 APPLICATION OF NON fEC GRANT RATES FOR CLASSIC KTP - FAQs 77

6.4 APPLICATION OF CLASSIC KTP GRANT RATES 78

6.5 APPLICATION OF SHORTER KTP GRANT RATES 78

6.6 APPLICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ALL CLASSIC KTP BUDGETS 79

6.7 VAT 81

6.8 R&D TAX CREDITS 81


6.9 KTP – STATE AID 82

7. COMMUNICATION 82

7.1 COMMUNICATION WITH THE HELPLINE 82

7.2 NEW USER ACCESS TO THE PORTAL 82

7.3 CONTACT DETAILS SHOWN ON THE WEBSITE HOME PAGE 85

7.4 NEW KB USER ACCESS TO SHORTER KTP 85

7.5 KTP STRATEGY AND FUNDING ORGANISATIONS CRITERIA 86

7.6 _connect 86


The Technology Strategy Board is a business-led government body which works to create economic growth by ensuring that the UK is a global leader in innovation. Sponsored by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), the Technology Strategy Board brings together business, research and the public sector, supporting and accelerating the development of innovative products and services to meet market needs, tackle major societal challenges and help build the future economy. For more information please visit www.innovateuk.org.

http://www.innovateuk.org/


PREFACE

The Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTP) Guidebook is designed for use by the KTP stakeholder community: Funding Organisations, KTP Offices, and Advisers. The purpose of the Guidebook is to help support potential and existing Partnerships and to ensure that KTP is being delivered consistently across the whole of the UK. Although much of this information is already in circulation in some form or another, this Guidebook attempts to consolidate and centralise this into one point of reference. It should be particularly useful to those new to KTP. The Guidebook should be read in conjunction with other available KTP information, such as the Management Handbook for Supervisors, the Associate Handbook and the contents of the Approved Grant Application and Proposal Form, together with its Guidance Notes. These documents are available from the Document Repository on the Portal. The Guidebook will be updated periodically with information updates communicated through use of the KTP Portal. Please contact Martin Webb with any suggestions for content on 01793 442 980 or email: [email protected]. Further distribution of this KTP Guidebook is not permitted without permission from the Technology Strategy Board.


1. CRITERIA

1.1 OVERARCHING CRITERIA

Overarching Criteria for KTP Funding.

Each proposal for a Knowledge Transfer Partnership will be assessed against all of the following criteria, no matter which of the funding organisations might support that Project:

General:

All projects must be fully in accord with the agreed aims and objectives for Knowledge Transfer Partnerships.

There must be a clear need for input from the UK knowledge base to the project and a clearly demonstrated need for knowledge transfer.

The potential outcomes/benefits for all three partners will not, or will be most unlikely to, occur to the same extent without a Knowledge Transfer Partnerships project (i.e. there is clear additionality).

The project must not replace what could be achieved by using independent consultants (ie it must require the ongoing involvement of an academic partner in project delivery and needs the active embedding of outcomes by an Associate), and must not replace solutions that are available „off the shelf‟ (eg commercial software packages).

The project must be stimulating and challenging for all three partners.

The stated potential benefits for all three partners will be likely to accrue.

Business:

The business partner must be capable of making significant use of the knowledge, skills and/or capability to be transferred.

The proposed project must be innovative and of clear strategic relevance to the business.

The proposed project must be underpinned by a clear business case, including commercial, societal, cultural and environmental outputs and outcomes as appropriate

The business partner must be regarded as being financially viable following consideration of their latest Report and Accounts, or other financial information where appropriate.

There must be evidence of commitment to the project by the business and this shall be reflected in the proposed membership of the Local Management Committee.

The business partner must indicate how the proposed project is likely to result in the spread of best practice (e.g. within that firm or to suppliers or to customers).

Associate:

The project must provide the Associate(s) with a challenging learning experience appropriate to his/her background and aspirations.

There must be a clear training and development plan for the Associate(s) which is appropriate to the requirements of the KTP project.

There must be an appropriate level of academic and company support available to the Associate(s) throughout the project.

Knowledge Base:

There must be clear benefits to the knowledge base partner, including target outcomes.

The proposed involvement of the knowledge base partner must provide the appropriate expertise, having regard to the knowledge, skills and expertise to be transferred during the course of the project.

There must be evidence of commitment to the project by the knowledge base partner and this shall be reflected in the proposed membership of the Local Management Committee.


1.2 ENGAGING WITH INSTITUTIONS IN ADDITION TO HEI AND

FE COLLEGES Eligible Organisations 1. Organisations within the following categories, in addition to HEIs and FE

Colleges, may be eligible to participate in KTP as a Research and Technology Partner:

Government-funded Research Institutes.

Government-funded Research Establishments.

Public Sector Research Institutes.

Non-Departmental Research Contractors.

Independent Research and Technology Organisations. 2. To be eligible to participate, such organisations will normally satisfy the

following criteria:

Have a strong record of undertaking relevant research.

Have strategic objectives to support a broad range of clients, particularly from industry.

3. Before significant effort is expended by the Partnership on developing a

proposal for a Partnership other than an HEI/FE College as the potential research and technology partner, one or more Funding Organisations must have explicitly stated its willingness to allow its funds to be used for grant support to that organisation. An Expression of Interest (EOI) should be used for this purpose. Where an organisation is a member of the Association of Independent Research and Technology Organisations (AIRTO) then an EOI to confirm eligibility is not required.

4. Before any particular proposal for a KTP Partnership involving an

organisation other than an HEI/FE College as the potential research and technology partner can be approved for grant funding, the Partnership Approvals Group (PAG) and the Technology Strategy Board (TSB) will need to be satisfied that the proposed research and technology partner:

Must satisfy the general overarching KTP Programme criteria.

Have sufficient resources to manage the Partnership, including the necessary staff commitment.

Is prepared to encourage, where appropriate, the Associate(s) to undertake a higher degree at an identified HEI and is able to cooperate with staff from the HEI in supervising an Associate aiming to achieve a higher degree award.

Normally has plans and associated target deliverables for feedback into the research and training in associated HEIs.

Is prepared to reach suitable agreements with the industrial partner and associated HEIs on intellectual property rights in line with KTP policy.

Has indicated how the Partnership will benefit the organisation‟s own strategic development, including, where appropriate, its ability to


influence the performance of its own industrial community.

5. All applications and proposals for Partnerships involving organisations other than HEIs/FE Colleges as the proposed Research and Technology Partner should be submitted using an appropriate application and proposal form.

6. The approval process for such organisation will follow the standard KTP

procedures. 7. The budget and levels of grant support for a Partnership involving an

institution which is not an HEI/FE College will be no different, including the contribution to indirect costs.

8. When an associated HEI provides facilities for the registration of a KTP

Associate for a higher qualification and there is a cost associated with that registration and related supervision, the non-HEI/FE College Research and Technology Partner will assist with this cost, for which there will be no additional grant support.

1.3 KTP ENGAGING WITH THE FE SECTOR In delivering KTP into the FE sector it is recognised that a „one size fits all‟ approach is not the most effective way of achieving targets as much of the KTP stakeholder community has existing links and relationships with appropriate FE Colleges. The following models are already in use across the KTP community to engage FE Colleges as potential Knowledge Base Partners.

The FE College uses its own resources to develop and bring forward a proposal for the first time. It uses the standard mentoring support of £1,000 of grant support to receive help and advice from a suitable HEI. Follow on proposals are brought forward as normal without mentoring.

An existing HEI brings forward a proposal which includes engagement with suitable staff at an FE College to contribute to the expertise required by the project team. Payment for this expertise is made under local arrangements and is met from the existing budget. This helps key players in the FE College understand what KTP is about and encourages them to undertake a future KTP Partnership in their own right.

The FE College brings forward a proposal with administrative support being provided by an HEI. This enables the administrative burden to be carried by the HEI but allows the FE College teaching staff to facilitate the knowledge/skills transfer. Local arrangements must be made between the FE College and the HEI to pay for this support.

An existing FE College brings forward a proposal that includes engagement with suitable staff at an HEI to provide access to key expertise required by the project team, not available from within the FE College. Payment for this expertise is made under local arrangements and is met from the existing budget.

Colleges collaborate together regionally to set up their own KTP Offices to provide administrative support to proposals. These are funded under local regional arrangements.


1.4 POST-GRADUATE RESEARCHER KTP PROJECTS Current planning provides an opportunity to engage in the concept of one-year KTP Partnerships involving postgraduate researchers. The objective is to enable them to spend a year in a business specifically to implant their research topic into the company whilst gaining business experience. Proposals will be considered in the following circumstances: 1. The Knowledge Transfer Partnerships criteria apply, except where modified or

extended below. 2. The potential Company Partner agrees to such a KTP project and has the

capability and capacity to exploit the outcomes. 3. The potential Associate has completed their period of research and has written

up and passed their viva, or who has recently been awarded their higher degree.

4. That the Associate undertakes the Associate training package currently being

offered by the Technology Strategy Board at no cost to the project budget. This may mean that the project length is longer than 12 months but not extending beyond 24 months.

5. The commercial/business experience to be gained by the Associate is clear in

such proposals. 6. That the name of the proposed KTP Associate be included in Section 5 of the

proposal form. The Partnership should also provide confirmation that they are in agreement to appoint the named Associate.

The intention of the Post Doc KTP is, essentially, based on the fact that for both a CASE studentship and a collaborative doctoral research project, there is already an established partnership, involving the named company, academic and PhD student. Once the student has completed their research and written up, they can be nominated as the potential Associate for a KTP project which will transfer the outcomes of their research into the sponsoring company, with the academic still participating as the KB supervisor. It is this established 3-way partnership which is the basis of the rationale for this, also that the Associate has only recently achieved their doctoral qualification. The one other instance in which an Associate can be named is if a business needs such specific, high level knowledge that draws on the PhD research undertaken by a named, recently qualified PhD graduate. However, as we have found, it might well be the case that this individual has already moved on from their research, or is already employed by the University, and should actually be the Academic Supervisor for the KTP, not the Associate. KTP cannot be used just to replace an RA post which is coming to an end.


1.5 KTN PARTNERSHIPS PARTICIPATION IN KTP Remains under review

1.6 POLICY ON THE USE OF THE KTP MODEL

Policy on the Use of the KTP Model, Material or Documentation by Organisations other than the Technology Strategy Board and its Funding Partners.

Over recent years, the Knowledge Transfer Partnerships model for collaboration between businesses and academia has been adapted and implemented very successfully within a number of African countries. This has been led and funded by the British Council, with the full knowledge, approval and support of the Technology Strategy Board (http://www.britishcouncil.org/africa-aktp.htm).

In addition, over its long history, the KTP programme has established an international reputation as one of the most effective models for facilitating collaboration between business and academia, and for supporting the achievement of the desired outcomes for all concerned. This has been confirmed by the British Council itself and is witnessed by the level of direct interest in the model by a broad range of countries; including China, India, Australia, Sweden, Malaysia, Czech Republic, Poland, Hong Kong and Malta.

Over recent months, the Technology Strategy Board has become aware of a number of initiatives, often led by or involving UK Universities, which are seeking to replicate or adapt the KTP model, generally for use in other countries or, occasionally, for use within the UK itself.

Whist the Technology Strategy Board, and its funding partners in KTP, would certainly not wish to inhibit UK organisations from creating commercial opportunities, it is concerned to ensure that the reputation of the widely respected KTP „brand‟ is appropriately protected, and to ensure that it is aware of and has approved in advance any initiatives which might seek to draw upon the KTP model, any material or documentation developed, owned and used by the programme.

To this end, anyone considering such an initiative must ensure that they first consult with the Technology Strategy Board, providing as much information as possible including:

A detailed description of what is proposed, the purpose of the initiative and the relationship to the KTP programme

Details of any aspects of a proposed model which are based on the KTP programme

Any requests to use or adapt material belonging to the KTP programme, as any such material will have to be considered and approved by the Technology Strategy Board prior to use

What steps will be taken to ensure that the image and reputation of the KTP programme are protected.

How any links to the KTP programme will be recognised and acknowledged

http://www.britishcouncil.org/africa-aktp.htm


Whilst the Technology Strategy Board will not seek to inhibit the development of such opportunities for others to benefit from the legacy of experience within the KTP programme, it cannot guarantee that all requests will be approved and each will be considered on its merits.

1.7 POLICY ON THE PARTICIPATION OF PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANISATIONS AS THE ‘BUSINESS PARTNER’ IN KTP PROJECTS Over recent years, the number of public sector organisations participating in KTP as the „business‟ organisation has grown considerably. The majority of these projects involve NHS Trusts and Local Councils but may also involve the Fire Services, Police Authorities and other similar organisations.

A number of approaches have also been received recently for KTP projects involving NDPBs or, indeed, national government departments as the „business‟ organisation.

As an outcome of the recent government spending review, consideration has to be given as to where the balance should be set between supporting innovation in the public and private sectors, large organisations and SMEs.

The Technology Strategy Board‟s policy, which was applied from August 2011, is that Public sector organisations, such as NHS Trusts, Local Authorities etc are still welcome to apply to the KTP programme for grant funding. However, successful applications, as well as meeting the prevailing criteria and quality standard in terms of impact, innovation and challenge, will be required to demonstrate clearly within their proposal how the new knowledge embedded within their organisation will be disseminated effectively to other similar organisations across the UK, and tasks must be included within the project work plan to achieve this. They will also be required to demonstrate that their proposed project is sufficiently differentiated from any other previous or current KTP project involving a similar public sector organisation.

Other public sector organisations, such as NDPBs and national government departments may also apply, and their proposals will be assessed against the prevailing criteria and quality standard in terms of impact, innovation and challenge, as well as being required to demonstrate clear differentiation from previous projects and a dissemination plan, as described above. However, they will not be eligible to receive any grant funding from the Technology Strategy Board, although the normal Adviser support and appropriate Associate training will be provided at no cost to the partnership. The full cost of the KTP project will have to be met by the applicant organisation, as well as any additional costs associated with the implementation of the project outcomes. It should be made clear to the applicants at an early stage (by the Advisers) that such projects will still need to be submitted and approved through the normal KTP application process, and the provision of Adviser support and Associate training will be at the discretion of the Technology Strategy Board.


2. OPERATIONAL - THE APPLICATION AND APPROVALS PROCESS

2.1 KTP GUIDANCE NOTES FOR EXPRESSION OF

INTEREST (EOI) SUBMISSION PROCESS

1. General Introduction

The objectives of Knowledge Transfer Partnerships are to:

Facilitate the transfer of knowledge and the spread of technical and business skills;

Provide business -based training for graduates1 in order to enhance their commercial and specialist skills;

Stimulate and enhance business relevant research and teaching undertaken by the knowledge base.

Purpose of the form

The purpose of the EOI is to enable the Partnership to provide information sufficient to describe what is to be carried out and avoid unnecessary effort in working up the full grant application and proposal form. The information provided is considered the minimum required to enable the KTP Adviser to be able to assess and decide quickly if KTP is the right approach to be taken and where necessary offer alternative solutions to meet the needs of the business. The KTP Adviser will also make an initial assessment of a business‟s financial viability, identify and map potential projects to suitable Funding Organisations and may use the EOI to seek the views and receive feedback from other Advisers.

Provided the Adviser is in agreement the full grant application and proposal form may be developed in parallel with the EOI.

Funding Organisations will use the EOI to gauge the project numbers in the pipeline, allocate funding against its specific criteria and maximise available funding, where possible, by sharing of support with another Funding Organisation. The EOI also provides Funding Organisations with the opportunity to comment on specific areas it considers should be included in the full proposal or other areas for the Partnership to consider, adding value at the early development stage. The EOI should lead naturally to the development of the full proposal where the Partnership sets out why and how the project will be delivered.

Process

1 For the purposes of being a KTP Associate, a ‘graduate’ may be a person recently qualified with a first or higher degree, a

Scottish/National Vocational Qualification (S/NVQ) Level 4 or a Higher National Certificate, a Higher National Diploma

(HNC/HND) or a Foundation Degree. .


You will find it helpful to contact your KTP Adviser and discuss the proposed project before attempting to complete your EOI. The EOI does not replace the need for early discussions between a potential Partnership and project must meet the overarching criteria for all KTPs.

The Adviser is required to make a visit to the business organisation before the EOI may be formally submitted for consideration via the KTP portal, as this will enable key requirements and issues to be identified at the earliest opportunity. A complete list of KTP Advisers can be found at www.ktponline.org.uk.

A Knowledge Transfer Partnership EOI is to be submitted for all new potential Knowledge Transfer Partnerships.

Once completed the EOI should be sent by email to your KTP Adviser for consideration. The KTP Adviser may recommend that a further review is necessary to establish if the proposed project meets the overarching criteria for every KTP and that a suitable funding organisation can be identified.

http://www.ktponline.org.uk/sponsorship-criteria

Only when the Adviser is satisfied, will the EOI, together with any other supporting information, be formally submitted to the Technology Strategy Board using the online Portal submission and assessment process.

The KTP Adviser also has the opportunity to ask other KTP Advisers to review an EOI if the ability of the company partner to fully exploit the outcomes of the project, and afford its share of the projects costs, are unclear.

The KTP Adviser will provide the Partnership with their feedback on the EOI and will advise as to whether the Partnership should submit a full grant application and proposal form.

Please note that submission of an EOI, or a full grant application and proposal, does not guarantee the awarding of a KTP grant to Partnerships. EOIs once supported have a „6 month shelf life‟ after this time the EOI will be withdrawn by the Adviser. Should the Partnership wish to do so they may raise an updated EOI which must again go through the approvals process. No assumption should be made that the EOI will receive support and Advisers must be satisfied that despite the delay in developing a full proposal the objectives are still strategic to the company..

Completing and Submitting your EOI

It is important that all the questions are completed on behalf of both Partners. They should result from jointly developed and agreed plans that meet realistic and ambitious objectives for both Partners and provide a demanding development and training experience for the KTP Associate(s).

The EOI must be completed in at least 10-point size, preferably using Arial. Please do not leave any blank spaces. If a question does not apply to you, put „N/A‟.

Having completed the EOI a copy of the original should be e-mailed to the KTP Adviser who advised on its preparation. This copy will be reviewed by potential Funding Organisations.

An EOI may be submitted at any time.

Support for an EOI remains open for a period of six months from when the KTP Adviser provides feedback using the Portal. If a full proposal is not submitted to a closing date within this time then the EOI will lapse and if necessary a new up to date EOI will have to be raised.

http://www.ktponline.org.uk/



Glossary of terms

Partnership The relationship between the business/organisation and UK

knowledge base organisation.

Project An individual project between the business and knowledge base organisation using an Associate. A partnership can include more than one project and therefore, more than one Associate.

Data Protection We will process the information provided in proposals and applications in accordance with the principles set out in the Data Protection Act. The data controller is the Technology Strategy Board (TSB). The information provided, including any supplementary information that may be provided at a later date, will be used for the following purposes:

Processing and assessing the proposal and application for grant by the Technology Strategy Board and the public sector organisations that are funding Knowledge Transfer Partnerships;

Statistical and performance reporting by the Technology Strategy Board and the public sector organisations that are funding Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (this will not result in the publication of any information that would enable any organisation, company, institution or individual to be identified);

Publishing contact information relating to knowledge base organisations, businesses and individuals participating in Knowledge Transfer Partnerships, descriptions of the aims of the Knowledge Transfer Partnership, the type and size of business involved and the amount of grant offered; and

Providing the contact information referred to above to public sector supported business support organisations, for example Business Link Operators or equivalent, who may contact you in order to offer other appropriate services.

Apart from these purposes, information provided in Knowledge Transfer Partnership proposals and grant applications will not be revealed to any other organisation for any purpose other than detecting or preventing fraud.

You have the right to request a copy of the information held about you at any time. If you wish to do this you should write to: The Data Protection Act Officer Technology Strategy Board North Star House North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1UE


EOI Process Flow Diagram (see notes below)

Do you support

this EOI?

YES

Are FO comments

required ?

NO

Submit on-line and

Select FOs

Does the TSB

agree with choice of

FO(s)?

Adviser adds final

feedback and

notifies

Partnership

EOI Not supported

Notify Knowledge

Base

NO

Do you require

additional input?

From 2nd

Adviser?

YES

Feedback provided

including if and when

to submit full proposal

From 3rd

Adviser?

From Regional

Group?

Do you require

more than one

FO?

YES

TSB sends copy

to FO

NO

Does the FO require

additional information?

Yes

Adviser supplies

information from

Partners

YES

NO

NO

YES

YES

FO takes a

decision and

provides

feedback

Does the FO require

copy of full proposal

YES

NO

Note: EOIs have a 6 months shelf life.


2. EOI Process Flow Diagram Explanatory Notes 2.1 Partnerships send the EOI by email to their nominated KTP Adviser for consideration. The Adviser records the EOI base information on the Portal, with the EOI being added as an MS Word attachment. Advisers may take the opportunity to send it to a colleague‟ or group of colleagues for comment before deciding whether it should be supported. 2.2 EOIs are reviewed by the Technology Strategy Board who consider the choice of Funding Organisations made by the Adviser. They decide if that choice is appropriate. If there is a difference of opinion over the Funding Organisations selected then this is communicated to the Adviser by the Technology Strategy Board

until the issue is resolved. 2.3 Where it is required, the appropriate EOI is sent to the Funding Organisations for comment/consideration. 2.4 Funding Organisations have the opportunity to ask for additional information before making a decision on whether or not to support an EOI. Funding Organisations‟ comments and/or decisions are automatically communicated to the relevant Adviser. Provided in the Advisers judgement, there is at least one potential Funding Organisation identified as being able to fund the whole project, the Partnership may commence the development of a full Proposal. EOIs have a shelf life of 6 months. If a full proposal has not been submitted within 6 months then a new updated EOI is required.


3. Responsibilities of KTP Offices and Partnerships

3.1 The KTP Centre/Office should set its own criteria for determining which EOIs should be developed, and when they should be submitted to the nominated KTP Adviser for consideration. It is suggested that this criteria include strategic value to regional economic development and to the mission of the university/college, and the challenge posed to participants and the level of impact, innovation and challenge represented by the proposed project. Partnerships should help companies and other organisations address important technological, commercial and social problems and opportunities so that they (and possibly related companies) make significant improvements in their competitiveness. It is equally important that the participating Academics are extended and, through KTP, able to keep up to date with the latest business requirements as well as becoming skilled in the industrial applications of new ideas. Also, it is important that the work content is intellectually challenging for Associates and provides opportunities for their professional development. It is imperative that real knowledge transfer occurs, such that knowledge, technology or skills gaps within the company are filled. 3.2 Partnerships must enter into early discussions with the nominated KTP Adviser to agree the next steps needed to develop the EOI and what solution meets the needs of a business. These early discussions must be used to help support the work of KTP Offices and Advisers and are only part of the toolkit used by all parties to establish what support can be provided to meet the needs of a business/ organisation. It is not intended to replace all the preparatory work such as best practice workshops, visits and discussion that already take place, but is designed to focus attention on key information requirements. 3.3 EOIs may be submitted at any time provided it is with the agreement of the KTP Adviser. However, Partnerships must be made aware that EOIs may have to be sent to others for consideration before the KTP Adviser is able to give the „go ahead‟ for the development of a full Proposal. Reasons may include:

The Adviser requires expert advice from another KTP Adviser/Regional Group colleague, for example, regarding financial issues etc.

There may appear to be duplication with another or previous KTP project (e.g. In the public Sector)

Only with the full agreement of the KTP Adviser may an EOI and full grant application and proposal form be developed in parallel. 3.4 The KTP Office staff must agree with their nominated KTP Adviser a realistic timetable for the whole of the KTP Proposal submission process, to ensure that sufficient headroom is maintained to plan, prepare, develop and submit an EOI and any subsequent full Proposal. 3.5 Part of the EOI process requires that the Partnership identify all possible Funding Organisations whose criteria matches the objectives of the proposed Partnership and which would support the type of business/organisation identified as a Company Partner. KTP Offices must make themselves familiar with the latest criteria set by all the Funding Organisations, which may be amended from time to time but which can only be found at:




3.6 KTP Office staff must make Partnerships aware that Funding Organisations may raise supplementary questions that need to be addressed as this can sometimes be a key opportunity for the Funding Organisation to add further value to what is being proposed, by clarifying issues and adding tasks in the proposed work plan. 3.7 Partnerships must take account of comments raised by Funding Organisations and are required to address any issues during the development of any full Proposal wherever possible. Where a Funding Organisation requests sight of the full grant application and proposal form, issues may be raised that have to be considered by PAG. These will have to be addressed by the Partnership either in the form of an amendment or be addressed following the release of the grant offer letter. 3.8 It is particularly important for Partnerships and KTP Office staff to realise that, provided they follow closely the advice provided, the chances of the full Proposal being rejected during the submission process by either the KTP Adviser or the KTP Technology Strategy Board staff, for procedural reasons, will be substantially reduced.

4. Responsibilities of KTP Advisers

4.1 The KTP Advisers have the responsibility of managing the pipeline process and providing feedback to Partnerships. They are responsible for considering EOIs received from their nominated institutions. They have responsibility for deciding if it is appropriate that the EOI should be revisited and/or progressed. The information about previous KTP EOI activity is available to Advisers in the Portal History. Advisers are also required to establish what other KTP activity within the company is being planned or may have been undertaken in the past. 4.2 On receipt of an EOI the KTP Adviser must assess its suitability and decide whether to support its progress through the Portal system or to reject it. The KTP Adviser will decide when it is most appropriate to visit the Company Partner, but the visit must take place prior to making their endorsement of support or rejection of the EOI. All EOI Proposals which are rejected must also be logged on to the Portal system as this enables other Advisers and Funding Organisations to identify whether it has been rejected previously and, if so, the reasons for it. 4.3 The KTP Adviser must also consider which Funding Organisation‟s criteria match the EOI. The Adviser must at the very minimum be able to identify at least one Funding Organisation as being able to provide 100% support the project before agreeing that the Partnership begins to develop the full grant application and proposal form. At this stage it may not be possible for the Adviser to make a decision regarding support for the EOI because:

The Adviser needs to seek advice from expert colleagues on technical or financial issues etc.

It is unclear if there is Funding Organisations support for the EOI.


4.4 The KTP Advisers are responsible for ensuring that where Funding Organisations have provided feedback, this feedback is reflected in the development of any full Proposal or taken in to account when responding to issues raised by PAG. 4.5 The KTP Adviser is not permitted to contact the Funding Organisation representative directly without prior agreement from the Technology Strategy Board. 4.6 Once the full proposal is submitted the Adviser must confirm in their Adviser Recommendation that they support the company‟s ability to fund the Partnership and its implementation, giving clear, factual reasons supported by data where necessary. The Adviser must also explain why a particular Funding Organisation has been selected, with direct reference to its published criteria. They must also comment on the project duration and why they support it. 4.7 Advisers are responsible for withdrawing EOIs that have been supported but have reached the 6 month cut off point.

5. Responsibilities of the KTP Technology Strategy Board 5.1 The KTP Technology Strategy Board will not acknowledge receipt of EOIs as the online Portal process provides this information to the Adviser automatically. The KTP Technology Strategy Board will continue to review the choices of possible Funding Organisations selected by the KTP Adviser and confirm whether or not these are correct. In the event of a disagreement over the choice of Funding Organisations, staff at the Technology Strategy Board will seek advice from the KTP Programme Manager or individual Funding Organisations as appropriate. The KTP Adviser concerned will be contacted in order to reach an agreed resolution. The online Portal process is used to request that the Adviser revisits this question. 5.2 Martin Webb is available to undertake preliminary pre-EOI discussions with KTP Advisers and Offices, especially where project ideas „push the criteria envelop‟ or „break new ground‟. 5.3 The Technology Strategy Board has responsibility for communicating with Funding Organisations and will chase them for a response to EOIs, if necessary. The current practice is not to chase for a response to an EOI for the first two weeks after submission to the Technology Strategy Board. 5.4 The Technology Strategy Board will send copies of the full proposal to a Funding Organisation on request. These proposals will be posted to the Funding Organisation User area of the portal and alerts will be sent to out to request it be reviewed. 5.5 The Technology Strategy Board will, on receipt of a full Proposal, check that it has been through the EOI process, that it has received support from at least one Funding Organisation. 5.6 The Regional Group and PAG members will be provided with a „Summary‟ of each EOI to accompany each full Proposal submission. The PAG Summary is available in pdf format from the Portal. The KTP Advisers are notified by automated email when the PAG Papers have been posted to the Portal.


6. Responsibility of Funding Organisations

6.1 Individual Funding Organisations will maintain up-to-date criteria for the support of KTP Partnerships and will advise the Technology Strategy Board of any changes as they occur. The most up-to-date criteria are made available on the public area of the website only at: http://www.ktponline.org.uk/sponsorship-criteria 6.2 Funding Organisations should post any requests for further information on the EOI and record final decisions by making use of the Portal only. This information, once posted, is immediately available to the KTP Advisers who then provide feedback to the Partnership. Funding Organisations are encouraged to respond within two weeks of receiving an EOI for consideration. 6.3 On receipt of the EOI the Funding Organisation is encouraged to make a decision based only on the information contained within the form. It can however, in exceptional circumstances request to receive a copy of the full proposal. Such a request is made within the online Portal process and if selected, automatically alerts the Technology Strategy Board to the requirement. Under these circumstances the Technology Strategy Board has requested that the Funding Organisation review the full proposal and respond online before the scheduled PAG meeting date. 6.4 Full grant application and proposal forms normally arrive in the Technology Strategy Board just before the set deadline (PAG Closing Date) and this means that the time available for Funding Organisations to review them may be limited. It is likely that Funding Organisation will have approximately one week to review and provide a response; otherwise PAG will not be able to review the responses/feedback on the day of the meeting. Reaching a quick decision before the meeting will help to minimise the requirement to undertake unnecessary post PAG activity. 6.5 Funding Organisations are requests to provide feedback using the on-line Portal process only. Little change has been made from the previous outline proposal process. 6.6 Funding Organisations are requested to notify the KTP Technology Strategy Board of staff changes where they have responsibility for providing feedback and comment on EOIs. Support and guidance on making the best use of the Portal is available from the KTP Portal Manager at any time.

7. Selecting a Funding Organisation

7.1 The Adviser has responsibility to select all possible and appropriate Funding Organisations at the EOI stage as this gives the minor Funding Organisations the opportunity to consider the EOI and provide feedback to the Partnership, hopefully at the same time adding value and making suggestions for improvement/additions whilst a full Proposal is being developed. This also provides the opportunity to meet the requirements of the TSB by maximising the expenditure from all Funding



Organisations‟ budgets throughout the year and also provides a much better understanding of what is in the pipeline. The following table of information should be taken into account when considering whether a Funding Organisation should be sent the EOI.

Serial Funding Organisations

Comments

1 Technology Strategy Board (TSB)

EOIs do not have to be sent to the TSB for consideration unless support is in doubt. The KTP Adviser may make a decision on TSBs behalf.

2 Devolved Administrations

EOIs always have to be sent to InvestNI for comment/consideration. EOIs do not always have to be sent to SFC unless it is unclear if the EOI Proposal meets their criteria. Where the EOI clearly meets criteria then PAG and the TSB representative present at the meeting will continue to make decisions on their behalf. EOIs considered suitable for WG funding must always be sent to them for consideration.

3 AHRC TSB does not have delegated authority to make decisions on AHRC‟s behalf. Therefore, all EOIs meeting its criteria must be sent to AHRC for consideration.

4 BBSRC/MRC The Funding Organisation must be sent all EOIs for review. Care must be taken to show linkages back to previously funded support.

5 Defra The Funding Organisation must be sent all EOIs that appear to meet its criteria. The PAG does not make decisions on its behalf. The Funding Organisation is keen to see environmental sustainability issues being addressed in the EOI

6 DoH PAG does have delegated authority to make decisions on behalf of DoH.

7 STFC and NERC The Funding Organisation must be sent all EOIs that appear to meet its criteria. The PAG does not make decisions on its behalf.

8 EPSRC Care must be taken to show linkages back to previous EPSRC Research support.

9 ESRC The Funding Organisation must be sent all EOIs that appear to meet its criteria. PAG does not make decisions on its behalf. The Funding Organisation is keen to see activity concentrated in its 3 strategic priority areas, in the private sector,


2.2 CHECK LIST FOR FULL PROPOSALS

Please follow the „Guidance Notes for Prospective Partners Completing a Grant Application and Proposal Form for Knowledge Transfer Partnerships‟ (latest version available on the KTP Portal – Document Repository) when completing a full Proposal. The sections below provide checklists that should be referred to before submitting a full Proposal.

A For Partnerships/KTP Offices

In order to avoid rejection of the full Grant Application and Proposal Form during the submission phase, and to ensure it will be considered at the next PAG meeting, please make sure you can answer „Yes‟ to all the following activity.

Serial Activity

1. Has the full Proposal been preceded by a corresponding EOl?

2. Has the EOI got support?

3. In the case of a resubmission, does the full Proposal content address all the issues raised previously by the Regional Group and/or the PAG?

4. Has the final iteration of the full Proposal form been cleared for submission by the nominated KTP Adviser?

5. Does the Partnership understand that it is the first version of the Proposal form submitted electronically that will be included in the PAG Papers for consideration? Once submitted, further updates for the same closing date are not permitted.

6. Is the Partnership able to submit both Parts A & B of the full Proposal, using MS Word and the latest version of the form for both parts by email before the deadline?

7. Is the Partnership able to provide a signed hard copy of the Proposal by the required deadline?

8. Has the Proposal been submitted using the current latest version of the Grant Application and Proposal Form (available via the KTP Portal)? Both Parts A & B must be on the latest version and in MS Word format

9. Have any supporting documents also been provided electronically to the KTP Technology Strategy Board prior to the closing date deadline?

If you are unable to answer „Yes‟ to all of the above your submission will be rejected.


B For KTP Advisers

In order to avoid rejection of a full Grant Application and Proposal Form during the submission phase it is important that the Adviser is satisfied that the guidance provided with the latest version of the Grant Application and Proposal Form has been followed. To ensure it will be considered by both the Regional Group and the PAG please make sure you can answer „Yes‟ to all the following activity, before agreeing that the Partnership may submit a full Proposal. Serial Activity

1. Has the full Proposal been preceded by a corresponding EOI?

2. Has the corresponding EOI been supported by at least one funding organisation with all of the funding requirements covered?

3. Does the full Proposal contain any adjustments/amendments raised in the feedback provided by Funding Organisations/Advisers in the EOI?

4. In the case of a resubmission, does the content of the full Proposal address all the issues raised previously by the Regional Group and/or the PAG?

5. Have you, as the nominated KTP Adviser, approved the final iteration of the full Proposal form being submitted by the Partnership?

6. Does the Partnership understand that it is the first version of the Proposal form submitted electronically that will be included in the PAG Papers for consideration? Once submitted, further updates for the same closing date are not permitted.

7. Is the Partnership able to submit both Parts A & B of the full Proposal, using the latest version of the MS Word by email before the deadline?

8. Is the Partnership able to provide a signed hard copy of the Proposal by the required deadline?

9. Has the Proposal been submitted using the latest version of the Grant Application and Proposal form (available via the KTP Portal)? Both Parts A & B must be on the latest version and in MS Word format?

10. Is the full Proposal form free of „form abuse‟?

11. Have any supporting documents also been provided electronically to the KTP Technology Strategy Board, prior to the closing date deadline?

12. Are you able to provide a supporting Adviser Recommendation form to the KTP Technology Strategy Board in support of each full Proposal, prior to the deadline which is agreed, set and published each year?

In the unlikely event that the KTP Adviser is unable to say „Yes‟ to all the above activity, the Adviser must inform the Partnership of the reasons why the Proposal will not be included in the next set of PAG Papers.

The Partnership may be able to address these issues satisfactorily before the closing date.


C For the KTP Technology Strategy Board Staff In order to avoid rejection of a full Grant Application and Proposal form and ensure it will be considered by the Regional Group and/or the PAG, staff at the Technology Strategy Board must be able to answer „Yes‟ to all the following activity.

Serial Activity

1. Has the full Proposal been preceded by a corresponding EOI?

2. Has the EOI been supported or does it appear „in progress‟?

3. Has the Technology Strategy Board received both Parts A & B in MS Word of the form by email and before the published deadline?

4. Has the latest version of the form been used both for resubmissions and new full Proposals?

5. Can both parts of the application form be read by the word reader and can the information be downloaded to the database?

6. Has the Partnership also provided a signed copy of the Proposal by the required deadline?

7. Has the Proposal been submitted using the latest version of the Grant Application and Proposal form (available via the KTP Portal)? Both Parts A & B must be on the latest version and in MS Word Format.

8. Have any supporting documents also been provided electronically to the Technology Strategy Board, prior to the closing date deadline?

9. Has the supporting Adviser Recommendation form been provided to the KTP Technology Strategy Board in support of each full Proposal, prior to the deadline?

In the unlikely event that staff at the KTP Technology Strategy Board are unable to report „Yes‟ to all of the above activity, they will contact the KTP Adviser as soon as is reasonably possible with the reasons why the Proposal will not be included in the next set of PAG Papers. Technology Strategy Board Operational staff may be able to accept further supporting correspondence provided it is received before the closing date deadline. The KTP Adviser has responsibility for informing the Partnership if a proposal has not been accepted, not the Operational staff at the Technology Strategy Board.


2.3 REQUIREMENTS OF THE FULL PROPOSAL - THE PROCESS IN BRIEF

1. Purpose of the application form

The purpose of the application form is to:

Enable members of the Regional Groups and the PAG, and the Technology Strategy Board to make decisions about support.

Provide a statement of agreement between the three parties (business/organisation, The Knowledge Base and Government Funding Organisation(s).

Demonstrate that the KTP Programme has been fully planned and thus that the project team members, especially the Associate(s), have an adequate starting point.

2. General requirements of the application The general requirements of the application are that it:

Is legible and comprehensible.

Conforms to the required format and is accompanied by an Adviser Recommendation and any other supporting documentation.

Demonstrates that both partners comprehend implications and are committed.

Has a clear aim, objectives and work plans.

Demonstrates that projects and financial arrangements are feasible for the Company Partner.

Contains projects within the capability of Academic Partners but will extend their knowledge and skills.

Have projects that will stretch Associates over the period of partnership.

Provides significant benefits for all parties (company, university/college, graduates) which should be apparent and, preferably, quantified.

Where appropriate, IPR agreements should be developed.


The Full Proposal Submission Process in Brief

Has the Partnership

prepared and submitted an EOl to which

this full proposal is linked?

Are the required

criteria met?

YES

KTP Office staff/KTP Adviser meets with potential partners

and a timetable is agreed for completion of a full proposal

Partners complete application form with advice from KTP Office

staff/KTP adviser

NO

YES

Full Proposal process

Reject

Is the Proposal within the KTP remit?

Are the resources available?

Does the project make commercial sense?

Are the partners suitable?

Is the level of commitment to the project and KTP evident?

Has the Partnership included the issues identified in

the EOI?

Reject

Is the application

satisfactory to the

KTP Adviser?

Application and KTP Adviser recommendation submitted to

next appropriate PAG meeting for consideration.

NO

Do PAG, and lead

Funder support?

The KTP Programme Manager

considers the information against

the conditions raised in the PAG

minutes and any other additional

support information

Is the KTP

Programme Manager

satisfied that the

proposal should be

supported?

YES with conditions

YES

Reject and provide

feedback to KTP

Adviser. Return for

consideration

Grant Offer letter dispatched

NO

YES

Reject NO


2.4 CLASSIC KTP PROPOSALS RECEIPT OF SIGNED COPIES

1. If a signed copy of the Joint Commitment Statement in Section 13 and the Declaration in Section 14 relating to that proposal has not been received by the Technology Strategy Board , before 1230hrs on the published closing date for submission of new proposals it will not be included for consideration by the PAG. 2. If sent by normal post, the envelope should be addressed to the KTP, Technology Strategy Board, North Star House, North Star Avenue, Swindon, SN2 1UE. Please avoid including a person‟s name as this may result in delay and the proposal missing the deadline. 3. If sent by Fax to meet the deadline requirements use 01793 442 797. A follow up copy with original signatures should also be sent in the post.

2.5 SHORTER KTP PROPOSALS RECEIPT OF SIGNED COPIES

1. Once a shorter KTP proposal has been given support the Partnership are notified by automated email and a hard copy of the GOL is sent in the post to the KB and company. This email includes important information about what to do next. The KB Partner has one month to return a signed copy of the Joint Commitment Statement and the grant offer letter to the funding organisation who agreed to support the proposal. 2. If you wish to speed up the process and get started quickly you can upload the signed GOL and JCS pages to the attachments area on the sKTP Portal, and then email Martin Webb separately to confirm when this has been done and the Partnership status gets created as being live. Signed pages do not have to be sent in the post.

3. This information must be committed to the database by the Funding Organisation before the Partnership is permitted to get underway.

2.6 REPORTS ON PREVIOUS KTP ACTIVITY 1. A business/organisation often takes part in KTP on more than one occasion. When a new grant application and proposal form is submitted for consideration it must be accompanied by a report on all previous KTP project activity. 2. The KTP Adviser bringing forward the new proposal is responsible for compiling this report which must include:

The Partnership details.

Start and end dates.

Programme objectives.

Outcomes/benefits to all three parties.

The Knowledge Base.

The business/organisation Partner.

The Associate(s).


An explanation of the difference between the new proposal and that which has previously been undertaken, including reference to any apparent overlap of activity.

Please include details of the KTP Adviser compiling the report and date.

2.7 GUIDE TO ADVISER ACTION FOLLOWING THE PAG MEETING

General Following the consideration of proposals by the Partnership Approvals Group (PAG), draft minutes are produced and emailed to PAG members and all KTP Advisers. Grant Offer letters may not be issued until the Technology Strategy Board has approved these minutes and, where appropriate, conditions have been addressed to the satisfaction of the KTP Programme Manager. Three courses of action may follow: 1. Not Supported The regional group and the PAG may have decided to „Not Support‟. The KTP Adviser will use their copy of the „Group Evaluation Record‟ as sent to them by the regional group co-ordinator together with the draft minutes in order to determine what further action should be taken. Both parties will receive written confirmation from the Technology Strategy Board, that the Partnership had been unsuccessful on that occasion. A proposal „Not Supported‟ may or may not be resubmitted on one further occasion. The KTP Adviser will contact Partnerships within a few days of the meeting to provide them with detailed feedback and with the options open to them to facilitate further progress. A copy of the Group Evaluation Record or the PAG minutes will not be provided to Partnerships. 2. Amendments required by the regional group and/or PAG The regional group and/or PAG may have supported the proposal but requested some amendments be made to the proposal. These must be addressed to the satisfaction of the KTP Programme Manager before a grant offer can be made. PAG support for the proposal remains open for a period of 3 months following the date the relevant minutes were approved and issued. If no grant offer letter is issued before the 3 month deadline the conditional support for the proposal will automatically lapse. Advisers must inform the Partnership of the issues to be addressed and of the 3 month time limit. Any proposals that have lapsed will be reported at the following PAG meeting as „Not Proceeding‟. KTP Advisers should inform the Technology Strategy Board of the reasons why a Partnership has been unable to address the issues in the time allowed. If a KB submits a proposal with errors or omissions in the budget then they are not permitted, post PAG to make a case for changes when addressing any other amendments unless PAG specifically permits it and records this in the minutes. Where a proposal has received support both Supervisors will receive an automated email inviting them to attend a Supervisor Workshop. Partnerships who are


concerned that they have not been notified should check that automated emails from [email protected] are not being treated as spam. Bookings for Supervisor Workshops are handled by the on-line Portal process. Amendments to proposals must be channelled through the KTP Adviser to the Technology Strategy Board. Only when satisfied that the amendments are complete, the Adviser will communicate with the Technology Strategy Board by forwarding the amendments to the PAG requests together with confirmation that all issues have been addressed. It is strongly recommended that the KTP Adviser provide separate emails or letters to the Technology Strategy Board for each different proposal. Each Adviser letter/email of support should include the details of the Knowledge Base and Company Partner, together with its reference number and date of PAG meeting. The KTP Adviser will be advised if the KTP Programme Manager is not satisfied with the information provided, otherwise a copy of the grant offer letter will be provided. 3. No amendments required Technology Strategy Board staff, will have identified these proposals and a grant offer letter will be prepared for issue immediately the PAG minutes are approved. The KTP Adviser or KTP Office at the KB is not required to take any action. Both Supervisors will receive an automated email inviting them to attend a Supervisor Workshop. Partnerships who are concerned that they have not been notified should check that automated emails from [email protected] are not being treated as spam. Bookings for Supervisor Workshops are handled by the on-line Portal process only.

2.8 ACCEPTING THE TERMS & CONDITIONS OF THE GRANT OFFER LETTER

Partnerships are reminded that the offer of grant remains open for a period of one month from the date of the Offer Letter and acceptance constitutes agreement in full to the terms and conditions contained within it. It is particularly important for those staff who are authorised to sign on behalf of the Knowledge Base Partner that they read carefully the information contained within it, even though they may have been involved in KTP on a number of previous occasions. Tip - only send back the signed pages not the whole proposal.

2.9 EXPLOITATION OF THE IP AND OUTCOMES FROM A PARTNERSHIP 1. The Technology Strategy Board receives a very small number of enquiries from Company Partners who believe that clauses contained within the KTP Grant Offer Letter restrict the ability of the company to compete competitively in a global market, and prevent the company from fully exploiting the outcomes gained from participating in a Knowledge Transfer Partnership.

mailto:[email protected]



2. The two clauses in question in the current KTP Grant Offer Letter are:

The TSB requires the Knowledge Base Partner to make reasonable arrangements with the Company to ensure that any potentially valuable results obtained in the course of the Partnership are exploited by the Company, the Knowledge Base Partner and/or other third party from within the European Union, including the arrangements for any Intellectual Property arising from or used in connection with the Partnership.

The Knowledge Base Partner or Company shall not exploit, or licence the exploitation of, the results of the Partnership outside those countries which, at any time during the exploitation period, form part of the European Economic Area during the period starting on the date of this letter and ending five years after the last date on which a KTP Associate was deemed to be available for work on the Partnership; unless the Knowledge Base Partner or Company has previously obtained the written consent of the TSB. The exploitation of the results of the Partnership shall not be deemed to include the sale outside the European Economic Area of goods manufactured within it.

3. The aim of these clauses is to enable European companies to gain full benefit from the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) developed within the EU before companies from the rest of the world sell products using this IPR back into the EU and take the profit. The Government is content for the Partnership to work with a third-party European company if that helps in the exploitation process. The clause is also there to make a company think about maximising the benefits to the company and allow it time to gain a foothold in the world marketplace. 4. If a company believes that such clauses unfairly restrict the company from fully exploiting the outcomes from the Partnership then they must write to the KTP Programme Manager at the Technology Strategy Board, outlining what is proposed and giving reassurance that the IPR etc has been safeguarded. The Technology Strategy Board will consider whether or not a waiver would be appropriate and inform the Partnership accordingly. 5. It is strongly recommended that KTP Advisers and Offices discuss this issue early on in negotiations so that the Company Partner has a clear understanding of the situation.


2.10 CHANGES TO PARTNERSHIP ACADEMIC SUPERVISOR 1. We continue to receive requests from offices and academics to change the nominated supervisors from those that were shown on the original proposal form, the KTP database and who are therefore linked to a partnership. These changes are generally highlighted when an academic not previously nominated tries to book onto the supervisor‟s workshop. Very often this occurs early on in the life of the Partnership which does raise some concerns regarding the expertise being made available to support the needs of the project team and justifying the cost of the academic provision made in the budget. The KTP Programme Manager requires all KTP Advisers to be satisfied that such changes are essential to the delivery of the project and that the Regional Group would have supported the proposed change of Supervisor.

2. If you need to make a change please discuss the proposed changes to Partnership Supervisors with your KTP Adviser first. The KTP Adviser will ask you to inform the Technology Strategy Board of any agreed changes of the academic supervisor without delay. This will help the Technology Strategy Board to keep the KTP database records up to date and allows the booking of the right people onto the supervisor‟s workshop. Associate vacancies can be posted and new Associates to be registered using the website portal without problems.

3. We are unable to make changes to the database without formal notification of support from the KTP Adviser. Requests for such a change should be sent to Julia Bottomley at the Technology Strategy Board.

4. Please be advised that only nominated Supervisors on classic KTPs are permitted to attend the Supervisor Workshops. Other members of the project team linked to the partnership do not attend.

Tip 1 - Please brief members of the Partnership project team accordingly so that company staff contacts who should not attend do not attempt to register on the Portal.

Tip 2 - Arrange for any changes to the database to be done first before attempting the register on the Portal.


2.11 PARTNERSHIP MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

1. The following paragraph (there might be slight variations in older versions) can be found in the KTP Offer Letter, i.e.: “The Knowledge Base Partner shall keep proper records of all expenditure incurred and defrayed on the Partnership and shall on demand produce to the Technology Strategy Board , all books, papers, invoices and documents necessary to support the same and give to the Technology Strategy Board all such information as they may reasonably require.”

2. Information required to be held:

The Offer Letter, signed acceptance and any amendments to the Offer Letter that may be made during the life of a project.

Copies of the Local Management Committee (LMC) meetings and papers relating to the management of the project considered by the LMC.

Copies of the grant claims made together with a signed copy of Schedule 3 (Auditors of the Offer Letter).

Records relating to the financial contribution made by the Company Partner.

A spreadsheet setting out the project expenditure over the life of the project.

The Final Report by the Knowledge Base Partner and Company Partner. The Associate Final Report, if lodged with the Knowledge Base Partner.

3. Academic and secretarial support: Evidence of Academic time spent on the project, such as timesheets and wage extracts for all wages and salaries, or contracts stating that they worked fully (or for a specified 10% of their time, i.e. the Joint Commitment Statement) on the project. 4. Associate employment costs: Evidence of payments for the Associates/graduates. 5. Travel and subsistence/equipment, consumables and other costs: Evidence that the expenditure was incurred and defrayed, i.e. invoices for any direct costs on the project and evidence of payment made. 6. Overheads:

Any evidence for the overheads claimed on the project.

7. Outputs of the Programme:

Beneficiary (Associate) registration form, showing their name and address, their ethnic origin and their employment status.

Where qualifications are claimed in the Final Report, evidence of qualifications achieved.

Company registration form, showing the registered name, trading address and number of employees.


Evidence of training, guidance and support given to the beneficiary during the placement.

Evidence of any additional professional and technical training undertaken by the Associate.

Knowledge that the company, on project completion, employed the Associate.

2.12 ASSOCIATE RECRUITMENT CLASSIC KTP

1. Partnerships are reminded that the requirement is for the KTP Associate to

have been recruited, with a formal offer of employment, within a maximum of six

months from the date of the Grant Offer Letter. In addition, if the Associate has not

started work full time within nine months of the date on the Grant Offer Letter, then

the Grant Offer will lapse. An extension to the latter will only be granted in

exceptional circumstances, and any request must be made in writing to the KTP

Programme manager at the Technology Strategy Board and approved prior to the

nine month cut-off date.

2. We continue to see a number of instances where an Associate has been

appointed to a KTP project and where the contract of employment put in place was

not of sufficient length to ensure that the project could commence and complete

without a break. This has resulted in progress of the project being unnecessarily

delayed and in some cases stopped for some months.

3, The Technology Strategy Board is unlikely to support any requests to

suspend a project or delay the start due to Associate contractual issues.

2.13 ASSOCIATE RECRUITMENT SHORTER KTP The Grant Offer Letter (GOL) states you have 3 months to recruit because the

requirement is for the Partnership to have in place a process to recruit and start as

quickly as possible. To do otherwise would go against one of the main aims of

shorter KTP to be able to meet the immediate requirements of a company. However,

shorter KTP does currently provide a small degree of flexibility regarding how long

you have. If you look for the NOTPD (No Obligation To Pay Date). This NOTPD is

the latest possible date by when the project must be completed, and is the 3 month

recruitment time, plus project duration, plus two months. KTP Office staff should keep

this requirement in mind when planning recruitment.

No extension to this NOTPD will be given. However, if eventually you get to the

position of not being able to recruit in time, you can:

Change the status of the project to Finished Early; and

Duplicate the proposal and resubmit as a new one. This may enable you to

secure a new GOL with a later NOTPD.

The proposal does however still need to go through the formal review and decision

making process.


2.14 INFORMATION TO HELP INITIATE A CLASSIC KTP 1. The following information is sent out with the Grant Offer Letter to the KB Admin linked to the Partnership application and should be disseminated to the Academic and Company Supervisor. 2. KTP Handbook for Managing KTP The handbook is aimed at giving guidance on good practice in Knowledge Transfer Partnership management. Often better known as the Supervisors handbook please discuss its contents with other members of your team. A similar handbook will be provided to your Associate(s) and it is recommended you have early discussions about the actions suggested in both handbooks. To access these handbooks, please visit the KTP Portal Document Repository Form for the Project Team - Supervisor and KB Admin User Area. 3. Support available to Partnerships to facilitate the appointment of a

Classic KTP Associate

You should be aware that your Partnership will be featured on the KTP website for a period of one month to inform potential Associates of the latest opportunities within Knowledge Transfer Partnerships. In addition, Partnerships may advertise Associate vacancies in detail and access a database register of individuals who have expressed interest in being recruited as KTP Associates. The opportunity to post a vacancy becomes available as soon as the proposal is approved, you do not have to wait for the issue of the GOL. Firstly, in order to post vacancies for Knowledge Transfer Partnerships and to view Associate profiles, the Knowledge Base Partner will need to register on the Portal as a 'Partnership Administrator' or Partnership Supervisor if they have not done so already. Once your account has been approved (this would normally take 24 hours) you can post vacancies and view Associate profiles for the Partnerships with which you are linked to. Other support staff in a KB who do not have a Portal account ie from HR will not have permission to do this. 4. Classic KTP Supervisors Attending a Workshop Supervisors are reminded that by signing the Joint Commitment Statement of the KTP Proposal and Application Form the individuals identified as Company and Knowledge Base Partner Supervisors are committed to attend jointly, after approval of their respective Associates' project(s), a KTP Supervisor Workshop. Supervisors identified in the Proposal Form should have already received a separate invitation to attend by email. The requirement to attend is also shown as an agenda item at LMC (0). Please note that submission of claims will not be possible until they have both, jointly attended the same KTP Supervisor Workshop. If you believe that both nominated Supervisors have yet to receive this important invitation or have yet to attend a Supervisor Workshop together for your Associate(s), please contact the Technology Strategy Board (telephone: 01793 442 982). Only the Supervisors linked to a Partnership and recorded as such on the KTP database may book a place on a Workshop through the KTP Portal. Other members of the project team are not permitted to attend.


Tip 1 - Please brief carefully other members of the project team from the company so that they do not waste time attempting to register on the KTP Portal. Tip 2 – Where a proposal has been supported subject to amendment it is not necessary to wait for completion of the amendments before making a booking. This is available immediately after the PAG decisions are announced. 5. To Register a Classic KTP Associate The Registration of a KTP Associate is a two stage process. The first part being completed using the online KTP Portal either by the KB Admin linked to the Partnership or either of the Supervisors. Once stage one is completed the Associate will be sent an automated email from the Portal requesting them to complete stage two. Please advise Associates not attempt to register directly through the website. On completion of stage two the start and end date of the associate project will be set. It is this key start date that links to other activity during the lifetime of the Partnership. If you are unsure if stage one has been completed then make contact with Julia Bottomley at the Technology Strategy Board. Further details of how this works are available from the Portal Guide and Help. 6. Classic KTP Associate Development Course KTP Associates must undertake the KTP current Associate Training package. This is organised by the Technology Strategy Board at no cost to the Partnership budget. Further information on what is being offered is available to the Associate once they have registered online. Associates will be contacted by staff from Ashornehill the organisation who is currently contracted to deliver the residential training modules.

All KTP Training related communications should be sent through to Yasmine Shilton

at [email protected]

Ashorne Hill, Leamington Spa, CV33 9QW

Tel: 01926 488004 | Fax: 01926 488005

Website: www.ashornehill.co.uk

2.15 ACTION REQUIRED TO INITIATE A SHORTER KTP 1. Partnerships are notified by automated email when a shorter KTP proposal is supported. This email contains important information which tells the partnership what should happen next. Details can be found in the „User Guide‟ for shorter KTP. The Guide is available in Portals Guide and Help and on the Main Home Portal. 2. There is no separate Management Handbook for Supervisors for shorter KTP. The Partnership should make use of the guidance that is already available. 3. KB Administrators and Supervisors linked to a specific shorter KTP have permissions to register the Associate. This is done through the online shorter KTP Portal area „Partnership Management‟ TAB. All users linked to a shorter KTP


http://www.ashornehill.co.uk/


Partnership are added when their contact details are included during the online submission process.

4. Once registered as being current, a shorter KTP Associate has access to the Portal online modules.

5. Shorter KTP Associates do not complete the same training package as a classic KTP Associate. Two sKTP online modules must be completed by the end of week 4. Associates will receive an automated email containing information about what to do. Tip – Make sure the Company Supervisors Portal Account remains active throughout the life of the project as this helps to ensure access to the sKTP Portal for completion of the final report remains trouble free.

2.16 CLASSIC KTP ON-LINE CLAIMS PROCESS

The online grant claim process is currently managed on _connect. Separate guidance is available directly from the KTP Portal. If you have any questions or need any help with any part of the claims process, please contact our helpdesk by email at [email protected], referencing "KTP Online Grant Claim System" in the subject line together with your new project number(s). Please provide a contact name and phone number so we can call you back if need be.

2.17 SHORTER KTP ON-LINE CLAIMS PROCESS

1. Partnership claims are handled differently under shorter KTP. Details from within the user guide for shorter KTP explain that claims are generated by the project team (Associate or Supervisors) when they record the progress made at the online record for each LMC Meeting. We would recommend that the Associate takes ownership of ensuring that a hard copy claim form is generated and then passed to a appropriate KB colleague with financial responsibilities, who should make arrangements for the claim to be sent to the Funding Organisation, who supported the proposal and also to recover payment from the company. 2. Hard copy of each claims should be sent by email to the Funding Organisation who agreed to support the project.

2.18 GUIDE TO CLASSIC KTP REVISIONS AND EARLY COMPLETION OF PARTNERSHIPS

1. General

1.1 Various situations may occur to a Knowledge Transfer Partnership during its lifetime. The more challenging issues to be resolved can include the Associate leaving early and the company partner withdrawing.


1.2 The Grant Offer Letter (GOL) requires the Partnership to take action immediately when an event occurs which will, or is likely to, result in progress towards completion of the Partnership ceasing or being delayed, for example the resignation of a KTP Associate. The Knowledge Base Partner is required to notify the Technology Strategy Board without delay, about the occurrence of the event and the action, if any; it proposes to take in order that progress is resumed. 1.3 When notifying delays in progress and preparing the case for action, the Partnership need to bear in mind the aims of KTP in delivering benefits to all three parties – a company, a knowledge base organisation and a graduate. The guiding principal should therefore be to take actions that maximise these aims. 1.4 Before the Local Management Committee (LMC) decides on which course of action to undertake early discussions with your nominated KTP Adviser is essential. The KTP Adviser must agree to endorse any such actions and will take in to account the following LMC Guidance. 1.5 We continue to see however is a significant delay in the time taken for the Partnership to make the online revision request when there is a need to replace an Associate or Finish Off. This is inconsistent with one of main aims of KTP to provide a timely strategic solution for the business partner. From 1 March 2012 The Technology Strategy Board expects to receive a revision request on the Portal within two months of the Associate leaving and the revised end date (the last date the Associate is deemed to be working on the project). Please make sure the operations team are notified of any changes as soon as possible. This must be done during the notice period or before they have actually left as this enables us to ensure, when appropriate, that automated email requests for the Final Report are sent in good time. Taking action sooner rather than later can help to avoid disappointment as late requests to replace the Associate or finish off are unlikely to be supported. 1.6 It is unlikely that the Technology Strategy Board will agree for an Associate to be replaced more than once. The replacement Associate must have been appointed within 6 months and have started work on the project within 9 months of the revision request being agreed by the Technology Strategy Board. 1.7 You are reminded that existing guidance on the revisions process states that If the project has a further 12 to 36 months to run a case to appoint a replacement Associate may be made. In these circumstances the Technology Strategy Board expects the Partnership to recruit a replacement Associate and not finish off the project by using a member of staff from the KB.

2. Guidance for the LMC Requests for additional funding

and/or time extensions 2.1 The approval of any additional funding or time extension to complete the Project(s) is exceptional. If the Local Management Committee wishes to seek additional funding or a time extension for the original Partnership the following should be noted.

Normally, additional funding will only be considered in cases where an Associate has resigned within the early months of an Associateship.


No application will be considered within three months of the end of a Partnership.

Additional Government funding will not be provided to enable Associates to complete their Projects after the end of their contracts. It is expected that any funding for this will be provided totally by Company Partners.

Confirmation that the company is prepared to contribute to its share of the costs involved is required before a revision request is commenced. A letter from the company is required and should be attached to the application made via the Portal.

Any additional grant funding awarded should be complemented by additional funding from the Company Partner in a proportion at least as large as the proportion of company funding contribution provided to the original budget.

If an Associate leaves towards the end of his Associateship, the partners may apply to „finish off‟ the Partnership, whereby another person can be employed to do the work but he/she is not classed as an Associate.

2.2 In practice there are three approaches to consider: Approach 1 - Closure The Partnership closes. Approach 2 - Replacement A case is made for a replacement Associate to be appointed and for the Partnership to run for a further 12-36 months (additional funding may be sought.) Approach 3 – Finishing Off A case is made for use of some of the remaining funds to realise a large part of the Partnership objectives, and at least secure benefits to two out of the three parties. (This might be for example by employing a research assistant to complete the work or by releasing more academic time. Without an Associate present, this approach is less satisfactory than Approach 2 in some respects, but it may deliver the hoped for benefits to the two remaining parties and maybe some benefits to a research assistant) Where an Associate leaves at a key point during the implementation phase near the end of the project a revision request can be made to „finish off‟. Under these circumstances the person appointed to finish off is not deemed to be the Associate, and cannot make use of the Associate Development budget. The rules on virement and what can be expended from each budget headings remains unchanged. In particular moving funding into or out of Employment Costs is not permitted. The case should state what work is to be done and the benefits, what funding is required, normally from within the existing budget, how many months it will take and who is going to do it (note that it cannot be a company employee). Which approach to pursue depends upon each case and should take into account the circumstances and the views of the company and knowledge base partners.


It should not be seen as an opportunity to seek additional funding or extend the life of the project to undertake new work. 2.3 Possible scenarios are: The Associate leaves near the end of the Partnership, with most of the objectives realised. Approach 1 may be preferred with perhaps just local initiatives to round things off. An Associate leaves during the first few months. Approach 2 may be favoured. The Associate leaves at a key point during the implementation phase near the end of the Partnership. Approach 3 may be appropriate. The company partner withdraws. This would normally result in the end of the Partnership, but there may be exceptional cases where a short continuance - i.e. Approach 3 - would allow the agendas of the knowledge base partner and the Associate to be more fully realised. In practice, Approaches 2 and 3 will always require the case to be made to the Technology Strategy Board using the Online Revision via the KTP Portal and approved before work is commenced. Advisers should of course use their knowledge of the particular circumstances and their judgement to decide whether either course of action is in practice desirable. Certainly Approach 3 is not intended to be a way of “using up remaining grant money” and should be driven by the implementation of the project.

3. Guidance for the LMC Requests for Virement 3.1 The LMC is permitted to make decisions about Virement without having to make a formal request to the Technology Strategy Board. Any decisions about virement must of course have the support of the nominated KTP Adviser. No requests for virement may be made after the end date of the last project completion. All requests must be supported by a justification for why the request is being made. It is not sufficient to just state that it was agreed by the LMC and then insert the amounts and all such requests must have the support of the KTP Adviser. 3.2 The extract from the new Grant Offer letter is repeated below. ...The Knowledge Base Partner may, subject to the agreement of the Local Management Committee (LMC) for the Partnership and recorded in the LMC minutes, together with the written agreement of the KTP Adviser, vire between the Travel and Subsistence and Equipment categories, also funds may be vired from either of these categories into the Associate Development category, but may not be vired from it, within the amounts indicated in Schedule 1 for each category by transfer from other categories, and subject to the needs of the particular project, except that, funds may not be vired into or out of the „Associate(s) Employment Costs‟ category or into the „Academic and Secretarial Support‟ category. Also, funds identified in Schedule 1 as being provided for indirect costs must be used solely for that purpose and funds so identified as being for direct costs must be used solely for that purpose‟... Please note:


No Virement may be made from the Associate Development heading.

The decisions made by the LMC must be formally recorded in the minutes of the meeting and a copy of the LMC Minutes should be included as an attachment to the Revision application made using the KTP Portal.

Should the need to action a Virement fall in between LMC meetings then the KTP Adviser must make this clear in the appropriate comment box. Please note that where this has not been agreed in the last LMC minutes, the Knowledge Base must enter the date of the last meeting.

4. How to Apply – KTP Portal 4.1 The KTP Portal has been developed to enable previously paper based processes and approvals, such as the payment of claims and the outline proposal process, to be undertaken online. The online portal processes have shown clear benefits to all users with enhanced clarity of process, improved turnaround times for making and enabling access to historical data. 4.2 Requests for Revisions and Virement are to be made by making use of the Supervisor/KB Admin User Area of the Portal only. 4.3 Once agreement has been reached by the LMC that a revision is required the Lead Academic, if he/she does not have portal access should request that the KB Administrator, or Supervisor linked to that Partnership submit an online request via the Supervisor/KB Admin User Area Portal on behalf of the Partnership. All requests must include a satisfactory justification supported by the KTP Adviser. 4.4 Julia Bottomley from the Technology Strategy Board (01793 442 935) remains responsible for the submission and approvals process for Revisions and is available to provide help and support to Portal Users. Julia will issue revised Grant Offer Letters as and when appropriate.

2.19 GUIDE TO SHORTER KTP REVISIONS AND EARLY COMPLETION OF PARTNERSHIPS 1. The revision of a shorter KTP Partnership is not permitted nor is the virement of funding between headings. In the event of the Associate leaving early or the company walking away then the Partnership is to be closed and its status changed to finished early. Details of how to change the status of the Partnership are contained in the separate shorter KTP user guide. Projects that complete more than 50% of the planned work are required to complete a Final Report. 2. Partnerships must change the status of the Partnership to Finished early otherwise they will continue to receive automated email reminders about progress Tip. Change the status of the Partnership and also the status of the Associate. There is no requirement to inform the TSB by other means.


2.20 THE CLASSIC KTP FINAL REPORT PROCESS 1. Each Partnership Final Report, including those submitted by Associates, is sent to a minimum of two External Assessors for grading. These External Assessors are independent of the KTP Stakeholder community and are drawn from a mixture of academic, public service and business backgrounds. All Final Reports submitted are managed through the KTP Portal as part of our on-line processes. 2. As well as copies of the Final Reports, each Assessor is also sent a copy of the KTP Advisers‟ Commentary. The Commentary is compiled from reports made throughout the lifetime of the Partnership after each LMC and, in addition, provides further comments on the Final Reports. 3. Partnerships are reminded that in the event of a Final Report not being submitted, the Partnership will not be graded. Even if the Partnership Final Report is received, non-receipt of an Associate's Final Report may be reflected in the overall final grading awarded by the External Assessor. It is particularly important to inform the Technology Strategy Board without delay when an Associate leaves the Partnership prematurely. 4. Every time a Partnership fails to submit a Final Report on the Partnership, KTP loses valuable information that is used to accurately measure the outputs gained from the project(s). A condition of the grant offer letter is that the Knowledge Base Partner shall, no later than one month after the last date on which a KTP Associate was deemed to be engaged on the Partnership, submit a final report on the Partnership. 5. The Knowledge Base Partner is reminded that the TSB is under no obligation to agree to the payment of the final claim if a satisfactory Final Report is not received. Tip. It is particularly important to inform the Technology Strategy Board without delay when an Associate leaves the Partnership prematurely.

2.21 THE CLASSIC KTP FINAL REPORT GRADING PROCESS

With effect from 1 January 2011 the process for the preparation and submission of a Partnership Final Report is only to be completed using the online portal process. Those responsible will be notified by automated email. The submission of hard copy is not permitted.

The grading process, which applies to all Partnerships involves a five-point scale,:

A Outstanding B Very good C Good D Satisfactory E Unsatisfactory

A guide has been developed for Advisers and Assessors that illustrates the particular features of Final Reports and the resultant benefits from KTPs that are commensurate with each of the above grades. It is not intended to provide a tick-box approach to grading - individual assessment and evaluation of Final Reports is still paramount. The guide itself is confidential to the Advisers and Assessors. However,


below are highlighted the type of issues that they will be looking for in the Partnership Final Report and the Associate Final Report in order to arrive at their decisions on grading. Overall

Have the Partnership Final Report and Associate Final Report been submitted, are they well written and concise, do they all contain real substance with benefits fully quantified, and do they present a clear and consistent message? Have the objectives for the Partnership been met or exceeded? Have the expectations of all three participants in the KTP - Company Partner, Knowledge Base Partner and Associate - been met or exceeded? Have all three participants achieved outcomes that are tangible and in line with or in excess of reasonable expectations? Have the Company Partner and Knowledge Base Partner achieved common goals through the KTP and are they continuing to develop their relationship? Company Partner benefits

Has the KTP led, or will it lead, to changes in the way the company does business? How significant are the measurable benefits that the company has seen or will see relative to its size/turnover? Will all the benefits be fully realised within a reasonable timescale, and does the company have the ability and commitment to sustain the changes embarked upon? What evidence is there of these benefits, e.g. increased sales turnover and profit derived from improved market penetration, growth in investment in plant and machinery, staff recruitment and training and/or research and development, and/or improved management practice or operations or productivity? Has the company gained new knowledge/skills, new products/technologies/systems and/or new strategic/business/marketing plans? Knowledge Base Partner benefits

How significant are the benefits that the Knowledge Base Partner has seen or will see? Will all the benefits be fully realised within a reasonable timescale? What evidence is there of these benefits, e.g. development of the institution‟s teaching capabilities through the use of commercially relevant case study material, development of the institution‟s research programme, and/or the IPR agreement established for the KTP giving rise to commercial benefits to the Knowledge Base Partner? Associate benefits

Has the KTP enabled the Associate(s) to „grow‟ professionally? Has the Associate(s) gained management and technical experience and developed academically? What evidence is there of these benefits, e.g. the Associate(s) has been offered employment in the Partner company or has achieved employment in a relevant field, the Associate(s) has completed the KTP training programme in full, the Associate(s) has gained higher academic qualifications? In conclusion

The new grading process for Final Reports will provide greater clarity and consistency of grading. The guide to grading Final Reports is confidential to Advisers


and Assessors. It is up to the KTP Partners to ensure the KTP achieves best results and the Final Reports reflect what has been achieved. Advisers‟ Commentaries and Assessors‟ Grading Forms will continue to remain confidential to the KTP Technology Strategy Board, Regional Advisers and Funding Organisations, and we will not enter into debate over the final grading decision on a completed KTP.

2.19 SHORTER KTP FINAL REPORTING

1. Partnerships who complete at least 50% or more of the project length are required to complete a Final Report online. Partnerships are notified automatically by email 4 weeks before the end date of the project. Partners are not permitted to submit hard copies of final reports. 2. An incomplete final report will jeopardise the payment of the final claim.

3. ASSOCIATE SUPPORT

3.1 GUIDE TO ADVISER MEETINGS WITH CLASSIC KTP ASSOCIATES & PROJECT TEAMS 1. Role of KTP Advisers Nominated KTP Advisers try to ensure that KTP Partnerships make progress towards agreed Partnership objectives and report to the KTP Programme Manager after each Local Management Committee (LMC) meeting. They advise on the implementation of KTP training and development policy and give support to Associates, especially with regard to their professional development.

KTP Advisers can be particularly useful in ensuring that the lines of communication between Associates, the Programme Facilitator, the Lead Academic and the Supervisors are working properly. They advise on the rules and procedures relevant to KTP and the conditions governing continual payment of the Government grant for a KTP Programme. They provide access to the Technology Strategy Board, corporate experience and encourage best practice in knowledge transfer to optimise benefits for all participants. The Partners should be encouraged to seek advice from Advisers, as appropriate, at any time throughout the project. 2. LMC meetings The Adviser will usually meet the Associate(s) immediately prior to or after each LMC meeting for mentoring and coaching purposes, and to provide support to the Associate. The LMC should follow the format recommended in the Management Handbook for Supervisors, including reserved business. LMCs should:

Encourage all reports to be made in a timely manner and with a format and content appropriate to the meeting.


Review the project management arrangements being used by the team, consider their effectiveness and agree any changes.

Discuss progress towards the target objectives in detail. It is likely that some variation is required. This may be due to unforeseen problems, technical difficulties or opportunities such as emerging trends within the industry. The Adviser will facilitate the discussion including a risk assessment on any proposal, achievable targets, resource implications and commonality of understanding.

Agree the work plan for the next three months.

Allocate the necessary resources to the project team including agreement to any training needs and the involvement of additional specialist input.

Encourage the Associate to take ownership of the project.

Explore possibilities to widen the collaboration, such as student projects.

Encourage ambitious but realistic targets.

Encourage a wide participation in KTP activities.

Encourage best practice.

3.2 GUIDE TO ADVISER MEETINGS WITH SHORTER KTP ASSOCIATES & PROJECT TEAMS KTP Advisers are not present during shorter KTP LMC Meetings. The progress made by the Partnership is managed and recorded by the project team led by the Associate and where possible with the support of the KB Administrator linked to the Partnership. Each Supervisor also has permissions set to enable them to also record LMC progress online if necessary. Tip. The KB Admin does not have permissions set to complete the online LMC record.

3.3 APPOINTMENT OF ASSOCIATES - JOB SHARE

A KTP Associate is generally recently qualified and looking to develop their career in business whilst employed full time by the knowledge base institution in running the KTP project, as such, it makes it impractical to accommodate job sharing;

The Associate takes ownership of a project that is core to the development of the company partner‟s strategy, and acts as the conduit for the transfer of knowledge between the academic institution and the company partner.

The development and maintenance of that three-way relationship and continued focus on the project is key to the project‟s success.

Support, mentoring and supervision of the Associate is provided by both the academic institution and the company partner to facilitate the project and ongoing development of the Associate for their career in business.

The Knowledge Transfer Partnership programme provides a structured training and development opportunity for the Associate during the project life time which may be linked to undertaking a higher qualification.


3.4 APPOINTMENT OF CLASSIC KTP ASSOCIATES

1. The current general policy is that Associates are considered on probation for the first six months from the start of their project and that appears to be the case regardless of the length of the Partnership. This provides a check on the performance of the Associate. In addition, as most Partnerships are of 18 months‟ duration or longer, the next three to six months are about becoming familiar with the project issues, and outcomes generally are few. 2. Secondly, where an Associate resigns from or leaves a two-year project within a year, the current policy allows for the recruitment of a new Associate and for the resetting of the grant amount so that the Partnership can continue and undertake the approved planned activities. 3. The TSB has standardised both of these cases so that the policy is:

Firstly the normal procedure would be that, if a KTP Associate is dismissed from their position for reasons beyond their control, and they have completed one year or less than half of their KTP project, whichever is the shorter (measured in time rather than tasks completed), they may be eligible to apply for another KTP Associateship. However, as per the normal circumstances within KTP, it is entirely a matter for and the responsibility of the company and knowledge base partners in any new KTP as to whether the applicant is the right person to appoint to that position.

Secondly, and depending upon the case, the Technology Strategy Board will consider resetting the grant where an Associate leaves within the first half of the planned project period, thus enabling the whole project (as originally approved) to be undertaken.

4. If you need further advice on these issues please contact Mrs Julia Bottomley

at the KTP Technology Strategy Board on 01793 442 935 or email [email protected]

3.5 APPOINTMENT OF SHORTER KTP ASSOCIATES 1. If on making the application the Associate is not known then the Associate must be employed full time by the knowledge base partner once recruited. Where the Associate is recruited and employed by the Knowledge Base then the balance of time spent on the project must be undertaken at the company.

2. Where an Associate leaves the project before its formal end date the project is to be terminated and its status must be changed to „Finished Early‟. Details of how to change the Partnership status can be found in the shorter KTP user guide. Failure to change the status means the Partnership will continue to receive unnecessary automated emails as the project remains current. Partnerships are not required to inform the KTP Technology Strategy Board by any other means. Partnerships are not permitted to recruit a replacement Associate or finish off. A Partnership that finishes early is required to record the progress made at one further LMC meeting record. Partnerships that complete more than half of the project plan in terms of time are required to complete a final report.



3.6 APPOINTMENT OF KTP ASSOCIATES – ENGLISH PROFICIENCY 1. Where non-native English speakers are considered for employment as Associate consideration should be given to formally assess the candidate‟s level of English proficiency. 2. KTP Partners are encouraged to use nationally recognised assessment methods such as TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language, (http://www.ets.org/ )) and IELTS (International English Language Testing System, (http://www.ielts.org/ )) to assess the candidate‟s English skills. 3. Guidance should be sought from the KB Partner‟s HR office for appropriate test methods and test scores in accordance with relevant academic disciplines.

3.7 ASSOCIATE SALARY LEVELS AND ‘TOP-UP’ BY COMPANY PARTNERS 1. One of the aims of Knowledge Transfer Partnerships is to encourage a lasting and continuing relationship between the company and the Knowledge Base Partner. It starts with the joint development of the project definition and application, which includes the outline job specification for the Associate. The Partnership is expected to jointly review the applicants and select the most appropriate person to be the KTP Associate on each project. The salary offered in the Associate job advertisement should reflect the going market rate for the particular post. For each KTP Associate, Government makes only a contribution towards the costs of their employment, with the balance of the costs coming from the company. During reserved business at the KTP project Local Management Committee meetings, the Knowledge Base Partner and Company Partner are expected to agree the most appropriate salary for the KTP Associate and any increases deemed applicable. In arriving at that figure, the going market rate, project progress and the salary rates in the Company and Knowledge Base Partners should be taken into account. The company is expected to top up the salary in order to attract the most appropriate individual to the Associate post and obtain the best possible outcomes. The company, therefore, has a monetary interest in the project as well as in the outcomes. 2. Partnerships are reminded that Section 8 of the KTP Grant Application and Proposal Form requires the Company Partner to consider making a top-up to enhance the salary of the Associate, in order to recruit an individual with the appropriate levels of qualifications and experience from the job market. Your attention is drawn to Section 4.3 of the Handbook for Managing Knowledge Transfer Partnerships, which deals with the issues of an Associate‟s contractual arrangement.

http://www.ets.org/

http://www.ielts.org/


3.8 AGE DISCRIMINATION ACT 1. The wording used to describe a KTP Associate in all media, written and spoken, needs to comply with the Age Discrimination Act. 2. The following has been agreed and complies with the new law with the body monitoring the Act. A KTP Associate should therefore be described as: ‘ A person qualified at NVQ Level 4 in an appropriate subject (HNC/D or equivalent) up to PhD, who has the potential to be a business leader of tomorrow.’ This wording still suggests relatively inexperienced people.

3.9 ASSOCIATE TIME MANAGEMENT 1. A small number of instances have occurred where the Associate has been diverted from the KTP project to undertake some additional research project on behalf of an Academic or to carry out additional tasks within the company outside of the objectives of the KTP project. This clearly has the potential to jeopardise the objectives of the KTP project. KTP Advisers and Offices should, where necessary, remind both Partners that they are responsible for ensuring that the Associate(s) will not be diverted from KTP-related activities, other than to spend approximately 10% of their time on appropriate formal training and personal and professional development activities. These will include the completion of the KTP Associate Training package. 2. Partnerships may not charge out any part of the Associate‟s time to the Company Partner‟s customers. Please contact your KTP Advisers if there are any indications that the Associate‟s time is being spent on inappropriate activity.

3.10 OBTAINING A HIGHER QUALIFICATION

1. When a Classic KTP Partnership decides the profile required of the KTP Associate it should also consider offering the opportunity to work towards obtaining a higher level qualification. 2. It is recognised that a large proportion of learning acquired by an Associate undertaking a KTP project is at least at Master‟s degree level. It is possible to adopt the principles of work-based learning to assign academic credit points to the learning accumulated by an Associate during a project. If the project duration is two years or more the project activities can be used to determine a programme of learning which leads to a postgraduate award (normally an MSc). 3. Some Associates may find it more appropriate to register for higher degrees by thesis. Companies normally allow the material produced during a project to be used for higher degrees (although, for reasons of confidentiality, they may impose limitations on its circulation) provided that the writing of a thesis is done in the Associate‟s own time. Changes in the directions of a project may hinder the attainment of a higher degree by this route.


5. All Supervisors are expected to advise and assist Associates wishing to achieve higher degrees/qualifications. 6. For Classic KTP only contributions up to £700 (£1,700 if the Knowledge Base Partner is not a Higher Education Institution) per Associate towards degree registration and examination fees may be paid, at the discretion of Local Management Committees, out of the standard „training‟ budget of Knowledge Transfer Partnerships.

3.11 PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP FEES FOR KTP CLASSIC KTP ASSOCIATES

1. The Associate development budget within the KTP project costs are there for the Associate to manage subject to the agreement of the Local Management Committee through the Personal Development Plan each Associate draws up. The Supervisor's Handbook indicates that membership of a Professional Institution is a legitimate activity and also suggests that the Supervisor acts as a mentor to the Associate. 2. The costs for membership are, therefore, a legitimate cost in order for that to happen, along with the other developmental activities identified by the Associate and agreed by the LMC.

4. PROJECT TEAM SUPPORT

4.1. SELECTION OF ACADEMIC STAFF TO SUPPORT PARTNERSHIPS

1. Previous policy was that the academic team had to be made up from full-time members of the university‟s teaching staff. It was recognised that in the past this may have excluded individuals who had expertise valuable to a Partnership but worked part time. To redress the balance, it was agreed to allow part-time members of the university teaching staff to become members of a KTP project team. It must be clear, however, that individuals had sufficient capacity to support the needs of the project team.

2. We have been requested to expand on this explanation as to who would constitute an acceptable part-time member of the university teaching staff. Clearly such an individual must be able to demonstrate that they have sufficient time available to meet the commitments made by the university to the Company Partner, and the time required to make regular visits to the company premises, to support the needs of the project team and the Associate(s). Equally important is the capacity to feed back the experience into the wider teaching of the university. It would not be considered acceptable if an individual was contracted part time to deliver on a taught MSc or short course and was included in the academic team, but clearly had limited capacity to deliver these requirements.


Should you require further advice on the appointment of academic staff to Partnerships, please contact your local KTP Adviser or the Technology Strategy Board.

4.2 ATTENDANCE AT A CLASSIC KTP SUPERVISOR WORKSHOP

1. Partnerships are reminded that by signing the Joint Commitment Statement of the KTP Proposal and Application Form the individuals identified as Company and Knowledge Base Partner Supervisors are committed to attend jointly, after approval of their respective Associates' project(s), a KTP Supervisor Workshop. Supervisors are also sent a reminder by email of the requirement to attend, shortly after the project is approved. This email is sent within a few days of the Partnership being approved by the PAG so it is particularly important to remind each Supervisor to book their attendance as soon as possible, especially when there are multi Associate projects. Please note that making a Partnership grant claim will not be possible until both Supervisors have attended, jointly the same KTP Supervisor Workshop. The KB Administrator linked to the Partnership is also copied into this email notification.

2. Academic Supervisors, in particular, should be reminded of the mandatory requirement to attend, even though they may have previously attended on another project. 3. If a Supervisor fails to receive an invitation or has yet to attend a Supervisor Workshop for your Associate(s), please contact Anne Phillips at the Technology Strategy Board (telephone: 01793 442 982) or email [email protected] 4. Other members of the project support team are not permitted to attend the Supervisor Workshop. Tip. Please discourage other members of the company project team from attempting to register for the workshops as these will be rejected and time is wasted unnecessarily.

4.3 KTP SUPERVISOR WORKSHOP – SHORTER KTP Supervisors on a shorter KTP do not attend a workshop.

4.4 THE ROLE OF THE FACILITATOR 1. The person appointed as „Facilitator‟ to a Knowledge Transfer Partnership LMC has a key role in ensuring that the Partnership has the maximum possible impact on the company or organisation. This may be through support for the Associate, ensuring that company facilities are made available, communicating the objectives and importance of the Partnership to the wider company or protecting the Associate‟s time from the demands of „non-project‟ work. 2. It follows that the Facilitator should be a senior company stakeholder. The role does not present great demands upon the individual‟s time but they must be kept in the communication „loop‟ and invited to contribute to the direction of the project. 3. The Facilitator‟s role is therefore quite separate from that of Company Supervisor or LMC Chair and the partners should be strongly encouraged to involve



someone with the appropriate status within the company. Only in small companies should the role be taken by the LMC Chair. 4. The Facilitator‟s Report at the LMC provides an objective overview of progress towards the key objectives of all the participants. It may be appropriate for the Associate to provide the data and for the Facilitator to provide objective comment. The company facilitator does not have access to the Portal unless they also happen to be the nominated company supervisor.

5. ASSESSMENT OF AN ORGANISATION TO BE CONSIDERED SUITABLE AS A COMPANY PARTNER

5.1 KTP GUIDANCE NOTES ON THE ASSESSMENT OF THE FINANCIAL VIABILITY OF A COMPANY OR RTO AS THE POTENTIAL COMPANY PARTNER

Purpose of the Guidance Notes

1. KTP Advisers should use these Guidance Notes as a tool when considering whether a particular company (including not-for-profit), research and technology organisation (RTO) or Public Sector Research Institute (PSRI), as the potential „Company‟ Partner, should be a participant in a Knowledge Transfer Partnership. RTOs include research-based organisations or institutes that may or may not receive funding from Government to undertake research.

Role of the KTP Adviser

2. At an early stage, and before any detailed proposal is developed, the Adviser should obtain and appraise financial information relating to the company or RTO. The information obtained should be assessed to determine whether further information or advice should be sought from Adviser colleagues, perhaps from the TSB, or elsewhere. Confirmation as to what financial information has been obtained and considered must be recorded in the Adviser‟s Recommendation supporting the Knowledge Transfer Partnership Grant Application and Proposal Form being considered at a meeting of the Partnership Approvals Group (PAG). 3. In case the need arises, the accounts and any other financial information will be retained by the Adviser for future reference.

Role of the Technology Strategy Board

4. The Technology Strategy Board will check that the most recent set of audited accounts and later or alternative information, if appropriate, have been considered by the Adviser, and follow-up action will be taken if necessary. 5. No proposal will be included in the papers for a meeting of the PAG if it appears that appropriate financial information relating to the Company Partner has not been considered.


Financial information required

Companies 6. A summary of financial information about the company needs to be provided at Part A, paragraph 2.9, of the Knowledge Transfer Partnership Grant Application and Proposal Form. 7. The Adviser should obtain a copy of the company‟s last two annual accounts, prepared in accordance with the Companies Act. Where applicable, the published report and accounts should also be obtained. These accounts will cover the last two financial years for which audited figures are available. Applicant company accounts should be dated less than nine months prior to the date of the appropriate meeting of the PAG. Whenever possible, parent company or Group accounts should be similarly dated but, if this is not possible, latest available audited or management accounts must be provided. In all cases, the PAG reserves the right to request additional information relating to the applicant, Group or parent company. If the financial viability of a company is in doubt, please discuss this with your KTP Adviser. 8. When more than nine months will have passed between the end of the last financial year for which annual figures are available and the date of the PAG meeting at which the proposal is likely to be considered, a copy of the latest management accounts or any interim accounts must have been obtained and considered by the KTP Adviser. 9. Advisers can, in exceptional circumstances, request management accounts from listed companies. However, these are likely to contain „price sensitive‟ information and unauthorised disclosure must be guarded against. Nevertheless, since the Advisers are obtaining the information on behalf of the TSB, and because it is held in confidence, no question of disclosure of a company‟s financial affairs arises, and no law, rule or code will be breached if a company provides a copy of its management accounts to a KTP Adviser. 10. The format of management accounts will vary from company to company. In most cases, a business‟s management accounts can be compared to its annual accounts in order to determine trends. The management accounts to be obtained should be those prepared up to the end of the most recent complete month or quarter. Where this more recent financial information has been provided, it should be retained by the Adviser and referred to in the Adviser‟s Recommendation. In general, over-prescription as to the information to be provided by the company should be avoided, as this might involve a company in incurring undue expense and effort. Companies trading for less than two years 11. The above paragraphs are wholly applicable only when a business has been trading for over two years. Whilst extra caution should be paid to „young‟ companies, they do not need to be excluded from Knowledge Transfer Partnerships just because they are new. Therefore, any annual accounts that are available should be obtained, together with summary trading and cash flow forecasts. Any other forecasts and projections covering the present period and the immediate future and extending beyond the likely end date of the planned Partnership may be useful; they may be in the form of a business plan that the company has used to secure funding. In such


cases, the commentary as well as the figures will help the Adviser to assess the company‟s prospects. Research and Technology Organisations (RTOs) as Company Partners 12. A summary of financial information about the RTO needs to be provided at Part A, paragraph 2.9, of the Knowledge Transfer Partnerships Grant Application and Proposal Form. 13. RTOs may be limited by guarantee (not-for-profit) organisations but tax changes have resulted in limited companies being set up to deal with business facing activities in recent years. The current status should be checked during the initial discussions. Those RTOs that are not limited by guarantee should be treated as though they were a company. Advisers should obtain a copy of the annual accounts to enable the financial position of the RTO over last two years to be considered.

Assessment

14. Advisers should assess the financial information and form a view of the viability of the potential Company Partner, taking into account the likely financial commitment the company would have to make to any proposed Knowledge Transfer Partnership. Most cases will be straightforward. However, in some cases there will be a need for Advisers to consider carefully the financial position, beyond just considering the accounts. This may be necessary to gain greater confidence about an organisation before devoting time and effort, and that of the company or RTO, in working up a proposal for a Knowledge Transfer Partnership. 15. Good practice suggests that before visiting the company for the first time, Advisers should obtain financial information on the business and develop a line of questions to put to the company, based on the information obtained. It is also considered good practice to reconcile your opinion on the financial position of the company with that of the Knowledge Base Partner before visiting the company. The Knowledge Base Partner should have undertaken some assessment of the company, including credit checks, considering that it will be requesting the company‟s contribution towards the cost of the project. 16. Use the accounts as the source for framing your questions – not necessarily the place where you will find all of the answers. When you receive an answer, make sure you understand it. If not, enquire further. 17. Consider the accounts in relation to the other information you have been given about the company. Do they fit together? Is the majority of the income due to one large customer? Does the company‟s claim to promote its products extensively seem to be reflected in the level of marketing expenditure? 18. Does your impression of the company „on the ground‟ endorse what its accounts and senior management tell you? 19. The company may be in receipt of a SMART Award. It is acceptable for the award to be the precursor and complete before the KTP project starts or to run in parallel with the KTP project. In general, Advisers should ensure that there is no double funding where any grant funding is indicated.


Companies trading for more than two years The basic financial tests indicated below and contained in Annex 1 are good practice tips which should enable Advisers to formulate the questions needed to satisfy themselves as to the financial position of the company. 20. The Adviser should look at the following aspects of the company‟s accounts and form a view as to whether further advice and/or information is necessary. 21. Does the auditor‟s statement qualify the accounts in some respect? If it does, the nature of the qualification should be noted, and further information sought or advice obtained as appropriate. 22. The notes to the accounts may be a pointer to some financial uncertainty that is not evident from just analysing the figures. For example, the profit & loss account should be checked for the inclusion, or exclusion, of exceptional or extraordinary items and their potential implications for the company‟s financial position considered. 23. Check the company‟s profitability to see if the company can afford to participate. The profit from normal trading activities in the two years covered by the accounts only should be considered. Note whether the profit in each of those years is less or only a little more than the funding that the company would need in order to contribute to the costs of the possible Knowledge Transfer Partnership. 24. Check the company‟s liquidity. Are its current assets greater than current liabilities (amounts falling due within one year)? 25. Consider the company‟s stability/gearing by checking its longer term funding position. The ratio between share capital and reserves to long-term borrowing such as loans, overdrafts, and creditors falling due after more than one year should be considered. As a minimum requirement, funding should at least equal borrowing. 26. The results of the „tests‟ for liquidity and gearing can sometimes appear to be in conflict. If the company „fails‟ one of them it is worth considering its cash position and the status of loans and bank overdrafts. The company‟s cash-flow forecast over the next two years may help in determining the suitability of the company. Companies trading for less than two years 27. For companies which have traded for less than two years the same rules are generally applicable, but greater emphasis will need to be attributed to the level of any profits generated to date and the forecast for the immediate future such as will be found in its Business Plan. It may be the case that the normal „tests‟ suggested in the preceding paragraphs do not reflect a business‟s current performance, and therefore there may be a case for attributing greater emphasis to the cash-flow forecast. 28. It is likely that Advisers will need to seek further advice and guidance in respect of these types of business. Spin-out companies from a university or other public body 29. In order to be considered as a Company Partner, a spin-out company should

operate on normal commercial terms. This means that it should not receive any public funding or subsidy and that any facilities and/or assistance provided to it


should be on normal commercial terms. It would be difficult for a spin-out company to demonstrate that it was operating on a full commercial basis if its customer(s) was wholly a public body or bodies. It would need to show that any contracts won were done so on a commercial tendering basis. In addition, any profit that a spin-out company is making should be invested for its growth and not covenanted to a public body in any way.

30. Its independence should also be considered:

30.1. A company is considered independent unless 25% or more of the capital is owned or the voting rights controlled by an enterprise falling outside the definition of an SME, whichever may apply, or jointly by several such enterprises. It is possible for there to be several investors each with a stake of less than 25% in the company and it still to remain autonomous, provided these investors/companies are not a „linked enterprise‟. (For a definition of a linked enterprise and the SME definition in general, see „The new SME definition user guide and model declaration‟, published by the European Commission and effective from 1 January 2005. See also the calculation on how to determine the size of a linked enterprise.)

30.2. This holding is increased to no more than 50% if the investment is

held by public investment corporations, venture capital companies, business angels, universities and non-profit research centres or institutional investors, including regional development funds and autonomous local authorities with an annual budget of €10 million and fewer than 5,000 inhabitants, providing no control is exercised either individually or jointly, or if the capital is spread in such a way that it is not possible to determine by whom it is held and they are not „linked‟ (see para. 30.1 above).

Companies that are part of a group of companies or are owned by another

company 31. If the proposed Company Partner is part of a group, financial information for both the Company Partner and the group should be considered. If the accounts are consolidated and the Company Partner‟s accounts are not available or, in particular, concerns are raised about the Company Partner‟s financial position, information on the group accounts should be provided with evidence from a senior executive in the group that the group will provide financial support to the proposed Company Partner for the duration of the proposed Knowledge Transfer Partnership. “Applicant company accounts must, in all cases, be dated less than 9 months prior to the date of the appropriate meeting of PAG. Whenever possible, parent company or Group accounts should be similarly dated but, if this is not possible, latest available audited or management accounts must be provided. In all cases PAG reserves the right to request additional information relating to the applicant, Group or parent company.” If the financial viability of a company is in doubt, please discuss this with your KTP Adviser. 32. A company that is owned by another company or person(s) (common Managerships) or is a „linked enterprise‟ should be considered together with its parent and related companies, as this will affect its classification with regard to size. (Note paragraph 30 on the independence of a company.) It may be, in the case of linked companies, that the accounts are not consolidated. However, an overall view should be taken (the EU calculation will help here in determining company size).


Inter-company loans and/or trading may indicate that it is part of a group or a linked enterprise where it is not, at first glance, apparent, as well as may be, common Managerships.

33. Where the ultimate parent company does not produce accounts, a substantive letter indicating support should be obtained to support the application, along with any accounts for the group that are published, so that a broad financial

assessment can be made. Research and Technology Organisations (RTOs) and companies limited by

guarantee (not-for-profit) as the Company Partner 34. Advisers should be aware that enterprises that are limited by guarantee (i.e. „not-for-profit‟ organisations) have no share capital and also may have no long-term borrowings. In addition to the assessment method used for companies, the following checks should be made. 35. Did the enterprise „break-even‟ in each of the two years covered by the accounts? If it did not, any trend towards profitability should be assessed, together with the effect that any amount set against exceptional capital expenditure may have on this trend. If there is no trend towards profitability, and/or there was an exceptional capital item, then the advice of the TSB should be sought. 36. The impact of any grants provided to the enterprise should be considered. The percentage of existing public sector grants to turnover/income should be less than 25% in each of the years during which the enterprise may be participating in a Knowledge Transfer Partnership. Advice should be sought from the TSB if the figure of 25% is likely to be exceeded in any of the years.

Further Advice from the TSB

37. Where a company or RTO fails to „pass‟ some of the checks suggested above, and an Adviser considers it has potential that is worth pursuing, further advice should be sought from experienced KTP Adviser colleagues, in the first instance. The advice of a KTP Programme Manager in the TSB may be sought but it should be borne in mind that the TSB does not have access to accountancy advice. 38. Where the TSB‟s advice is sought, Advisers should send the fullest possible information to the KTP Programme Manager. This should include the full annual report and accounts, which will include the notes to the accounts and, where appropriate, management accounts and/or the business plan (including any narrative) etc. In addition, Advisers should indicate the likely Associate profile and provide an estimate of any additional financial resources the company or RTO may require in order to fully support and exploit the Knowledge Transfer Partnership. 39. The TSB may give a positive view of a company or RTO‟s likely viability as a KTP Partner on the strength of those checks which were „passed‟, together with any positive comments from the Adviser; for example, “a successful company with a strong balance sheet, including a healthy cash balance, which shows a trading loss in the last accounts but which is realistically forecasting a return to profits”. 40. It should be noted that in the context of Knowledge Transfer Partnerships, TSB officials are not prepared to deal directly with organisations on matters concerning


their accounts or financial position. It is the Adviser‟s responsibility to liaise with them.

Adviser’s Recommendation

41. The Adviser‟s Recommendation will include a statement confirming that the company or RTO‟s most recent annual accounts and/or any additional financial information have been considered. Where those accounts, in the case of companies, cover a financial year which ended more than nine months before the date of the PAG meeting, a statement will be required that the company‟s later management accounts or interim accounts and business plan, if appropriate, have been considered. The Adviser should add further comments about the organisation‟s financial position when it is considered appropriate to do so, such as evidence of inter-company trading, other current liabilities which should be defined, unusual trading patterns, negative liquidity, long term inter-company loans etc, or information that appears to conflict with trends indicated by the figures.


Annex 1

Good Practice tips

General good advice or comments Before the first company visit In general, the company should be able to afford to pay its share of the project costs and be generating sufficient resources to exploit the outcomes of the potential project. Do not undertake a company visit before you have seen the accounts, including any recent accounts, management accounts, cash-flow forecasts or business plans you need. Before visiting a company, reconcile your opinion on the accounts with that of the Knowledge Base Partner. They may have a more relaxed approach, but could be biased against the company because of credit checks based on old information. Use the accounts as the source for your questions - not necessarily the place where you will find all of the answers. When you receive an answer, make sure you understand it. If not, enquire further. Consider the accounts in relation to the other information you have been given about the company. Do they fit together? Is the majority of the income due to one large customer? Does the company‟s claim to promote its products extensively seem to be reflected in the level of marketing expenditure? Formulating the questions Look for the trends, not just the last set of figures. Three years‟ figures would be better than two. Where the business is a sole trader you might need to consider the net worth of the owner and assess the resources they can call on. Look at the Managers‟ statement (it does not form a part of the accounts but helps to form a view of the business and may raise some questions). Do look at the Auditor‟s Opinion. Is it qualified in some way? If so, you will need to investigate and assess the risk that may be presented. When looking at a set of accounts, always read the notes for further information as these provide some explanations to the figures provided but may also be a source of questions or cross checks. Remember that small companies can opt for the production of abridged accounts, in which case, management accounts should assist in forming a view. „Cash is King‟ - remember that profitability can be manipulated in many ways, but the cash or borrowing facilities available cannot. Look at the Cash Flow Forecast - if the company does not have one that is a concern.


If the company‟s profit & loss and balance sheets are very poor but the company is in heavy debt to a venture capital (VC) company, you can investigate and perhaps find that the company is profitable at the pre-interest level (EBIT) and the VC Company is happy with repayments. Obtain a letter from the VC Company with a repayment forecast and an expression of satisfaction with the company‟s performance. With current year figures, do not look at just the current cumulative profit/loss for the year to date but also review the recent months‟ trading (it is trends you are seeking). Look out for obvious anomalies in the accounts. Check the notes to the accounts and ask for clarification. Look forward as well as back - ask about current and future order books. If profitability/cash flow is problematical, can the KTP funds be „ring-fenced‟? High gearing (i.e. borrowed funds in relation to owners‟ funds) can be good if profitability is increasing but bad if profitability is declining. Take care with „trading companies‟ and „holding companies‟. A „trick‟ is to show sound trading company accounts, with all the discrepancies held in the holding company. What happens to the profits created by the business? Are they real? Are they turned into cash? Identifying who receives them may provide an indication as to the independence of the company. Are there any hints of company commitments/loans/guarantees/inter-trading not visible within the figures (e.g. with „sister companies‟)? What are the major financial threats to the business? Who are the major customers? Are there one, two, three or more? What is the balance of the business between these customers? Does anyone else have „control‟ over a company or its assets? Is it a group of companies with common shareholding/Managership? Is it a „linked enterprise‟? Does this affect the KTP project? Find out who has ultimate responsibility and make sure that they endorse the project.

The visit Make sure the company managing Manager is acquainted with the numbers‟ applying to the business and does not just read them from the accounts. Is the business managed proactively and efforts made to affect the results or do the owners/managers simply preside over events? Most issues are explainable and not fraud etc, but may be poorly represented. Ask the managing Manager the same question in different ways to verify the facts. Pretend to be uninformed, ask the obvious questions.


A side meeting may be necessary to discuss confidential financial information. Does your impression of the company „on the ground‟ endorse what its accounts and senior management tell you? Balance sheet Be clear on the ownership and funding of the company. Are there any large numbers on the balance sheet relative to other figures, and how would a small percentage change in these affect the business? Does the company appear to have enough in the way of net assets to be able to afford the investment in the KTP project - not just the Associate costs but all the other costs the project will lead to? Will it need capital expenditure to exploit the outcomes; for example, could the company finance it? Valuing stock can be difficult. Although there are rules/guidelines, the figures can be a lot more subjective than others on the balance sheet. When looking at negative liquidity, view it in relation to the company‟s capacity to take on long-term loans, which might be used to improve the situation. Consider the importance of liquidity and the short-term pressure, which might adversely influence decision-making. How much liquid cash can the company have free from encumbrances, and is this compatible with the cost of the project? A company will need adequate resources for expansion - perhaps to exploit the benefits for the KTP project - including working capital. Does it have such resources, or have plans for gaining them? Has this aspect been considered by the company? Manager‟s loans may make up part of the funding of the business. If liquidity appears to be a potential problem, consider asking for a letter stating that these loans will not be repaid during the project. Capitalising R&D (i.e. treating it as if it were the purchase of an asset and therefore not showing as an immediate cost to the profit & loss) can be risky. Does the company actually have an asset that it could sell at this stage? Factoring of invoices and perhaps outsourcing credit control to a competent third party has the benefit of speeding up cash flow - but at a cost. Do not just look at gearing; also examine the latest shareholders‟ funds against what is owing to the bank. Look for sensible and rising owners‟ funds.


Profit and loss Understand the financial model of the business - how does it make money? Look at overall borrowing and consider interest obligations relative to profit generation. Profit before tax is better for revealing trends as the percentage of tax a company pays may vary. Gross and operating profit margins for a number of industries, as per the biz/ed website, are shown in the table below.

Gross Profit Margin Operating Profit Margin

Leisure & hotel 9.64% 7.36%

International airlines 5.62% 4.05%

Manufacturers 35.14% -10.48%

Retailers 11.41% 1.63%

Discount airlines 27.46% 10.87%

Refining 11.99% 12.63%

Pizza restaurants 47.52% 7.55%

Accounting software 89.55% 27.15%

NB. There is no reference given for the original source or date of these figures so they are presented as examples to promote thought rather than definitive facts. Further Accounts Guidance

Generally, it should be remembered that at the first contact with the business,

the ability of the business to resource the project and the exploitation of the

project outputs to outcomes for the business needs to be undertaken.

Appropriate information which reassures that the business has access to the

necessary resources should be considered.

It is the Adviser‟s responsibility to investigate, comment and report on

company finances and should be undertaken at the earliest stage of

discussion with the company along with „Is this KTP?‟

At the earliest opportunity, the accounts of the applicant company should be

considered in the usual way in order to assess affordability and identify any

factors that may present a significant risk to the project and or full

implementation of the outcomes of the project. These should demonstrate

that the business has the resources to undertake the proposed project(s) and

exploit the outcomes. The Accounts should show the position up-to 9

months prior to the date of the PAG at which the application is considered.

Any other supporting information or explanations should also be available.

The objective here is to clear any potential issues

The ownership line is determined and explained in the application or

supporting documentation.


The KTP Adviser should determine any issues of concern about that

ownership line and finances and investigate and report, consulting with

Colleagues as necessary before resorting to the EoI process for a decision if

necessary. This should happen very early in the process (NOT at application

stage). The following concerns are by no means exhaustive or in priority

order.

a. If in following the ownership line, concerns are highlighted over the

legality of the business, its operation and or owners:

b. Owners in offshore tax havens should be considered carefully and

as full a picture as possible obtained, what may be hidden?

c. Applicant not solvent, how can they afford to participate?

d. Applicant solvent, immediate parent or others in chain not solvent,

investigate the position so the risk can be assessed.

e. Applicant company is not trading in the UK (it may just have a

registered office in UK but is any work done here?)

f. Use the SME definition document published by the EU to help

here.

g. If the main shareholder is a Business Angel and is recognised as

such, who provides funding to a number of different businesses

then this should be explained and not counted as a linked

business.

h. It is possible that some parent companies do not publish interim

accounts or accounts. Then the Adviser should obtain such

financial information necessary to explain the financial position in

such cases.

The decision on the risk will be made using the information provided and the

point at which the issue occurs. The immediate project concern is that the

applicant company has the ability to undertake the project and exploit the

outcomes.

For large international companies it appears unreasonable where there are a

number of organisations in the ownership trail to go to the ultimate owner for

a statement of support. It is very unlikely they will be aware of this level of

detail regarding the business subsidiary. Providing the Adviser has no

concerns about the structure and financial position of the applicant company

such a statement is not required from the ultimate parent.

If no issues are identified with applicant company accounts, the Adviser may

decide that only the applicant company and immediate parent accounts are to

be considered as part of the application. If the immediate parent does not

publish accounts then the Adviser should state and explain how they have

satisfied themselves of their position with what financial information they have

been allowed to see and have

Where the company is a large international company, which publishes its

accounts (maybe not in sterling) and it is profitable and solvent, then the

Adviser should decide whether there is a need to include these Accounts in

the application. The Adviser should state the reason in their Adviser

Recommendation if only the applicant company accounts appear in the


application. If Accounts are not publically available then these should be

included in the application.

The above are not mutually exclusive and we need to be pragmatic in dealing

with the above issues and potential risk.

5.2 FURTHER ASSESSMENT OF AN ORGANISATION TO BE CONSIDERED AS A SUITABLE COMPANY PARTNER 1. General KTP Advisers and KTP Offices have access to guidance, which provides information on what to look for when assessing a company‟s financial viability and access to the latest individual Funding Organisations‟ Criteria, contained within the public KTP Website. This information should enable the KTP Adviser to assess the suitability of an organisation to become involved in KTP. It is particularly important that the type of company/organisation, its business and the nature of the objectives of the project are considered at the same time as any financial viability issues. 2. Establishing the source and amount of income When a KTP Adviser makes an assessment of an organisation‟s suitability and eligibility to become a Company Partner, the KTP Adviser must be satisfied that whilst the company/organisation may receive direct funding from the public purse, it is able to generate sufficient commercial income from its own day-to-day business activity. The KTP Adviser must be satisfied that this income is sufficient to:

Cover the costs of the project itself.

Enable the company to fully exploit and embed the outcomes.

Ensure there is no double funding of the project as proposed. If there are any doubts the KTP Adviser should seek advice from the KTP Programme Manager at the Technology Strategy Board. 3. Funding Organisations’ criteria When assessing the suitability of an organisation to become a Company Partner, the KTP Adviser must determine if the nature of the project and the type of organisation meet the KTP criteria. The KTP Adviser must be satisfied that sufficient Funding is available to support the whole requirement before developing the proposal further. 4. Summary Early assessment of an organisation‟s eligibility to take part in KTP requires all of these issues to be considered, and where eligibility or capability is in doubt the KTP Adviser or Office is encouraged to contact the Technology Strategy Board to discuss it. An outline or full proposal should not be developed if issues of eligibility remain outstanding and in doubt.


5.3 DEFINITION OF AN SME

1. The Technology Strategy Board has agreed to adopt the latest (January 2005) EU definition of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as used in the context of EC State Aid rules. The revised definition is substantially the same as before but with higher turnover and balance-sheet thresholds. A summary is as follows: 2. For KTP purposes an SME is now an enterprise which has fewer than 250 employees and has either:

an annual turnover not exceeding €50 million or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding €43 million.

3. An enterprise is considered independent unless 25% or more of the capital or of the voting rights is owned by an enterprise falling outside the definition of an SME, whichever may apply, or jointly by several such enterprises. 4. This holding is increased to no more than 50% if the investment is held by public investment corporations, venture capital companies, business angels, universities and non-profit research centres or institutional investors, including regional development funds and autonomous local authorities with an annual budget of €10 million and fewer than 5,000 inhabitants, providing no control is exercised either individually or jointly, or if the capital is spread in such a way that it is not possible to determine by whom it is held and they are not „linked‟ (see above).

5. Where it is necessary to distinguish between „small‟ and „medium-sized‟ enterprises, the definition of a small enterprise is the same except that the relevant number of employees is 50 and the turnover and balance sheet totals are both €10 million.

6. The three tests - workforce, turnover or balance-sheet total, and independence - are cumulative; all three must be satisfied. In calculating the thresholds it is therefore necessary to cumulate the relevant figure for the enterprise and for all the enterprises which it directly or indirectly controls through possession of 25% or more of the capital or of the voting rights.

7. The data to apply to the head count of staff and the financial amounts are those related to the latest approved accounting period and calculated on an annual basis. The amount selected for the turnover is calculated excluding VAT and other indirect taxes.

8. In the case of newly established enterprises whose accounts have not yet been approved, the data to apply are to be derived from a bona fide estimate made in the course of the financial year.

9. Where there is some doubt as to whether a company falls within the agreed KTP definition of an SME, the advice of a KTP Adviser should be sought in the first instance. They, in turn, can seek the advice of the KTP Programme Manager who will, if necessary, seek advice from the TSB. 10. For full details of the SME definition please visit: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/enterprise_policy/sme_definition/sme_user_guide.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/enterprise_policy/sme_definition/sme_user_guide.pdf


If when gathering information about the company the size of the company is in doubt then please get them to complete: SME test: http://smetest.uwe.be/

6. BUDGET GUIDANCE

6.1 KTP PROJECT BUDGET GUIDELINES FULL ECONOMIC COSTING (fEC) 1. Introduction

These guidelines are designed to assist applicants in determining a proposed KTP project budget using full economic costing (fEC) within the HEI sector, and conform to Government policy. The old standard budget method and 46% overhead can still be used where fEC has not yet been implemented in the HEI or the institution chooses to use the old method. FE Colleges can still use the old standard budget method or, if they are linked to an HEI at which fEC has been introduced; choose to use the fEC method. Similarly, RTOs can choose either method. Once the KB has decided to use one budget method they are not permitted to switch between the two. The KTP Grant Application and Proposal Form includes a blank outline budget table which covers old standard and fEC cases, which needs to be completed before submission. Advice should be sought, generally about the application process and particularly about the proposed budget, from the nominated KTP Adviser and, if necessary, the Technology Strategy Board prior to submission. The Partnership Approvals Group approves applications, and successful applicants are notified of the decisions through an „Offer Letter‟ (which also sets out the regulations governing expenditure) addressed to the Knowledge Base Partner. Each KTP budget is financed by a contribution from Government (in the form of a grant and not subject to VAT) awarded to the Knowledge Base Partner, with the Company Partner contributing to the balance of the project costs directly to the Knowledge Base Partner. The company has, in addition, to find its own cost of participation. The Local Management Committee (LMC), established for the particular Knowledge Transfer Partnership, controls the budget (within the regulations set out in the „Offer Letter‟). DEFINITIONS OF THE MAIN FEC TERMS ARE SET OUT ON THE NEXT PAGE.

http://smetest.uwe.be/


2. Definitions of the fEC terms Directly Incurred Costs Associate Employment: These costs relate to the employment of the Associate, e.g. to salary, NI contributions, pension etc. Where there is more than one Associate project this figure should be the total cost for all of them identified in the Partnership proposal. Associate Development: These costs are for each Associate to manage, through the LMC, and are for additional developmental training that is specifically required for the particular project identified. Training that helps the all-round development of the Associate is also covered by this contribution. Travel and Subsistence: These costs relate to the travel necessary to undertake each proposed project. These costs are for use by the Associate and the Academic Supervisor only. The company finds its own T & S costs outside of the budget. Partnership T & S budget. See separate section for further information on applications for additional funding. Consumables: These costs are a contribution towards those consumable items which are essential to enable the project to progress and be completed successfully. They can include the Associate‟s PC but should not include capital items that the Company Partner will require after the project has been completed. The consumables budget is a standard amount. See separate section for further information on applications for additional funding. Directly Allocated Costs Knowledge Base Supervisor: This represents the cost of the appropriate „Academic‟ in the Partnership and their indirect cost element. Associate Estates Cost: Normally this will be zero as the Associate is located at the Company Partner‟s premises. Large company proposal may not request additional funding and a cap of £10k will be applied to all other partnerships. Where a request for additional estate costs is made by an SME it must be accompanied by a satisfactory justification. Mentoring: This cost may be applicable where an institution has made a KTP Application but has not participated before, or where there has been a long period since it last participated. The cost relates to the time spent by a member of staff from an institution which regularly participates in KTP, in helping the organisation new to KTP become acquainted with it. Under the old standard budget method this amount is £1,000. Mentoring costs under fEC are split between the grant and the company contribution. The Partnership will have to provide a satisfactory justification if mentoring was required on more than one occasion in particular where the KB Partner is an FE College. Indirect Costs Additional Associate support: These are the costs that relate to the management aspects of the Associate (such as learning resources, computing, personnel function, secretariat support to the LMC, etc).


3. KTP project budgets The KTP project budget includes categories covering the costs directly incurred in carrying out the project (the Directly Incurred Costs resulting from employing the Associate). The Directly Allocated Costs are those costs allocated to the project by the Knowledge Base Partner for the support provided by the Knowledge Base Supervisor and, if appropriate, covering the use of laboratory or office space by the KTP Associate. Occasionally, Mentoring support for the Associate is required from individuals not from the Knowledge Base Partner itself; the costs of such mentoring are regarded as Directly Allocated Costs. The budget also includes a category called Indirect Costs to cover those additional costs incurred by the Knowledge Base Partner associated with employing the Associate and providing them with access to support facilities. The budget does not cover the costs (direct or indirect) of the supervision and support of the Associate given by the Company Partner. These costs are met exclusively by the Company Partner. The total budget for a KTP project depends on the following four parameters:

The duration of the project.

The plan of work to be undertaken.

The geographical location of the Company Partner.

The costs associated with the particular Knowledge Base Supervisor and the department within the Knowledge Base Partner that is providing the main support.

Table 1 provides indicative budget figures for KTP projects lasting exactly 12 months. Figures for projects lasting more than 12 months can be obtained by multiplying on a pro-rata basis. The tables relate to „standard‟ KTP projects, and costs for Associate Estates Provision may be included as Directly Allocated Costs, but only if the company partner is an SME. A cap of £10k is currently in place. The rules for justifying additional funding change from time to time. The KTP Adviser should be consulted to obtain the most up-to-date position. If the KTP project is based mainly at a company site in London, the „Associate Employment‟ category of the budget is enhanced by £3,000 to enable the payment of a „London Allowance‟ to the KTP Associate. Such an allowance is permissible only if the company site where the majority of the project work is to be carried out is within 16 miles of Charing Cross. The Directly Allocated Costs and Indirect Costs should reflect the real costs to the Knowledge Base Partner of employing the KTP Associate and providing support. The amounts will vary between institutions and, possibly, between departments within institutions. 4. Outline budgets for ‘standard’ KTP projects Table 1 shows outline budgets for „standard‟ KTP projects undertaken at company sites based in the UK and London alluded to above. Immediately below that is the fEC funding model that is to be used to determine the KTP project budget. The notes below this Table 1 provide explanations of the entries in the correspondingly numbered rows of the table.


Table 1: Outline of ‘standard’ KTP project budgets

Directly Incurred Costs (see notes 1,2,3 & 4)

Standard Budget

London

Associate Employment (1) 27,000 30,000

Associate Development (2) 2,000 2,000

Travel and Subsistence (3) 2,250 2,250

Consumables (4) 1,500 1,500

Sub-total 32,750 35,750

Directly Allocated Costs

(see notes 5,6 & 7)

Cost Factor Cost* Factor

Knowledge Base Supervisor (5) (SC) (F1) (SC)* (F1)

Associate Estates Provision (6) (EC) N/A (EC)

Mentoring Support (7) (M) N/A (M)

Sub-total

Indirect Costs (see note 8) Cost Factor Cost* Factor

Additional Associate Support (8) (AC) (F2) (AC)* (F2)

Total of sub-totals

Notes to Table 1 above: (1) The standard amounts shown for „Associate Employment‟ represent upper

limits above which the grant does not make any contribution. Any expenditure on employing an Associate (salary plus additional costs) that exceeds these amounts must be met entirely by the Company Partner. Such „topping-up‟ by the Company Partner may be desirable to attract an Associate with appropriate qualifications and experience.

(2) The amount for ‟Associate Development‟ is fixed at the level shown.

(3) This is the standard figure for „Travel and Subsistence‟. See separate section for further information on applications for additional funding.

(4) This is the standard figure for „Consumables‟. See separate section for further information on applications for additional funding.

(5) The Knowledge Base Supervisor (SC) costs will depend on the nominated individual, the department and the institution which provides the Supervisor‟s employment. Normally the Knowledge Base Supervisor will spend, on average, half a day per week in support of a project and thus normally the multiplying factor of these costs (F1) is typically 0.1. Very exceptionally, in cases where the Partners agree there may be a need for the Knowledge Base Supervisor to provide additional support, a higher value than (F1) may be proposed but is unlikely to be approved unless a justifiable case is presented.

(6) The Estates Provision cost for the KTP Associate is zero where a project is

being undertaken exclusively away from the Knowledge Base Partner‟s site. If the company is large no additional funding can be requested. A cap of £10k will be applied to all other partnerships. Such requests must be


satisfactorily justified.

(7) On occasions when additional mentoring support from an individual not employed by the Knowledge Base Partner is deemed to be appropriate, then the additional costs should be included as Directly Allocated Costs. The typical cost currently is £1,000. The cost is split between the grant and the company contribution.

(8) Normally the additional support given to the Associate is shared

approximately equally between the Knowledge Base Partner and the Company Partner. Thus the factor (F2) used to multiply the Additional Associate Support costs (AC) incurred by the Knowledge Base Partner is typically 0.5. In exceptional circumstances a higher value than (F2) may be proposed, but is unlikely to be approved unless a justifiable case is presented.

5. Example budget and funding ratios Table 2 shows example budgets for „standard‟ KTP projects using hypothetical figures for the Directly Allocated Costs of engaging a Knowledge Base Supervisor as well as for the Indirect Costs of providing additional support to the Associate. The table assumes that the project is the first for the company. The table also shows how the budget is split between the company and the Knowledge Base Partner. For a first-time SME the company contribution will be one-third (i.e. 33%), and for a large company the contribution will be a half (i.e. 50%). Table 2: Sample budgets and financing for ‘standard’ KTP projects (assuming no mentoring support is required)

Annual Costs Annual Costs

SME Large

Annual Amount

Government element @

67%

Company element @

33%


50%

Company element @

50%

Contribution to Associate employment costs 27,000 18,090 8,910 13,500 13,500

Associate development 2,000 1,340 660 1,000 1,000

Travel and Subsistence 2,250 1,508 742 1,125 1,125

Equipment, consumables 1,500 1,005 495 750 750

Total Direct Costs 32,750 21,943 10,807 16,375 16,375

Directly allocated costs

Knowledge Base Supervisor (1) 8,000 5,360 2,640 4,000 4,000

Associate Estate costs 0 0 0 0 0

Mentoring support 0 0 0 0

Indirect Costs

Additional Associate support (2) 18,000 12,060 5,940 9,000 9,000

Total 58,750 39,363 19,387 29,375 29,375

Notes to Table 2 above:


(1) An example figure is used here for the Knowledge Base Supervisor support costs. This is linked to the employment costs of the Knowledge Base Supervisor. Following on from table 1 an assumed KB Supervisor cost of £80,000 has been used and a factor of 0.1 to arrive at the £8,000.

(2) An example figure is used here for the costs of Associate support additional to that provided by the Knowledge Base Supervisor. This should also include the costs associated with providing secretariat support to the LMC. Following on from Table 1 the assumed Additional Associate support cost is £36,000 and a factor of 0.5 to arrive at £18,000.

Table 3: Sample budget total where the Company partner is located within London

Annual Costs Annual Costs

SME Large

Annual Amount


67%

Company element @

33%


50%

Company element @

50%

Total 61,750 41,373 20,377 30,875 30,875

Notes to Table 3 above: In relation to Table 2 and additional £3,000 has been added to the Associate employment costs, all the other figures remained the same in order to arrive at the totals in table 3 above. The Directly allocated costs and Indirect Costs elements will reflected in the fEC element of the HEI involved in the Partnership so no addition is required.

6. ‘Zero Grant Funded Partnerships Partnerships funded under fEC where „zero‟ Grant is requested i.e. the company has agreed to pay practically all the project costs. The policy for the non fEC budget as that the grant contribution will be limited to £4,000 towards academic and secretarial costs and £500 towards the Associate development costs per year. The policy for projects using fEC where „zero‟ Grant is agreed is as follows:

For both an SME and Large Company, KTP Supervisors contract to spend 10% of their time in supporting the project per year. Where a „zero‟ grant rate is agreed government will only contribute 0.67 of that cost, in the case of an SME and 0.5 of the cost, in the case of a large company partner: eg (KB Supervisor cost* (F1))*.67 for an SME (KB Supervisor cost*(F1))*.5 for a Large company


Note in both cases where F1 is 0.1 ie equates to 10% of the appropriate academic's time. The result is to be rounded up to the nearest £100. Example (188,170*0.1)*0.67 = £12,607.39 amount entered on budget sheet £12,700 In addition £500 per year for Associate development is also allowed. 7. HEI fEC Certificates 7.1 Since the introduction of fEC in January 2006 the Partnership Approvals Group (PAG) continue to consider the costs included under the above headings, to:

Ensure fairness to all participants

Identify appropriate costing

Avoid unnecessary costs to the Programme – and hence reduction in number of Partnerships which can be supported

Benchmark for reference purposes

Provide information back to KB partners on benchmarking and range of pricing policies

In order to consider the costs involved PAG has requested that the Knowledge Base Partner provide a breakdown of its Directly Allocated Costs and Indirect Costs by showing the subheadings of what has been included. This information should be readily available to the Partnership because the University will already have implemented the national requirement to manage its research support in a sustainable manner and information collected under its transparency review will be used to cost its support to business under all circumstances including KTP. These costs will have been audited and approved. 7.2 The PAG members must be satisfied that only these audited and approved costs are included in a KTP fEC Budget and that no additional costs have been included.


An example of what is being included by a University who successfully applies fEC to its support to business, including KTP, is as follows:

Indirect Costs Estate Costs

VC/PVC's Office Buildings Depreciation

Health & Safety Office Equipment Depreciation

Internal Audit Insurance

Registrar‟s Office Infrastructure Adjustment

Legal Costs Utility Costs

Library Building Maintenance

ITS Garden & Grounds

Development Office Laboratory Technicians

Human Resources Departmental Space Costs

Corporate Communications

Strategic Planning & Change

Academic Office (PGR Activity)

International Office (PGR Activity)

Research & Economic Development Support Services

Treasurer‟s Dept

Interest Payable

Treasury Charges

Department Indirect Costs

Cost of Capital Adjustment

For KTPs, the above Indirect Costs and Estate costs are applied to the 10% of academic supervisor‟s time committed to the KTP. The Indirect costs are applied to the Associate (50% of FTE) but the Estate Costs are only applied if the work plan dictates that the Associate should spend significant time within the University, using its facilities. 7.3 Action required by the Knowledge Base Partner In order to satisfy PAG the Knowledge Base Partner must:

Provide an annual certificate signed by the Finance Manager or an appropriately authorized member of the finance staff which confirms that for the proposed KTP Budget only those costs authorized to be recovered and which have been audited have been included.

The certificate should also include a list by sub heading of those costs.

Ensure the information is made available to its nominated KTP Adviser and included when the first proposal containing an FEC budget is submitted for consideration by PAG. Subsequent proposals then only have to show, at the beginning of section 8 of the form, that the proposal has been prepared in accordance with the fEC certificate, and give the date of the certificate.


Confirm that the University will charge the company partner in full for its contribution to any expenditure incurred within the budget, and that the sums charged will be as shown in Section 8 of the KTP Grant Application and Proposal Form.

7.4 The Knowledge Base Partner may not charge the company partner additional costs outside of the budget which are directly associated with the costs of the project. This may impact on the decision made by PAG about the ability of the company to afford its share of the project costs and on its ability to afford the costs of implementation. Similarly, the knowledge base partner may not reduce the costs to the company subsequent to approval of the KTP grant.


6.2 KTP STANDARD (NON fEC) BUDGETS, ELIGIBLE COSTS AND GRANT AMOUNTS APPLICABLE FROM 1 APRIL 2013

1. For KTP Programmes having more than one Associate project, the applicable amounts will be those derived by multiplying the amounts in the standard budget table by the number of Associate places approved for the Partnership in question. Budgets and grants for projects longer than one year will be derived by multiplying the standard budget by the number of years and parts of years, up to a maximum of three years, to obtain the amounts concerned . 2. The standard rate for Associate Employment Costs is £27,000 for one Associate over 12 months. Any expenditure on employing an Associate (salary plus additional costs) that exceeds these amounts must be met entirely by the Company Partner. Such „topping-up‟ by the Company Partner may be desirable to attract an Associate with appropriate qualifications and experience. Additional Employment Costs for a Post Doc or Masters Level Associate may also be available. 3. For SMEs only and in certain cases, the amount of Eligible Costs against the 'Travel and Subsistence' and 'Equipment, Consumables' headings may be increased, but this is subject to a case being made by the Knowledge Base Partner proposing the Partnership; that case being supported by the relevant KTP Adviser and by the Partnership Approvals Group (PAG) which has an official of the TSB who has the authority to approve proposals there and then as a member. 4. Unless a case has been made in writing to the KTP Programme Manager and accepted and agreed, a maximum of £700 may be expended from the Eligible Costs on fees associated with achievement of a higher degree/qualification. 5. When the premises of the Company Partner at which the major part of an Associate's project will be undertaken is in the London area (up to 16 miles from Charing Cross), the 'Contribution to Associate Employment Costs‟ element of Eligible Costs may be increased by £3,000 (ie from £27,000 to £30,000). If the location of the Knowledge Base Partner is in the London area (up to 16 miles from Charing Cross), the 'Contribution to Academic and Secretarial Support' element of Eligible Costs may be increased by £1,500 (ie from £10,500 to £12,000). Where the project clearly requires a PhD qualification or Masters Level qualification and is suitably justified then the £3,000 for London Weighting would be added on top of the £35k/£31k. 6. The grant amounts, excluding the contribution to Indirect Costs, applicable to any approved Partnership Proposal and Application for Grant will normally be determined by reference to the size of the company (EU Definition) and the number of previously approved projects. 6. Lower rates of grant (including 0%) than those indicated above may be negotiated by the KTP Programme Manager in particular circumstances, subject to discussion by the PAG and the approval of a duly authorised official of the Technology Strategy Board.

76

STANDARD Non fEC BUDGET PER ASSOCIATE FOR ONE YEAR

All figures in £ ELIGIBLE

COSTS

GRANT AT

60%

GRANT AT

40%

GRANT AT

‘0%’

Direct Costs

Contribution to Associate

Employment Costs

27,000

16,200

10,800

-

Contribution to Academic and

Secretarial Support

10,500

6,300

4,200

4,000

Associate Development

2,000

1,200

800

500

Travel and Subsistence

2,250

1,350

900

-

Equipment, Consumables, and

Other Costs

1,500

900

600

-

Total of Direct Costs

43,250

25950

17,300

4,500

Indirect Costs

Contribution to the overheads of the Knowledge

Base Partner @ 46% of the grant contribution

to direct staff costs

10,350

6,900

-

Maximum Grant Payable 36,300 24,200 4,500

77

6.3 APPLICATION OF NON fEC GRANT RATES FOR CLASSIC KTP - FAQs

Q: What happens if a company changes size from small to medium or from medium to large, or vice versa? A. The level of grant will be applied firstly on the size of the company at the time of the new application and then to be based on the number of previously approved Associate projects. Q: Should companies be encouraged to submit proposals with more than one Associate? A: Yes. Every effort should be made to bring them in at the same time for consideration by the same PAG even when a different Knowledge Base Partner is proposed. The synergy between the projects should be explained. A: Yes. Where there are a large number of proposed Associate projects consideration should be given to submitting separate proposals, especially where the financial/academic benefits for each proposed project could become unclear. Q. When is the counter to the application of the grant rate reset? A: When there has been a break of five years between the start of the last Associate‟s project and a further new application being received and reviewed by PAG. The date of the PAG meeting and not the date of submission will be used. Q: What happens if a project does not start? A. The project will not count if an Associate was not recruited in the time allowed and no funding has been expended, but will count if the Associate has been registered.

78

6.4 APPLICATION OF CLASSIC KTP GRANT RATES The following grant rates will apply for all new proposals submitted from 29th June 2012. Any project that has not yet progressed beyond the EoI stage will also be eligible for these grant rates, although resubmissions will not and nor will any proposal withdrawn and resubmitted in the hope of achieving the higher rate.

June 2012 - fEC Grant Rate

SMEs

First to 3rd project 67%

4th project 50%

5th and subsequent projects Zero – reset five years following start of 4th project

Large Companies

First project 50%

2nd to 4th project 30%

5th and subsequent projects Zero – reset five years following start of 4th project

June 2012 - Non fEC Grant Rate

SMEs

First to 3rd project 60%

4th project 45%

5th and subsequent projects Zero – reset five years

following start of 4th project

Large Companies

First project 40%

2nd to 4th project 25%

5th and subsequent projects Zero – reset five years

following start of 4th project

6.5 APPLICATION OF SHORTER KTP GRANT RATES 1. The grant rates available for shorter KTP proposals are 60% and 40% only and are based on the number of employees in the organisation/business. Further details of how these grant rates are applied can be found in the guidance note contained within the hard copy of the form and in the shorter KTP user guide. The online submission process calculates the grant rate automatically. 2. Virement between headings is not permitted. 3. Currently the grant rates remain the same for repeat partnerships.

79

6.6 APPLICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ALL CLASSIC KTP BUDGETS

1. General Funds may be vired between Associate Development, Travel and Subsistence and Equipment and Consumables headings. The PAG would be unlikely to support a request for virement of funds out of the Associate Development budget, unless it was clear that such a request did not jeopardise the personal and career development opportunities of the Associate. 2. Associate Development Heading The PAG will not consider requests for additional funding in support of Associate Development. 3. Non standard Associate Employment Costs Post Doc Associate Required? From 29 June 2012 the contribution to Associate Employments Cost was increased to a maximum of £35k per year. This maximum rate will only be approved where the project clearly requires a PhD qualification and this is suitably justified within the proposal. At LMC (1) The KTP Adviser will be responsible for ensuring that PAG supported extra funding for employment costs and a Post Doc Associate had been appointed to the Partnership. The requirement is that the Associate will have already written up and passed their viva. Those Associates appointed without the level of qualification agreed by PAG will revert to the standard level of employment costs. Masters Level Associate Required? The KTP Management Board has agreed that the contribution to Associate salary for projects requiring a Masters level qualification is to be increased from the standard level of £27k per year to £31k per year, provided the partnership does, recruit someone with this level of qualification. This comes into effect from 1 April 2013 and will be applied to all new proposals submitted to a PAG meeting from this date. This increase does not apply to current Partnerships or those awaiting issue or resubmissions. EOIs that have already been submitted may be eligible. This should not be seen as an opportunity to name the Associate in the proposal form and Associates must be appointed under open recruitment. In order for this increase to be approved PAG will have to be convinced that the work needed to deliver the project plan and its level of complexity matches the qualifications, experience and personal attributes needed by the Associate and warrants the appointment of an Associate at Masters Level having achieved this through at least 4 years of study. If supported by PAG a grant offer letter will be issued on this basis. At LMC (1) The KTP Adviser will be responsible for ensuring that PAG supported extra funding for employment costs and a Masters Level Associate had been

80

appointed to the Partnership. Those Associates appointed without this level of qualification will revert to the standard level of employment costs. 3. Requests for additional funding from large companies/organisations

PAG will not support requests for additional funding for Travel and Subsistence or Equipment and Consumables or Associate Estates Costs. where the Company/organisation Partner is considered to be large (EU Definition).

4. Requests for additional funding from SMEs

PAG may, in exceptional circumstances, support a request for additional contribution towards Associate Estates Costs. A cap of £10k will be applied and requests must be satisfactorily justified. PAG may support requests for additional funding for Travel and Subsistence or Equipment and Consumables. A robust case for this modest amount of additional expenditure will need to be included in the proposal, for consideration by PAG. 5. London Weighting

Under certain conditions additional funding may be made available if the Knowledge Base Partner or Company Partner, or both, are within the London area.

Based on a one Associate project over 12 months and when the premises of the Company Partner at which the balance of an Associate‟s project will be undertaken are in the London area (up to 16 miles from Charing Cross), the contribution to the Associate Employment element of Eligible Standard costs may be increased by £3,000 (currently £27,000, increased to £30,000). Where the project clearly requires a PhD qualification and is suitably justified then the £3,000 for London Weighting would be added on top of the £35k. Where the project clearly requires an Associate at Masters Level and it is suitably justified then the £3,000 for London Weighting would be added on top of the standard £31k. Based on a one Associate project over 12 months and when the location of the Knowledge Base Partner is in the London area (up to 16 miles from Charing Cross), the contribution to the Academic and Secretarial Support element of Eligible Costs may be increased by £1,500 (currently £10,500, increased to £12,000).

6. Fees associated with a higher qualification

Unless a case has been made in writing to the KTP Programme Manager and accepted and agreed, a maximum of £700 may be expended from the Associate Development heading of Eligible Costs on fees associated with achievement of a higher qualification. Requests for additional funding under this heading will not be considered or supported. If the Knowledge Base Partner is not a Higher Education Institution, £1,700 per Associate towards degree registration and examination fees may be paid, at the discretion of Local Management Committees, out of the standard „training and development‟ budget of Knowledge Transfer Partnerships. 7. Mentoring support to new Knowledge Base Partners The purpose of mentoring support is to provide such organisations with examples of good practice in the management of KTP Programmes, particularly regarding:

Provision of adequate financial and personnel/administrative support.

Supporting and mentoring the Associate(s).

81

This is in addition to maximising benefits to the Partner organisations. To enable this, the mentor (an experienced Knowledge Base Supervisor) would expect to at least:

Attend four early meetings of the Local Management Committee to ensure that good practice is implemented.

Meet appropriate staff on three other occasions to discuss good practice in operational matters.

The level of funding in support of mentoring currently stands at £1,000. This is allocated as £800 for Institution Staff Costs and £200 for Travel Costs. For non-fEC funded projects, this is grant-funded only and no contribution is made by the company. The amount is also „ring-fenced‟ and may not be vired to any other budget heading. For fEC funded projects, the company makes a percentage contribution in line with the overall grant contribution.

6.7 VAT

1. Recently a local VAT Inspector, when reviewing VAT liability, found a College was not applying VAT to the contributions made by the company partner in respect of KTP project payments. The College was required to recover the VAT and back VAT payments from the companies they had been working with. A quick survey of institutions around the UK suggested that some did and some did not apply VAT to the company contributions with respect to KTP Project, it depended on the local Tax Office.

2. Following representations, HMRC ruled that the company contribution is a supply and therefore liable to VAT on their contribution. The ruling means that VAT should be applied by the KB partner to the contributions made by the company towards KTP projects. This, unfortunately, will mean that companies will have to reclaim the VAT paid on their KTP payments through VAT claims.

3. It is thought that all organisations involved in KTP have a part that is VAT registered through which the VAT paid may be reclaimed. The VAT on the company payments to the HE/FEI/RTO cannot be claimed by the KTP grant recipient on behalf of the organisation and then passed onto TSB for payment in such cases.

4. Separately, the UUK Finance Managers Committee raised a different issue as there had been a couple of recent cases whereby VAT was applied to government grants associated with research and HMRC had ruled that VAT was payable.

5. In KTPs case, HMRC decided that the KTP grant to the HEI is not a „service‟ and therefore not liable for VAT. HMRC also indicated that the supply of the Associate was not classed as a service as the Associate is employed by the HE/FEI/RTO ie it was not a supply of staff. The decision was made on the basis that government does not get any direct benefit from the awarding of the grant. VAT is not applied to the Government grant element.

1. VAT may not added to the grant element of the budget.

6.8 R&D TAX CREDITS From 1 August 2008 the rate of relief applicable under the SME scheme increased to 175% of qualifying expenditure and further increases to 200% of qualifying expenditure from April 2011 and 225% from April 2012, subject to EU State aid approval, were announced in Budget 2011.

82

The rate of relief under the large company scheme increased to 130% of qualifying R&D from 1 April 2008) and that claims have to be made against projects (not individuals) undertaking qualifying R&D expenditure and in accordance with the respective R&D tax credit scheme rules. The scheme is delivered by HMRC via a network of r&d specialist units, and HMRC HQ ensure that the scheme is interpreted consistently. KTP could attract R&D Relief providing the project and expenditure incurred qualify under the particular rules of the scheme and a company seeking detailed advice about this scheme should be directed to the local specialist unit, http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cirdmanual/CIRD80350.htm

6.9 KTP – STATE AID

1. The Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTP) programme is a product model approved by Solutions for Business and is determined as “not notifiable” under State Aid (i.e. considered to fall within Article 87 (1), paragraph b(ii)). 2. There is no direct financial aid to the business partner in KTP and in fact businesses contribute at least 40% of the project costs typically in addition to their own costs of project participation and costs of exploiting the project outcomes. Additionally, the KTP project partners are expected to publicise their participation in the programme and if appropriate, provide a case study on the projects and benefits that result for all the partners. Typically, only about 20% of projects result in proprietary intellectual property being generated.

7. COMMUNICATION

7.1 COMMUNICATION WITH THE HELPLINE 1. Stakeholders are reminded that occasionally KTP staff at the Technology Strategy Board are away from their desks, so sometimes when you call one of them on their direct dial number it will go through to their voicemail. If you do not want to leave a message, try calling the KTP Helpline number – 0300 321 4367. The Helpline is manned by a small group of staff from the Technology Strategy Board who will take your message and make sure it gets followed up by the right person as soon as they are available. 2. The fax number is 01793 442 797

7.2 NEW USER ACCESS TO THE PORTAL 1. General The lead Funding Organisation the Technology Strategy Board makes use of the KTP Portal to help communicate with the KTP Stakeholder community. The posting of documents and new announcements enables users to have access to the most up to date information available. The Portal continues to be used to notify change. Should a new member of staff join an existing KTP Office team or someone else from

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cirdmanual/CIRD80350.htm

83

an Institution new to KTP start, then we are keen to make sure they have access to the latest information about KTP as soon as possible. Please encourage them to „Register as a New User‟ by logging on through the top menu of the KTP Website Home Page. The KTP Portals provide access to a document repository which holds blank forms etc. Access to this KTP Guidebook is available from the main Home Portal. To gain access it will require the user to be part of an approved „Portal User Group‟. If you are new to the KTP community please register on the home page of the Website by selecting „New User Registration‟ from the options at the top of the Home Page. Unless you are linked to a specific Partnership as the KB Administrator or a Supervisor you should select either of the following User Groups:

KTP Office – general support staff delivering KTP day to day but not linked to a current partnership

KTP Finance – if responsible for submitting only claims. If when you attempt to register your KB Institution does not appear in the available drop down list, please contact the KTP Technology Strategy Board before attempting to register. The Technology Strategy Board will require details of the institution and a full postal address. 2. Use of the Portal To get new users off to the best possible start you are encouraged to read first the Portal Guide and help which is available on the Users Home Page. It is considered timely to remind you of the following when using the Portal:

To post a vacancy or register a new Associate. This can only be done by the Partnership Supervisor or KB Administrator linked to the Partnership. This applies to those who were named on the proposal form and entered on the database.

Only the person who posted the vacancy can make changes to an existing advert.

Lead Academics who are not identified as Supervisors do have access to the Portal. They may also receive information about KTP via their nominated KB Admin or Partnership Supervisor. Alternatively information about KTP can also be obtained from the KTP Technology Strategy Board .

Only Supervisors can book to a Supervisor Workshop. Any proposed changes to Supervisors identified in the proposal must be supported by the nominated KTP Adviser and notified to Julia Bottomley in the KTP Technology Strategy Board.

The advice is to ensure changes are made to the KTP database first before attempting to register as a replacement Supervisor.

Only KB Admins or KB Finance Users have access to and can process claims on behalf of their Institution, using the Portal.

To make sure you make best use of the Portal and do not miss important updates, please set your ‘Alerts’. You can do this for both document lists and Announcements throughout the Portal. Further guidance is available on how to set Alerts by accessing the Portal Guide and Help.

Failure to access the Portal at least once in every 360 days will result in the Users Account being suspended. To reactivate a suspended account please contact the relevant Portal Manager identified as such at the top of each Portal Home Page. Once reactivated you will have to request an email reminder to be sent details of your user name and password. Please help us by ensuring users avoid creating duplicate accounts.

84

3. Portal User Groups

The restricted-access Portal is designed to provide detailed support, guidance and advice to those stakeholders who are involved in the delivery of current Partnerships and to those whole may be new to KTP and engaging for the first time.

If you are new to KTP and registering for the first time please read carefully the different user types options below so that you understand to which Group you should belong. This is important as once you start the registration process you may be asked to select which Group you wish belong to. Individuals who are from an academic institution will be expected to provide a recognised University or College email address and a land line telephone number.

When you attempt to register for the first time the portal checks against information we already hold on the KTP database and if it recognizes you from your name, academic institution and email address, you will not be asked to select which user group you wish to belong to.

Academic staff or KB Admin staff not yet linked to a Partnership should select the „KTP Office‟ User Group to enable them to gain access to important KTP documents.

There are a number of Stakeholder areas on the Portal:

Advisers – Do not select this option. Restricted to individuals appointed as contractors by the Technology Strategy Board to support the delivery and approval process of new KTP proposals, support to current Partnerships and who are linked to nominated institutions

Assessors – Do not select this option. Restricted to those involved in the Final Report Assessment process only

Associates – Do not start your registration here. Your registration process will be carried out by your Partnership Administrator or either of your Supervisors. Once they have completed stage one you will be sent an automated email asking you to follow a link and complete the final stage of your registration. Once you have registered you will receive information about the training package being offered and details of how to book what is being offered.

KB Financial Office – Select this option if you have responsibility for the processing of KTP Partnership Claims only

KB KTP Office – Select this option if you are a member of the support staff in a KTP Office working on the delivery of KTP or an individual academic working independently in an institution to develop a full proposal who is not yet linked to a Partnership and has details entered on our KTP database

KB Partnership Administrator - Do not select this option unless you are named and linked to a specific Partnership. KB Admins can post a vacancy and register an Associate. If you wish to make a change to that which was provided in the grant application and proposal form please contact the Technology Strategy Board

KTN Representatives – Do not selected this user group unless you are linked to a KTN.

KTP Office National Forum - For KTP Technology Strategy Board use only

85

Marketing - For KTP Technology Strategy Board use only

Portal Manager - For KTP Technology Strategy Board use only

Regional Group – for use by Advisers and Sponsors only

Sponsors - Restricted to those funding KTP - Government Departments, DAs, and RCs

Supervisors - For use by both company and academic Supervisors named and linked to specific partnerships only. Supervisors can post a vacancy or register an Associate. Only nominated Supervisors can register for a Workshop

Training - For KTP Technology Strategy Board use only

Training Providers - Restricted to those in the delivery of KTP modules

All individual areas of the Portal are accessed from the Portal Main Home page. However, for the Supervisors and Associates areas of the Portal individuals are directly to their own sub page area after logging-in.

Supervisors involved in classic KTPs can register for Supervisor Workshops and Associates can book training entering their Portal areas after logging in at the website Home page.

7.3 CONTACT DETAILS SHOWN ON THE WEBSITE HOME PAGE

Each Knowledge Base Institution also has the opportunity to appear under the 'Contact Us' Tab on the public facing area of the KTP website. Currently we are able to include details of a „First Point of Contact‟ per Institution. One contact name, email and telephone number only please. In order to ensure this is kept up to date please email [email protected]

7.4 NEW KB USER ACCESS TO SHORTER KTP

1. As an existing KB user develops the new shorter KTP proposal online and adds either a new KB Contact or company contact information is entered, then each new user will automatically receive their access information and password by automated email which is then used to gain access to the proposals that they are linked to. These New User accounts email messages come from [email protected] and sometimes get treated as spam. Existing users who already have a Portal account do not get another one as they are picked from database information we already hold. 2. Alternatively those knowledge base users coming to KTP for the first time can register as a new Portal user and when prompted to do so select a user group to belong to. In this case choose either „KTP Office‟ or „KB Financial‟. New users, once approved, will receive a User Name and Password, which can then be used by returning to the KTP Website Home Page and logging on as an „Existing User‟. Please do not add a company contact using this method 3. If you already have a Portal Account that may have lapsed please arrange for your account to be reinstated and do not attempt create a duplicate account.



86

4. Should you be required to initiate a proposal and you discover that details of the academic department are missing or need amending please contact Mrs Julia Bottomley at the KTP Technology Strategy Board on 01793 442 935 to ensure these details are first added to the KTP database before attempting to initiate a new shorter KTP proposal.

ADDING USER NAMES AND EMAIL ADDRESSES CORRECTLY ON THE PORTAL IS VERY IMPORTANT. GETTING IT WRONG AT THIS STAGE CREATES ERRONEOUS ACCOUNTS AND CAUSES A LOT OF PROBLEMS THAT TAKE TIME TO IDENTIFY AND RESOLVE

7.5 KTP STRATEGY AND FUNDING ORGANISATIONS CRITERIA

The latest Funding Organisation‟s Criteria is only available from the Public Area of the KTP website.


7.6 _connect

The Technology Strategy Board wants to encourage participants in KTP to register on the _Connect platform to encourage networking and promote the growth of communities within which knowledge exchange can be stimulated. To support this, KTP Advisers will be working with the key individuals in the KTP partnerships in their portfolio to get them registered on _Connect, usually as part of an LMC meeting. Eventually we hope that this will become a routine part of early partnership development. KTP already has its own official _connect Group which is open for anyone to join. Sub groups for KTP Advisers, KTP Associates Past and Present and KTP Office Managers are also available. The Adviser and Office Managers subgroup are official closed groups but the Associates Past and Present is open to anyone. Registration can be achieved either by going directly to the _connect site (https://connect.innovateuk.org/) or via the KTP portal where a link has been provided on the Supervisors‟ and the Associates‟ portal (see links on RHS of page) „Join the _connect platform here‟. Once registered individuals are encouraged to join relevant groups and networks on _connect including the Knowledge Transfer Partnerships group! Thanks to your efforts recent activity has seen the membership of the KTP Connect Group increase to well over 1200 users. Our plan is to add additional functionality as these numbers increase. Anything you can do to encourage others to sign up including staff in KTP Offices, businesses and KTP Associates Past and present would be much appreciated.


https://connect.innovateuk.org/

knowledge transfer partnerships - open · pdf filethe knowledge transfer partnerships (ktp)...

Documents