Collaborative Online tools for Business and Community Engagement Case Study Case Study Title
Exploiting the Open Innovation Division of Labour Using Social Media
Institution(s) involved
Leeds University (Lead), Manchester University, Sheffield University (dropped out) University of York (likely potential replacement for Sheffield), Mindcloud Ltd
Contact + Email
Brianmccaul@mac.com 07966280627
JISC programme (if applicable)
Trialing Collaborative Online Tools
Project Dates
June 09- July 2010
Tags
Enterprise 2.0, social media, Web2.0, Open Innovation, Crowd Sourcing, Social Capital, collaboration
Headings/Questions
Explanation and further information
0. Briefly describe your project (abstract)
The premise of the project is: that existing models of Knowledge transfer from University research to commercial use are inefficient. Moreover, that the market and public funding context will make this harder to maintain and grow KT capacity unless we adopt new models of collaboration. These new models hold out the prospect of a new more efficiencies and more scalable model for KT. Hence the goal can be summarized as follows: “To overcome the inherent asymmetry between the size of the IP and expertise within University research bases, and the limited resource available for its commercial transfer to business and social use” Using New Collaborative Models for Knowledge Transfer These new models of collaboration are cross disciplinary, and we – in the Knowledge transfer profession - need to draw on a wide range for new thinking emerging from innovation theory, from social capital theory, from organizational and individual motivation theory. In essence the project is about a new model for KT, just as the current model for managing University knowledge exchange is nearing its existential moment. Using New Collaborative Tools for Knowledge Transfer Closely related to the potential to exploit these new theoretical models to underpinning the efficiency of KT activity, is the explosion of collaborative tools that make much of this new thinking practicable, and which make this project achievable. Using New Media Tools to Facilitate a new Prototype of a Virtual Model of KT This combination of an innovative approach to KT, with the appropriate use of new collaborative tools, has demonstrated a prototype for KT that has shown the possibility of achieving a more efficient model. That is, creating more impact and generating more profitable commercial transactions with less fixed resource. The essence of this model has been to create a virtual KT office in which a greater range of expertise is accessible – beyond that of the corporation. In which a boarder range of motivations are mobilized – beyond cash transactions. And in which a boarder range of external resource is exploited – beyond equity investment. Such a virtual approach to commercial KT would not have been 1
Collaborative Online tools for Business and Community Engagement Case Study manageable prior to the advent of new collaborative tools. Nor would it be achievable without the acceptance of more open approaches to innovation and the commercialization of knowledge. Yet the application of these tools and approaches to KT is still not well developed amongst the KT profession. This has meant that the project has been both difficult but also well received amongst the KT professionals. An Agnostic Approach to Tools but an Evangelist Approach to Collaboration Again the projects approach to new social media and collaborative tools has been agnostic and designed to find the appropriate tool for the appropriate goal. Hence the project has used a range of online tools, whilst looking to simultaneously to exploit existing tools and communities (and to minimize ineffective developments); where possible to build synergy in the use of these tools and networks (via the development of communities of innovation communities); and has sought to provide some guidance as to the choice of appropriate tools. But at every level of the project the team has sought to maximize the level of collaboration. Hence the project itself started as a collaboration between three Universities (Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield), and is still looking to increase collaborative partners. The Project also based itself of a range of existing KT communities (GInnN, Knowledge Vine and the IP Net, amongst many others). Building a Virtual Market in KT Services - a Summary The project therefore sought to create a virtual community of entrepreneurconsultants that can be drawn upon by participating KTOs to undertake business development activity, and to locate an access external funding sources. The intention is for partner KTOs to share ‘pre-qualification information’ and positive experiences regarding the use of external entrepreneurs consultants to reduce the risk associated with their use, and to collaborate in the use of online networks and tools in order to reduce the transaction costs that have typically militated against the adoption of such an virtual approach in the past. The ability to scale this approach has been aided by the exploration for varied reward structures – ranging from fees, equity, royalties and interest and experience. Building Internal Innovation Communities of Practice – a Summary In addition to facilitating the use of external players in the KT space the project has also recognized the need to co-ordinate the use of internal resource within the partner Universities. Many of the partners are moving to more deviled models of research and Innovation management and in some cases the KTO (Manchester) is external to the University. Hence creating greater connectivity with the internal academic community has been crucial to addressing the asymmetry between the significant resources devoted to IP and idea creation and the relatively small resource devoted to opportunity exploitation. The creation of University-centric innovation communities that are plugged into the KTO whilst also exposed to greater levels of external market pull have been a fundamental facet of the project. Facilitating Change and Understanding Barriers to Change Core to the project (and derived from some of the motivational theory that informed it) was the appreciation that behavioural factors make the adoption of new tools and new processes a long haul. And therefore the project as sought to A) prove the impact of the approach (via increase commercial income achieved 2
Collaborative Online tools for Business and Community Engagement Case Study at Leeds, B) to show that a number of Universities collaboration can increase efficiency in the creation of virtual KT teams, and C) to extensively use the exiting professional bodies such as AURIL and PraxisUnico to promulgate the benefits of an open and collaborative approaches to KT.
1. Why did you use this approach? Approx 250 words
Challenge: To overcome the inherent asymmetry between the size of the IP and expertise within University research bases, and the limited resource available for its commercial transfer to business and social use overview video To improve the efficiency of the Knowledge transfer process and to radically reengineer the process using current innovation policy theory (Open Innovation), to improve the corporate intelligence (via increased social capital) and to expose the institution to greater market pull (via increased network work exposure); To overcome the lack of scalability inherent in the people intensive practice of KT; •
To use social media a tools to facilitate all of the above and in particular to reduce the transactions costs associated with increased use of external players in this new “ innovation division of labor;
•
To harness the aggregate purchasing power of a number of Universities in creating a market for external entrepreneur-consultants, and to share pre-qualification information on their appropriate engagement.
•
To create internal dedicated (but interlinked) University Innovation networks, and to facilitate the growth of enterprise communities of practice;
The Approach: was to use a range or exiting social media tools relevant to the KT community – with exiting critical mass as the springboard to growing greater local engagement. This stemmed from a desire to: avoid unnecessary development costs, to enhance integration and take-up of complementary tools, and to lever the existing KT networks; This approach enhanced impact within the limited financial scope of the project and minimized technical delays, whilst also increasing collaboration between networks. It also increased the likelihood of successful dissemination of the results – through working with the main KT professional bodies.
2. What is the context in which you are using this approach?
The context of the project was radical decrease in the resource available to KTO from a) the capital markets and c) and related negative impact on the reduction in public resource available to KT
Approx 250 words
This is a shared problem for the University partners, but they also shared similar characteristics northern civic, research intensive Universities (but it is assumed that the approach will lend itself well to other types of Universities) The very problem that the partners were trying to address – the reduction of resource available for KT – had a very immediate impact on the partners, with a number of them (Sheffield and Manchester suffering redundancies that affected the project steering group) The most significant contextual problem for the partner was the radical nature of the proposal and the extent to which is sought to re-engineer the core processes of KT and commercialization. This both complicated the prospect but 3
Collaborative Online tools for Business and Community Engagement Case Study also assisted in ensure the criticality of the projects outcome and. The second most important contextual problem was resistance with the university internal information systems support departments, many of whom were intrinsically resistant to the use of open platforms and to the access of online networks by external members; Much of this was anticipated prior to the commencement of the project but the unique combination of the above 3 factors (cuts, complexity and closed approached so IT support) did have more significant delay upon the project than anticipated) Conversely the impact of the project – both in terms of the improved performance at Leeds and of the interest of the KT sectors have been strongly countervailing and positive outcomes.
3. What collaborative online tools and other technologies were involved? Approx 250 words
The primary social media tool used was the sossoon social media platform – primarily because this was the back bone of the GINNN community (then largest KT online community). Hence LIN and Ubridge are both based on this platform (as will be the York network). This was supported via the integration of the Knowledge Vine and the IP Net, which have been developed by the UMIP partner. These tools have been supplemented through the use of other open source blogging and project management software, including Wordpress (for the Leeds Website), ManyMoon project management platforms at Leeds, and other social media platforms such as Twitter. The rationale for the selection of these tools was threefold: to what extent was the KT community already using them, and to what extent could they be accessed for free or cheaply, and the level of appropriateness for the nature of the online interaction. The Leeds project actually concerns establishing a network of Activity Systems. The participants in the Leeds network do not operate in isolation; they have their own institutional settings and organizational arrangements, i.e. they exist within their own Activity System. Such a plethora of Activity Systems already exist, and what the Leeds social media platform is doing is providing an efficient means for them to make contact.
4. How did you design or set up the interactions design? Approx 150 words
This approach uses existing technology as a platform and main challenge was the population and development of the community and to familiarize people with the tools. A range of people were employed to encourage and stimulate different groups. Targeted academics and academic groups, people with theoretical understanding of commercialization processes and network and KT professionals. The process provided; •
•
•
Rules – The social media platform brings new actors into the System and enable a new basis for “Rules” to be established, namely “Wisdom of the Crowds”. Division of Labour – by drawing upon a wider pool of potential collaborators and by not making any centralized decisions about participants, the possibility for “natural selection” of the best collaborators becomes possible. Tools – rather obviously this can include the IT solutions, but the new 4
Collaborative Online tools for Business and Community Engagement Case Study approach also allows material information to being exchanged in a different way from conventional projects. The core “Tool” in KT projects remains the IP generated by a university researcher. In short, the use of social media is addressing incongruities in the “Division of Labour” of the KT Activity System. 5. How did you implement and embed this approach? Approx 350 words
The Sosoon based platforms where rolled out using local champion in the respective partner organizations – Brian McFaul at Leeds and Mark Thompson at Manchester (it is hoped that Andrew Jackson will play that role at York’s) These respective champions have been responsible for the local strategy for gaining institutional engagement. At Leeds this as involved the identification to local faculty-based moderators (see the Final Report) In practice this has involved the training of key people, the creation of online video casts, and the embedding of core KT systems in the online communities. All of this has been supplemented but by the support of Paul Grimshaw and Toni Harrison in the generation of regular mailers via the social networks The growth of external partners in LIN for example is being mandated as a condition for working with the Leeds Commercialization Services team. Evaluation Evaluation has worked on many levels: daily statistics are collected on the use of the LIN and Ubridge platforms – including the visits, invites and links. The growth of the communities is monitored. Btu more importantly the impact to performance of the operations has been monitored. Whilst more difficult and mediated, this is ultimately the test of real impact. Materialization of Anticipated Problems As already referred to, certain identified risks did materialize, namely: the loss of key team players and the resistance of the ISS within partner institutions. None of these barriers have overcome the project. Whilst introducing delays, the overall interest and positive reception of the project has allowed the partners to recruit replacement partners and to retain internal political support
6. What benefits is this delivery approach producing for stakeholders? Approx 400 words
The benefit to Leeds University has been significant. It is improbable that the University could have achieved what it has in the last year in commericalisation without adopting this approach. It is likely that the University would have failed to increase the level of licensing and spinout activity without building a virtual community of entrepreneur consultants around its Leeds Innovation Network. There is now 250 active members across 45 groups cutting across all stakeholder groups. (consultants, NEDS, Venture Capitalists, KT Professionals and entrepreneurs). Providing a substantial resource base to the University. The approach has provided the base for a new and scale based approach to technology transfer. It has opened up new collaborative relationships with Manchester and York. It has generated significantly more market pull with licensing deals continuing to go up with an increase in income of 25% per annum plus a 0 to 100% success rate in Yorkshire Concept proof of concept funding. It has improved internal CS project management It has simulated interdisciplinary research with new partnerships forming. 5
Collaborative Online tools for Business and Community Engagement Case Study New and improved collaborative partnerships; - TSB, AURIL Significant improvement in staff performance including that of external partners. Increased performance towards departmental and/or institutional strategic targets through the use of this approach to using collaborative online tools. Very significant pedagogical impact through presentation: • Blog on KT2.0 - 6 Propositions • Blog on JISC project - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMUZLuBMfbo • Presented to one day conference at London College of Communication alongside Etienne Wenger http://collaborativetools4bce.jiscinvolve.org/wp/ • On-line presentation by Brian McCaul on KT2.0 http://www.slideshare.net/jisc_bce/knowledge-transfer-20 - on-line Comment- “Great presentation. I believe social media can create a step change in Knowledge Transfer” • Increasing number of ‘how to’ videos to improve usability. • User generated videos 7. Did implementation of this approach have any disadvantages or drawbacks? approx. 250 words
The adoption of the Sossoon platform had community advantages but also have technical disadvantages in that it is a complex platform and required quite a deal of training for the super users. The consistency of the platform did allow for early integration but also introduced a degree of dependence on a single provider with limited resource, and so updates and new releases have been limited Attempting to implement such technology outside the command and control channels of the University requires an entrepreneurial approach which is time consuming for the champions. The lack of universal recognition regarding the viability of engaging with the wider business community in such a way presents barriers at every stage. Implementation presents a risk to the early adopters as the network may face early obsolescence due to institutional resistance or lack of members and activity. It is problematic when starting a network for scratch in trying to show that the numbers are of sufficient volume and quality to encourage further membership. Particularly at a time when networks are proliferating and time to manage these may become a burden. Quality and regularity of communication needs to be maintained and it can be a burden to ensure these don’t all come from a single ‘super user’ source.
8. How will this approach be taken further?
The strength of the project has been the measurable impact at Leeds and the significant interest in the wider KT community.
approx. 250 words
It is likely that the project will therefore will continue to have an ongoing impact on the core approach at Leeds and in changing practice in other Universities (beyond the partner HEI). For example; A) a new project with the Design council has been undertaken to redevelop the whole of the Commercialisation teams activities. This design led process will make KT2.0 (hence LIN) an integral part of the teams everyday activities. This will be road tested before going live sometime later this year B) all existing IT systems will now need to take account of KT2.0. For example, the live feed of the IP database to feed the nonconfidential opportunity descriptions directly into LIN is planned. In the short term a ‘new opportunities’ group will be given the opportunity to undertake and 6
Collaborative Online tools for Business and Community Engagement Case Study develop projects using a wisdom of crowds approach coupled with ‘house rules’ bible above. Further integration with partner institutions is also now possible that we are sharing the same platform. We are also now starting to build a wider communication network that includes key practitioners in the field of social media. This can be demonstrated by the project with Ben Goldacre where the aim is to encourage the academic community to see tools such as LIN as an extension of their everyday activities, not a time consuming addition. A cultural change is also taking place whereby the team is adopting a different approach to finding solutions to existing problems by engaging more readily with a more available outside audience. 9.
Summary and Reflection
approx. 250 words
This approach is already being adopted in other HEIs and would fit small and large institutions alike. One of the key outcomes of this process has been influencing other institutions to consider this approach. For example, AURIL has moved to an open membership model, freeing membership and adopting the GINNN platform. The current economic and policy environment give added urgency to the need to find more cost effective and scalable approaches to commercial KT, and the project is very timely from that point of view Lessons learned; It’s a long haul. There is a need to appreciate the cultural and behavioral resistance to the adoption of new online techniques within the University community. Mainly the intransigence at an organisational and individual level to the use of new online tools and a reticence of professional IT staff to relax what they perceive as approaches that are designed to protect the integrity of University branding and university data rights. With Marketing professionals there is a reluctance to move away from traditional CRM and email/channel marketing and control of the content of messages. Establishing new “Rules” takes time and changes cannot be implemented overnight. This is consistent with the Leeds project conclusions, but suggests that it is not only a matter of getting people to use a new ICT system. The introduction of a wider range of (non-visible) actors into the KT Activity System opens project development up to a more complex array of critique; not something that all established actors can easily accept. Strategy tips • • • •
Clarity over objectives – to determine clarity on appropriate tools Integration of social media tools with the KTO business model Preparedness to switch off certain old methodologies’ The need to demonstrate the return on investment to users
Operational tips •
Attract big players first (peer network)
•
Take advantage of any existing networks
•
Deliver relevant information that people wouldn’t usually receive
•
Use the power of 3, deals we have done, funding & opportunities, 7
Collaborative Online tools for Business and Community Engagement Case Study •
Generate an initial “buzz” – followed by an internal buzz to help create a tipping point
•
Don’t try and do it all yourself (ask others to share their expertise)
•
Co-operate and collaborate (rather than compete)
•
Try and encourage a moderator to take responsibility for each group after initial support
•
Use commitment devices e.g. polls
•
Accept that you may need 2 or 3 attempts at marketing before an academic joins a group.
•
The end-user interface must be easy to use and navigate with some user-generated features.
•
Also see this Free document from Cloud9 for further 15 tips to build communities.
8