Finding 2: The transition of knowledge into practice takes place through
a variety of mechanisms…
Here we have a conflation of knowledge and technology transfer. Technology transfer is not about knowledge transfer. Or, the report might point out that university technology transfer should be about a particular kind of knowledge transfer, and isn’t.
The finding lists a standard set of activities in a university. But there’s nothing that indicates that any of it has to do with, say, using the patent system to promote practical application, or, er, making money by selling off public assets to monopolists.
And the list isn’t even focused. What does it matter that students graduate? Or that faculty consult on matters not having to do with “university-owned IP” (meaning, title patents in inventions claimed by bureaucrats). Why would these things even be within the scope of the report unless it the report is going to challenge university claims to “IP” and especially patent rights?
But, no, everything is nearly all right. They have got it–the report is about licensing of IP (meaning, patent rights for money in trendy markets), even though these other things are important. Was this group simply bored with the exercise?