The role of universities in supporting technical pathways and the delivery of innovation
ATHENE DONALD
Technicians play a vital role in universities: in keeping laboratories running, be they for undergraduates or, by their work in the mechanical and electrical workshops, to enable cutting-edge research to be carried out; for oversight of health and safety aspects in the laboratory; in facilitating knowledge exchange; and in innovation. They are a fundamental part of the contribution universities make to growth, although they are often overlooked. It is easy to see shiny labs, new equipment and the professors who lead the research as the basis of successful delivery of exciting new ideas. But in many sectors, including those identified in the UK industrial strategy, without the technicians, laboratories can soon grind to a halt and any potential breakthroughs or productivity gains lost. However, not only are technicians an under-valued resource, they are also in short supply. As economist Martin Wolf recently put it ‘the absence of a market in the creation of human capital is a market failure that justifies intervention.’ It is imperative this shortage gets fixed.
The growing technician shortage and its consequences
A few years back the Talent Commission looked into technicians’ crucial role and what they need to be able to deliver optimally. As they put it in their vision ‘The UK will be a global superpower in science, engineering, and the creative industries, enabled by its technical capability and capacity across academia, research, education and innovation. Technical skills, roles, and careers will be recognised, respected, aspired to, supported, and developed.’ The Technician Commitment (initiated in 2017), with over 120 signatory and supporter organisations, is part of ensuring that universities – amongst others – support technicians in their workforce.
However, and worryingly, the Talent Commission also found that in 2019 (the latest year HESA data was available about technicians, since this data is no longer routinely collected), around half of the technician population in higher education was over 50. Furthermore, of these, 43% had worked at the same institution for twenty years or more. This means that, as these experienced technical staff take retirement, a very substantial amount of knowledge will be lost. It is not always possible for succession planning to be effective, due to the way both research and teaching funding works in universities, so each time an experienced technician retires much technical know-how becomes inaccessible. Additionally, there is a very real problem in supply, with laboratory technicians (in both universities and industry) in short supply and included in the Government’s 2020 Shortage Occupation List.
This ageing population of technicians is found across business as well as in education – including amongst school technicians and other research institutions, and has been regularly highlighted as an issue, notably by the Gatsby Foundation. Their data suggest over 1.5 million technicians are employed in the UK, with the majority of these employed in engineering roles, but also significant numbers working in science, health and technology. However, around 50,000 of these are retiring every year, with Gatsby forecasts suggesting as many as 700,000 more technicians will be required within the next decade to meet demand. As the Royal Academy of Engineering puts it ‘the UK has a long-standing skills gap and a chronic failure to encourage enough young people to become engineers and skilled technicians.’ Their report suggests an annual shortfall of 59,000 engineering graduates and technicians to fill posts at Level 3 (A Level equivalent) and above.
Investing in training and apprenticeships for the future
The importance of the contribution university technicians make to the economy has been highlighted by an analysis completed by Frontier Economics regarding the potential benefits achievable by implementing the Talent Commission’s recommendations. This analysis showed that benefits accruing from reducing technician loss and the cost of replacing and retraining them, as well as improved satisfaction for the technicians themselves, could lead to productivity gains of the order of 10% among the technical workforce, translating into more than £100m in GDP terms. The economic benefits of valuing these people are substantial and ongoing and should form part of plans for growth.
Taken together, the evidence suggests that we are neglecting our capability not just to support vital science and research in our universities but also to build the ‘absorptive capacity’ in firms and other organisations where new technologies and processes need to be better rolled out if growth and productivity gains are to be more widely realised.
Apprenticeships should offer one important option to shore up and grow the technician workforce in business as well as in education. In addition, the Social Mobility Commission has highlighted that apprenticeship routes can be particularly beneficial to more disadvantaged groups in the population, stating in a 2020 report that ‘learners from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds benefit more from apprenticeships than those from non-disadvantaged backgrounds. The boost to their earnings, post-apprenticeship, is greater than their peers.’
Universities have a key role to play, not just in providing apprenticeships, or in training and supporting their own technicians, but in training technicians – more broadly defined – across the board, and acting as a key local hub for coordination within their regions. Not every university can create a new facility to train for local industry as the University of Lincoln did with Siemens; or as Canterbury Christ Church University did in conjunction with a group of local employers when the EDGE Hub was set up for local students to train in engineering disciplines. Initiatives such as these require significant capital investment and often a partnership with like-minded employers. But much more modest sums may be able to deliver a significant benefit to the university itself, to the technicians employed there and also to the wider region’s community and businesses. In both circumstances, a modern industrial strategy requires targeted incentives, supportive funders and regulators and much improved co-ordination, especially across science and skills policies.
With the emphasis that Bridget Phillipson is placing on higher education driving local and national growth as well as wider civic duty, this will require practical action in universities, but also better co-ordination of policy with colleagues Jonathan Reynolds and Peter Kyle at the Departments of Business (DBT) and Science (DSIT) in their collective delivery of the Industrial Strategy and the Government’s broader growth mission.
