Technology and Knowledge Transfer under the Open Innova8on Paradigm The Problems of Discovery and Matching Between “Technology Push and Pull”
Pedro Parraguez Ruiz Pedro@advient.net www.openinnovate.co.uk
Presenta(on Content
Research triggers Objec(ves
Areas of study
Context
From literature and interviews
Proposed models and tools
Findings
Final remarks
Conclusions
2 www.openinnovate.co.uk
Context
Research triggers Objec(ves
Areas of study
Context
From literature and interviews
Proposed models and tools
Findings
Final remarks
Conclusions
3 www.openinnovate.co.uk
Research triggers
Open Innova8on boHlenecks and unfulfilled promises
Disconnec8on between tech transfer, knowledge transfer and OI
Inadequate IT tools to deal with the data deluge in OI and tech transfer
4
Research objec(ves • Review and analysis of the most common barriers to successful technology transfer as well as of the tools and methods already developed to deal with them.
• Create a new integral framework to model and understand technology and knowledge transfer processes under the open innova8on paradigm.
• Propose a process or system to improve the main T&K transfer issues iden8fied. 5 www.openinnovate.co.uk
Research nature
Rela(onal instead of transac6onal
T&K mapping, scou(ng and sourcing
Precursors of innova8on, the detec8on of knowledge transfer opportuni(es, collabora(on and co-‐crea(on 6 www.openinnovate.co.uk
Areas of study Open Innova8on Models & Paradigms Management of Innova8on processes Technology and Innova8on Management TIM
Technology & Knowledge Transfer
Innova8on/ Design Theories
C-‐K Engineering Design Theory
Methods & Techniques
TRIZ Seman8c Analysis
Knowledge & Informa8on Management
Informa8on Technology Tools
Informa8on Aggrega8on and Clustering Data Mining 7
Context
Domain
Area
Subject
Volume of publica(ons per area and (meline Volume of publica(ons indexed in ISI Web of Knowledge per topic per year
450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100
0
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
50
Technology Transfer
Knowledge Transfer
Open Innova8on
C-‐K Design Theory
TRIZ
8
www.openinnovate.co.uk
Volume of ISI publica(ons about TT and OI Volume of publica(ons indexed in ISI Web of Knowledge per topic per year
450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2003
2004
Technology Transfer
2005
1 2006
Open Innova8on
3 2007
9 2008
6 2009
Technology Transfer & Open Innova8on
9
www.openinnovate.co.uk
The gaps between R, D and i offers needs Development: Increasingly in high tech SMEs (ex spin offs). Sometimes in big corporations and universities.
i
Innovations: Due to the need of market expertise and commercialization players are usually successful mainly in global companies.
needs
marketing
D
Engineering & design
R
Science + Eng
Research: usually in Universities and Research Centres. Motivated by scientific curiosity and disruptive discoveries.
needs offers The full R&D + i potential is highly distributed and requires collaboration and co-creation to be exploited www.openinnovate.co.uk
Visual model Technology Transfer VS Intermediated Open Innova(on
Generation
Evaluation and Selection Evaluation of the discovery/invention and its potential applications
Technology Push Technology is “packed” to be offered in the market
If it has commercial value
If it doesn’t have commercial prospects
Research Funding
Research centre infrastructure and accumulated knowledge
Transaction
If there is an interested party
Application for a patent or other IP rights If there is no interest in the offer
Scientific Discovery
Negotiations to licence, sell or create an spin-off
Final transaction and exchange of IP
Once IP is cleared it is possible to publish
Scientific Publication
TTO usually does not get involved
TTO offers support and expertise in commercial evaluation and IP
Patent becomes part of the passive portfolio of IP
Usually TTO is fully responsible for this process
11 www.openinnovate.co.uk
Visual model Interac(ons and Problems under Technology Push-‐Pull Classic university technology transfer model
Open innovation through innov. intermediaries
Technology Push
Technology Pull Technology is “packed” to be offered in the market
Researchers
Final transaction and exchange of IP
If it has commercial value
If it doesn’t have commercial prospects
If there is no interest in the offer
Open i nnovation networks
Scientific Publications
Company with a need
Passive patents
Issues: • Linear process: Low itera8on and co-‐crea8on à lack of feedback loops. • Middle point is non existent. • Problems of iden8fying opportuni8es and knowledge • More than 1792 ac8ve needs
(Innocen8ve + Ninesigma + Yet2.com + others. August 2010)
• Con8nuous explicit knowledge genera8on (papers, patents...)
12 www.openinnovate.co.uk
Visual model Interac(ons and Problems under Technology Push-‐Pull Technology Push
Technology Pull Final transactions and exchanges of IP
Researchers
Company with a need
Researchers
Company with a need
Open i nnovation networks
Researchers
Company with a need
Researchers
Company with a need
Company with a need
13 www.openinnovate.co.uk
Open Innova(on Brokers
Screencast: Innocen8ve, Ninesigma and Yet2.com 14 www.openinnovate.co.uk
Open Innova(on Brokers => A fragmented landscape of technology brokers with a few big players
=> Yet2.com technology offers: 5067 15 www.openinnovate.co.uk
Findings
Research triggers Objec(ves
Areas of study
Context
From literature and interviews
Proposed models and tools
Findings
Final remarks
Conclusions
16 www.openinnovate.co.uk
Discovery and Matching The case for a virtual hub Technology Push
Technology Pull Final transactions and exchanges of IP
Researchers
Negotiations and collaboration
Company with a need
Researchers
Company with a need
Company with a need Researchers
Open i nnovation networks
Virtual hub for “discovery and matching” Researchers
Company with a need
Drawing the fron8er of what is possible…
Company with a need
Company with a need
17 www.openinnovate.co.uk
Integra(ve Framework
C-‐K
Open Innova(on
Tech Transfer
?
18 www.openinnovate.co.uk
Tradi8onal Concept-‐ Knowledge Design Theory Armand Hatchuel and Benoît Weil
www.openinnovate.co.uk
K: Knowledge, something that is known to be true or false C: Concepts, something for which is currently not possible to say if it is true or false
Tradi8onal Concept-‐ Knowledge Design Theory Armand Hatchuel and Benoît Weil
Concept Space
Knowledge Space Disjunction K->C
C1
C->C Concepts evolve overtime partitioning themselves in continuous interaction with K. At the end of the process (by means of a conjunction) new knowledge (embodied for example in a new product) is produced (C7).
K(b)
K->K
C2
C3
K->C
C4
C5
The knowledge space contains explicit expertise databases and technologies. It is structured as islands each of them representing different domains.
K(a)
K(c) K(d) K(e) K(f) new
C6
C7
Conjunction C->K Concepts are defined and constrained by a list of requirements (to fulfil the objectives of a required new product or process).
www.openinnovate.co.uk
Knowledge can be internal or external to the organization. At the end of a successful design process a concept will be always transformed in new knowledge (in this case technologies are included in the definition of K)
The sourcing of the required knowledge to materialize a concept into new knowledge (or technologies) is the critical step where this study is focused. This can be seen graphically in the disjunction K(c)->C(2).
20
At the individual firm level
Concept Space
Knowledge Space Disjunction K->C
C1
C
K(α) Company
→C K(a) K(b) K
C Timeline. Analogue to TRL
Concept-‐ Knowledge Design Theory re-‐ interpreta8on (Firm level)
Concepts can evolve and interact with different sources of K till they are mature enough to be transfered.
C2
→C
K(Papers)
C3
K(c) C
C4
→K
K(d)
K(e)
→K
K
K(f)
C5
K(g)
K(Patents) K(i) C6
C7
Conjunction C Technology Needs
→K
K(h)
K(j) new
T&K offer
To connect C with a relevant K, the aggregated database of each of them can be explored and matched semantically with the help of TRIZ. This generates relevant alerts through a dashboard.
www.openinnovate.co.uk
Knowledge can be identified, clustered and aggregated as needed, curating and indexing relevant databases.
21
Concept-‐ Knowledge Design Theory re-‐ interpreta8on (Aggregated level)
22 www.openinnovate.co.uk
Aggregated level
CN1: Segmentation
Concept Space
Knowledge Space
C1
K→C
C9 C2
K(β) correlations needs-K
C3
C4
C5
CN2: Feedback
C7
K(a) K(b)
C8
C6
K(Papers)
C11 C10 C12
K(c)
K(d)
K(e)
C18 C14
CN3: Speed
Concept-‐ Knowledge Design Theory re-‐ interpreta8on (Aggregated level)
C15
C13 C17
K(f)
C16
K(g)
K(Patents)
Clusters of needs (T=2)
K(i)
www.openinnovate.co.uk
K(h)
CN 3 CN 1
K(N1, N2, N3) new CN 2
The visualization shows Cs at two different stages. The smaller nodes represent individual needs in T=1 while the big nodes represent clustered groups of needs ready to be matched with relevant K in T=2. The clusters “Speed”, “Feedback” and “Segmentation” are only examples of underlying common problems for those needs.
23
C-‐K adapted model Aggregated level
CN1: Segmentation
Concept Space
Knowledge Space
C1
K→C
C9 C2
K(β) correlations needs-K
C3
C4
CN2: Feedback
• TRIZ, Theory for Inven8ng Problem Solving
K(a) K(b) C6
K(Papers)
C11 C10 C12
K(c)
K(d)
K(e)
C18
CN3: Speed
C14
• Informa8on Management Technologies
C15
C13 C17
K(f)
C16
K(g)
K(Patents) K(i) Clusters of needs (T=2)
• C-‐K Engineering Design Theory
C5
C7
C8
Integrated Theore(cal Framework
K(h)
• Data Mining and Aggrega8on • Seman8c Analysis
CN 3 CN 1
K(N1, N2, N3) new CN 2
The visualization show Cs at two different stages. The smaller nodes represent individual needs in T=1 while the big nodes represent clustered groups of needs ready to be matched with relevant K in T=2. The clusters “Speed”, “Feedback” and “Segmentation” are only examples of underlying common problems for those needs.
24 www.openinnovate.co.uk
Barriers for TT
Priority
Culture
25
Exis(ng tools for TT
26
Exis(ng tools for TT
Screencast: TerMine, Wikimindmap, Creax Func8on Database and Seman8c Representa8ons. 27 www.openinnovate.co.uk
Experiment Â
28
Experiment 3 Main technology needs brokers
29 www.openinnovate.co.uk
Experiment 3 randomly selected needs (RFPs) from different domains
30 www.openinnovate.co.uk
Experiment Â
31
Experiment Â
32
Tool Proposal NEEDS: • SMEs should be provided w ith appropriate support to
enable them to access the knowledge they require from home and abroad. Government could map key global communi8es of prac8ce for the benefit of SMEs.
• Small firms should be helped to iden(fy and use interna(onal agents. • A register of global university exper(se should be compiled. • Firms need advice on effec8ve network management. • Government must con8nue to fund exis(ng network
support.
33 Based on NESTA report “Sourcing knowledge for innovation” May 2010
Tool Proposal Dashboard: M atches by need
34 www.openinnovate.co.uk
Tool Proposal atches by K Dashboard: M
35 www.openinnovate.co.uk
Tool Proposal Dashboard: High p robability matches
36 www.openinnovate.co.uk
Conclusions
Research triggers Objec(ves
Areas of study
Context
From literature and interviews
Proposed models
Findings
Final remarks
Conclusions
37 www.openinnovate.co.uk
Conclusions • Exploit the “long tail” of technology needs and research. • Using the pool of explicit scien(fic knowledge already available. • Allows researchers to focus on what they are best at. • Solu8ons from distant domains. • Problems can be solved by an accessible expert in the same region or somebody associated in a close social network. • SMEs have a good chance of enjoying the benefits of open innova(on networks if provided with the correct tools.
38
Poten(al Beneficiaries
39
www.openinnovate.co.uk Â