Published on

Published in: Business, Economy & Finance
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Management in this context = knowledge generation, transfer, application, and diffusion
  • Parentheses indicate who is the lead on each session.
  • *Or work for the Governor’s Biotechnology Council.
  • Due June 24. Think about the questions you have on this before the end of class. What can we help with? Filename: STC383 lastname indivmodel
  • *One point off per week that an assignment is late without an approved excuse.
  • What does this model tell you?
  • How else could we show relationships and inter-relationship?
  • For points 5-7, our experience mentoring Motorola has showed us how important these abilities are for internal advocacy of technology licensing and related tactics for commercialization!!
  • How else can models be described?
  • ©Copyright 2001 Barbara M. Fossum, Ph.D. The IC 2 Institute This is the pretty version... Compare it to the version that tells real stories...!
  • This is the working version. This model starts telling several stories. Describe them all... This visual shows a model of the commercialization process. Imagining is that stage at which the discovery is matched with a market need. Most ideas are also killed at this stage. There are many ideas competing for resources. Incubating is that stage at which we attempt to validate the idea with a prototype. We must make the technology attractive enough to get support for the next step. At this stage, we often compete with different technologies for the same applications and products. Demonstrating is that stage at which the product is shown to be commercially feasible. At this stage we attempt to develop the technology into a manufacturable product. Promoting is that stage at which we must persuade people to adopt the product. Finally, sustaining means making sure that the products incorporating the technology have a long market life. Communication comprises four steps in this model. We add value, and we must articulate and communicate the added value at each step, to obtain the support and resources for the next step.
  • ©Copyright 2001 Barbara M. Fossum, Ph.D. The IC 2 Institute What does this model tell you? What doesn’t it tell you?
  • ©Copyright 2001 Barbara M. Fossum, Ph.D. The IC 2 Institute Likewise, what about this model?
  • 1. Interview with Dorothy Leonard-Barton. 2. L. Tornatsky and M. Fleisher. 1990. The Process of Technological Innovation
  • Relate to Session 1 readings about Japan’s knowledge creation process.
  • ©Copyright 2001 Barbara M. Fossum, Ph.D. The IC 2 Institute Think back to the Jolly Model – how does it fit here?!
  • ©Copyright 2001 Barbara M. Fossum, Ph.D. The IC 2 Institute
  • Why does he talk about Defense as a special case?! Our ’96 class had quite a hot debate on this issue!
  • ©Copyright 2001 Barbara M. Fossum, Ph.D. The IC 2 Institute Keep this in mind as we discuss university tech transfer…!
  • ©Copyright 2001 Barbara M. Fossum, Ph.D. The IC 2 Institute
  • ©Copyright 2001 Barbara M. Fossum, Ph.D. The IC 2 Institute Page 4-19, 1998 Science Indicators, NSF NSF differentiates the definition of basic research done by the government and that done by industry. It is an acknowledgment on their part that not ALL basic research has to be without purpose or application.
  • ©Copyright 2001 Barbara M. Fossum, Ph.D. The IC 2 Institute Page 4-19, 1998 Science Indicators, NSF
  • ©Copyright 2001 Barbara M. Fossum, Ph.D. The IC 2 Institute Page 4-19, 1998 Science Indicators, NSF Some agencies add one more D for Development (which is a testing and evaluation stage to prove feasibility of the application)
  • ©Copyright 2001 Barbara M. Fossum, Ph.D. The IC 2 Institute NSF Indicators Book – Chapter 2 and Appendices
  • Other reasons?
  • The first context, beyond definitions, is history and present day policies and processes.
  • ©Copyright 2001 Barbara M. Fossum, Ph.D. The IC 2 Institute European Universities funded by companies, tuition, benefactor family donations and some government support.
  • ©Copyright 2001 Barbara M. Fossum, Ph.D. The IC 2 Institute
  • ©Copyright 2001 Barbara M. Fossum, Ph.D. The IC 2 Institute Perspectives on these three approaches tend to dictate what a country’s R&D policy will be. Apply this to other countries – where does it fit? Where does it need to be altered? Also is a premise for analysis of technology development policies. From Crow & Bozeman’s book on national labs and innovation policy.
  • 1 What does this story tell you?! NSF Science Indicators, 2002
  • Cordis Focus, March 25, 2002, No. 193.
  • 1 NSF Science Indicators, 2002
  • 1 NSF Science Indicators, 2002
  • 1 The U.S. spends a higher share of its GDP on research and development (2.6% in 1999) than any other G-8 country except Japan.
  • 1 NIH has been the big R&D funding winner!!
  • 1
  • 1
  • NSF Latin America Report, 2000
  • Table Totals: 93.768 105.623 116.295 126.872 137.019 145.600 162.722 From US Technology Administration, US Corp R&D Advance Estimate , 2001.
  • Totals 105.6 116.3 126.9 137 145.6 162.7 Software publishers 5.414 6.968 8.211 10.387 11.969 14.454 Semiconductor and related device manufacture 4.710 5.703 6.912 7.965 8.940 11.772 Computer peripheral equip. and terminal manufacture 6.972 7.872 8.590 7.960 7.148 8.725 Radio, TV broadcasting and wireless commun. equip. manufacture 3.238 3.546 4.121 4.583 4.825 6.408 Telephone apparatus manufacture 3.824 3.147 4.322 5.012 6.006 6.007 Computer systems design and related services 4.891 5.183 6.198 6.416 6.475 5.919 Medical substances 17.861 19.511 20.653 23.195 25.505 26.826 Medical devices 2.629 2.971 3.256 3.300 3.222 3.274
  • ©Copyright 2001 Barbara M. Fossum, Ph.D. The IC 2 Institute See Vol 1 readings and appendices in Vol 2, NSF 2000 Indicators
  • stc3832002session1.ppt

    1. 1. STC 383 KNOWLEDGE & TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND ADOPTION aka: Knowledge, Innovation &Technology Transfer, Diffusion and Adoption Theory and Practice
    2. 2. STC 383 Session 1 Agenda <ul><li>Detailed Introduction to STC 383 </li></ul><ul><li>Definitions of KTT </li></ul><ul><li>Introduction to Modeling </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion of R&D as a precursor to KTT and of Sourcing R&D for innovation initiatives . </li></ul><ul><li>2 Breaks ~ 2:45 and 4:15 </li></ul>
    3. 3. STC 383 Teaching Team <ul><li>Dr. David Gibson, Director, Research Programs, Fellow, IC 2 ; MSSTC Faculty; world traveler, boating and lighthouses, practices yoga, dancing and music, plays the guitar, and dear pet, Helen </li></ul><ul><li>Ms. Meg Wilson, IC 2 Fellow; MSSTC Faculty, globe traveler, weaver, gardener, gourmet cook. Perfect spouse, Fred Chriswell. </li></ul><ul><li>Darius Mahdjoubi, UT Austin Ph.D. Candidate, (Topic: Atlas of Innovation). P.E. ; MSSTC TA Member, Association of Professional Engineers Ontario. Hobbies: Travel, Swimming, Mountain Climbing, Classic Music, Cartography. </li></ul>
    4. 4. Course Overview <ul><li>STC 383 will introduce you to </li></ul><ul><ul><li>state-of-the-art theory and practice on knowledge and technology transfer (KTT) and adoption, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>focused on transfer and adoption of knowledge & technology across organizational boundaries, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>including business, academia, and government at regional, national, and international levels of analysis. </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5. Course Overview <ul><li>STC 383 will introduce </li></ul><ul><ul><li>established and innovative models; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>concepts and best practices of innovation and knowledge management; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>organization behavior; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>governmental policies; and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>communication theory </li></ul></ul><ul><li>as all pertain to knowledge & technology </li></ul><ul><li>transfer, adoption, and diffusion. </li></ul>
    6. 6. Course Overview <ul><li>Course efforts will focus on analyzing the </li></ul><ul><li>barriers, challenges, facilitators and metrics on </li></ul><ul><li>knowledge/technology transfer and adoption </li></ul><ul><li>through: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Intrapreneurship, entrepreneurship, spin-outs and spin-ins. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Industry, government, and academic organizations including R&D consortia, national labs and university research centers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Regional and global implications of knowledge/technology transfer and application in the digital age </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. STC 383 Sessions <ul><li># 1: Overview & Introduction to R&D (Wilson) </li></ul><ul><li># 2: KTT Modeling: Critical Success Factors (Gibson) </li></ul><ul><li># 3: KTT and Marco Issues: The Context of Innovation (Gibson) </li></ul><ul><li># 4: Innovation Policies: Public and Private (Wilson) </li></ul>
    8. 8. STC 383 Sessions <ul><li># 5: KTT Support Structures: Incubators and Benchmarking (Wilson & Gibson) </li></ul><ul><li># 6: KTT and Global Perspectives (Gibson) </li></ul><ul><li># 7: University Research Commercialization Processes (Wilson) </li></ul><ul><li># 8: Consortial And National Laboratory Commercialization Processes (Wilson) </li></ul><ul><li># 9: Indirect Policies’ Affect on KTT and Course Wrap-up (Wilson) </li></ul>
    9. 9. Assignments and Grading <ul><li>Overall Class Participation ( including Blackboard discussions& critiques, chats, teamwork, and other contributions to class success ) </li></ul><ul><li>Critique of Readings #1 </li></ul><ul><li>Critique of Readings #2 </li></ul><ul><li>Individual KTT Model </li></ul><ul><li>Team KTT Model </li></ul><ul><li>Analysis of Direct Government Policy </li></ul><ul><li>Ideal Path Analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Final KTT Model </li></ul><ul><li>15% </li></ul><ul><li>7% </li></ul><ul><li>8% </li></ul><ul><li>10% </li></ul><ul><li>15% </li></ul><ul><li>15% </li></ul><ul><li>15% </li></ul><ul><li>15% </li></ul>
    10. 10. Assignments and Due Dates <ul><li>Individual KTT Model June 24 </li></ul><ul><li>Critique of Readings # July 8 </li></ul><ul><li>Team KTT Model July 11 </li></ul><ul><li>Analysis of Direct Government Policy* Aug 22 </li></ul><ul><li>Critique of Readings #2 Aug 28 </li></ul><ul><li>Ideal Path Analysis Sept 16 </li></ul><ul><li>Final KTT Model Sept 16 </li></ul>
    11. 11. First Assigment Looming... <ul><li>Individual KTT Model: This model should be developed as a power point or word document, identifying key elements of your own work or professional experience with a KTT effort and should include a brief ranked list of barriers, challenges and facilitators. </li></ul>
    12. 12. Housekeeping <ul><li>Syllabus: READ IT & Use It </li></ul><ul><li>Filenames: crucial </li></ul><ul><li>Team assignments : STC383 [team name] [assignment name]. Example : STC383 GroupW final KTT model </li></ul><ul><li>Individual assignments : STC383 [last name] [assignment name]. Example: STC383 Wilson Individual KTT model </li></ul>
    13. 13. Housekeeping <ul><li>Filenames: Use em! </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluations: Do em! </li></ul><ul><li>Assignments: Email em! </li></ul><ul><li>New Info: Post em! </li></ul><ul><li>Questions: Ask em! </li></ul><ul><li>Suggestions: Make em! </li></ul><ul><li>Late Assignment (points)*: Lose em! </li></ul>
    14. 14. Keys to Class Success <ul><li>Active Participation – in class and online </li></ul><ul><li>Active blackboard use for class integration </li></ul><ul><li>Sharing knowledge and experiences </li></ul><ul><li>Creative Modeling </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge Integration </li></ul>
    15. 15. Integrated Courses <ul><li>The courses of MSSTC are integrated: They are interwoven to elucidate the deep and broad concept of “commercialization of technological innovation.” </li></ul><ul><li>The courses of MSSTC - unlike conventional academic programs such as MBA or MS - are not parallel courses with substantial overlaps and holes. </li></ul>How might we model this difference?
    16. 16. MBA Courses Total: 20 courses, 4 semesters (2 years) BA384T BA385T BA381T BA380N BA386T BA380S MIS380N Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective
    17. 17. MSSTC Courses 1st Trimester TEAMS 2st Trimester TEAMS 3st Trimester TEAMS Total: 12 courses, 3 Trimesters (1 year) STC386T1 STC380 STC382 STC383 STC386T2 STC395 STC394C STC384 STC381 STC396 STC385 STC391
    18. 18. MSSTC Students Need to be able to: <ul><li>become familiar with the integrated process of commercialization of technological innovation. </li></ul><ul><li>analyze and develop “models” to explore, explain and organize the integrated process of commercialization of technological innovation. </li></ul><ul><li>work in team-organization that are needed for the integrated process. </li></ul><ul><li>analyze “cases” proper for the integrated process. </li></ul>
    19. 19. You Need to be able to: <ul><li>develop strategies that nurture the integrated process of technology commercialization and share and integrate this vision in internal reports (strategies). </li></ul><ul><li>develop, as external reports (business plans) that let you acquire the support needed for the development of a technology commercialization. </li></ul><ul><li>develop presentations (elevator pitch, VC presentation) to secure the financial and administrative support needed for the development of a technology commercialization. </li></ul>
    20. 20. Models and Integration <ul><li>Developing shared views is essential for the team- members to transcend geographic zones, professional backgrounds and modes of learning and to follow the path of integrate courses. </li></ul><ul><li>Proper models play a key role in creating and developing shared views and in sustaining the integration inside teams, companies, courses, etc! </li></ul>
    21. 21. Modeling Fundamentals <ul><li>Models can show: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Actors , stakeholders, key players </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Actions , reactions, process flows </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Timing & Relationships between and among actors, factors and actions. </li></ul></ul>
    22. 22. The Commercialization Process Source : Vijay Jolly. Commercializing New Technologies
    23. 23. Jolly’s Model of Technology Commercialization 3. Incubate to define Commercializability 7. Promote adoption 9. Sustain commercialization 2. Mobilize Interest and endorse-ment 4. Mobilize resource for Demo 6. Mobilize market constituents 8. Mobilize complimentary assets for delivery 1. Imagine the dual (techno-market) insight Source: Jolly, Vijay. 1997. From Mind to Market . Sub-Processes: Building the Value of a New Technology Tech Assessment Business Plan Bridges: Mobilizing the Stakeholders Venture Analysis 5. Demonstrate contextually in products and processes
    24. 24. A Global Challenge Education Innovation Government Industry Creativity T 2 Mechanisms Proces ses Metrics
    25. 25. Two Basic Forms of Technology Transfer to Commercial Applications private sector federal labs universities consortia corporate labs process application R&D/Mfg. Marketing/Sales spin-out technologies technology incubator private sector federal labs universities consortia ROI 2 1 start-up company
    26. 26. What do we mean by all of this… <ul><li>What do you think knowledge is? </li></ul><ul><li>What do you think innovation is? </li></ul><ul><li>What do you think R&D is? </li></ul><ul><li>What do you think technology is? </li></ul>
    27. 27. TECHNOLOGY KNOWLEDGE INNOVATION Darius’ View of Knowledge, Innovation and Technology Technological Innovation Market Innovation Organizational Innovation Creativity and Human Innovation
    28. 28. Components of Knowledge? (Webster& Leif Edvinsson and Michael S. Malone, Intellectual Capital, 1997) <ul><li>factual information used as a basis for reasoning, and calculation </li></ul><ul><li>the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence </li></ul><ul><li>knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction </li></ul><ul><li>intelligence, news </li></ul>Data Information
    29. 29. <ul><li>the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association </li></ul><ul><li>acquaintance or understanding of science, art, or technique </li></ul><ul><li>the fact or condition of being aware of something </li></ul>Definitions/Concepts to Think About and to Discuss Knowledge
    30. 30. Views on Innovation and Knowledge Knowledge creation is the key source of innovation in any company. George von Krogh Successful innovation depends on converting knowledge flows into goods and services. Debra Amidon Innovation is the ability to build on previous knowledge and generate new knowledge. Leif Edvinnson
    31. 31. <ul><li>technical language </li></ul><ul><li>applied science </li></ul><ul><li>a technical method of achieving a practical purpose </li></ul><ul><li>totality of the means employed to provide objects necessary for human sustenance and comfort </li></ul>Definitions/Concepts to Think About and to Discuss Technology
    32. 32. Human Capital The combined knowledge, skill, innovativeness, and ability of the company’s individual employees to meet the task at hand - including company values, culture, philosophy. Human capital cannot be owned by the company “ Wetware”/tacit knowledge/intangibles/ know-how
    33. 33. Structural Capital The hardware, software, databases, organizational structure, patents, trademarks, and everything else of organizational capability that supports employee productivity; Customer capital and relationships Everything left in the office when the employees go home (unlike Human Capital) can be owned and traded Codified knowledge.
    34. 34. Intellectual Capital Human brainpower, brand names, intellectual property that is protected, trademarks, Assets often/traditionally valued as zero on the balance sheet Human + Structural = Intellectual Capital Capital Capital (Leif Edvinsson and Michael S. Malone, Intellectual Capital, 1997)
    35. 35. The Knowledge-Based Economy <ul><li>• books </li></ul><ul><li>• discs </li></ul><ul><li>• goods </li></ul>KNOWLEDGE • talent • skills • know-how CODIFIED (Software) TACIT (Human capital or wetware)
    36. 36. Technology Transfer the adoption of knowledge (commercialization and processes) A (the?) new source of wealth is information/knowledge applied to work to create value Walter Wriston, The Twilight of Sovereignty, 1992
    37. 37. Technology Transfer: Was & Is ? <ul><li>Prime the R&D pump. </li></ul><ul><li>Over the wall. </li></ul><ul><li>Part of a serial process (linear, sequential, ordered). </li></ul><ul><li>Involves a deliverable product—the more fully formed the better. </li></ul><ul><li>Expert to user—technology marketing. </li></ul><ul><li>Trickle out over time. </li></ul>
    38. 38. Technology Transfer Perspectives Investment of Time and Resources Most Passive Most Active Information Transfer Knowledge Capture and Protection Application Development Commercialization “ Productization” Seminars, workshops, conferences Trade shows, Invention Fairs Product Launch Product Licensing IP Protection Prototype Development Technology Integration R&D Joint Venture
    39. 39. Commercialization Utilization Deployment Application The Adoption of Knowledge <ul><li>Management of Innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Diffusion of Innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Management of Technology </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge Management </li></ul>Technology Transfer: Other Relevant Labels
    40. 40. Technology Transfer Definitions... <ul><li>&quot;The business transactions or processes, such as patent licenses or start-up companies, by which innovations are moved from one place (such as a university), development stage or application to another place (such as a company) for a commercial purpose. (We include defense conversion as a special case under this definition.)” </li></ul><ul><li>Michael Odza, Celebrating ten years of assisting tech transfer professionals via Technology Access Report and Intellectual Property Advice (for researchers) </li></ul>
    41. 41. Another Definition... <ul><li>&quot;Technology transfer - the dissemination of all the information necessary so that one party may duplicate the work of another party. The information is of two types, technical (engineering, scientific, standards) and the second is procedural (legal, non-disclosure agreements, patent rights, licensing).” Andy Gluck </li></ul>
    42. 42. Another <ul><li>Technology transfer is an umbrella term that encompasses the range of processes from most passive to most active: info transfer (what universities do so well); intellectual property protection (allows for legal transfers); technology development; lassoing resources; technology integration; and technology adoption through to the sale of new or innovative products or processes based on a new application of scientific knowledge or technology (and increasingly on innovative business structures). Meg Wilson on former Pax Website </li></ul>
    43. 43. and…. <ul><li>Technology Transfer: The range of processes, from knowledge transfer to product or process commercialization, that facilitate the development and adoption of knowledge and technology. </li></ul><ul><li>Meg Wilson on former Pax Website </li></ul>
    44. 44. Perspectives on R&D Public & Private
    45. 45. <ul><li>Basic research is what I am doing when I don’t know what I am doing… </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Werner Von Braun </li></ul></ul></ul>
    46. 46. Perpetual Tension... <ul><li>Vannevar Bush believed that “Basic research leads to new knowledge. It provides scientific capital. It creates the fund from which the practical applications of knowledge must be drawn…” </li></ul><ul><li>He also cited a “perverse law” that “applied research invariably drives out the pure”. * </li></ul>* Lost at the Frontier, US Science and Technology Policy Adrift , Deborah Shapley & Rustum Roy, ISI Press, 1985, pgs 14 – 15 .
    47. 47. Science Policy Foundation and Features $ $ $ $ $ $ Applied Science and Engineering Technological Fruit Tree Contemporary Basic Science Flowering Tree Regional Planning Skilled Labor On the Shelf Science Venture Capital Instrumentation Public Support Source: Lost at the Frontier: U.S. Science and Technology Policy Adrift, Deborah Shapley/ Rustum Roy
    48. 48. R&D Definitions <ul><li>Basic Research Objective: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Government/Academic : “to gain more comprehensive knowledge or understanding of the subject under study, without specific applications in mind </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Private Sector : “research that advances scientific knowledge but does not have specific immediate commercial objectives…may be in fields of …commercial interest. </li></ul></ul>
    49. 49. R&D Definitions <ul><li>Applied Research </li></ul><ul><ul><li>General : Gaining “the knowledge or understanding to meet a specific, recognized need”. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In Industry : “includes investigations oriented to discovering new scientific knowledge that has specific commercial objectives with respect to products, processes, or services” </li></ul></ul>
    50. 50. R&D Definitions <ul><li>Development </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ the systematic use of the knowledge or understanding gained from research directed toward the production of useful materials, devices, systems, or methods, including the design and development of prototypes and processes”. </li></ul></ul>
    51. 51. R&D is the Key <ul><li>R&D is the key precursor to technology knowledge, developments and commercialization. </li></ul><ul><li>The source, sponsor, purpose, documentation and R&D processes affect commercialization paths and thus need to be acknowledged and better yet, be understood. </li></ul>
    52. 52. US R&D Funding by Source Millions of Current $
    53. 53. So What? Who Cares? <ul><li>1. Your government spends of dollars on R&D. So , you might care about that because they : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Are funding research in an area of your expertise and you need to keep up with the latest technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are funding your competitor to do that research putting you at a disadvantage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Have an open competition for performance of the R&D and you might want to get funded to do that work ( supports your agenda and gives you new funding ) </li></ul></ul>Billions
    54. 54. More Reasons... <ul><li>You ... </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Are pumping millions of dollars into a new area of R&D and it suggests a new market opportunity to you…! </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Have developed a hot new technology and the government allows you to license needed integration components </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need to procure services or R&D efforts or components/equipment and you could get into the government procurement business or find R&D partners. </li></ul></ul>
    55. 55. Final Reasons... <ul><li>2. Your government might provide tax credits for R&D – goes to your bottom line </li></ul><ul><li>3. Your government may regulate private R&D (e.g. medical and pharmaceutical research) and you must operate under those regulations </li></ul><ul><li>4. Other governments may regulate that R&D differently (e.g. less stringently) and it may provide you an opportunity to conduct R&D less expensively and at lower risk initially or, conversely, may inhibit your ability to enter a market if the policy barriers are high. </li></ul>
    56. 56. Understanding How to Unlock R&D Resources <ul><li>For any of this to happen, you need to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand the Context, Players and Programs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand the Processes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand the Information Resources </li></ul></ul>
    57. 57. Taking Advantage of R&D Resources <ul><li>You also need to understand those factors as they relate to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>National, state/provincial, and local funding & research organizations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Agency/national mission-oriented R&D </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>University research structures, roles and funding </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Private R&D investments and the role they play in national economies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>R&D as a measure of competitiveness and economic health </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The relationship between R&D and innovation (or lack thereof…) </li></ul></ul>Sourcing R&D....
    58. 58. Understanding How to Unlock R&D Resources <ul><li>For any of this to happen, you need to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand the Context, Players and Programs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand the Processes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand the Information Resources </li></ul></ul>
    59. 59. 1800 to ~ 1940 Characterization <ul><li>Creation of the US University Land Grant System (Ag & Engineering – Morrill Act, 1862), and the general proliferation of universities in the US -- few academic institutions had any kind of scientific program until late in the 19 th century. </li></ul><ul><li>Dominance in Science and R&D by European universities </li></ul><ul><li>Independent inventors -- Angel funding (e.g. Tesla) </li></ul><ul><li>Development of Corporate R&D Labs (e.g. Westinghouse, Bell, Edison) – there were 4 in the US in 1890 and 1030 by 1930 </li></ul><ul><li>Industrial funding of individual inventors and universities </li></ul>
    60. 60. R&D And Science POLICY: the CONTEXT <ul><li>Primary NEW 20 th Century Player: </li></ul><ul><li>FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS </li></ul><ul><li>WHY: </li></ul><ul><li>World War II </li></ul><ul><li>Then the cold war </li></ul><ul><li>Space Race </li></ul>
    61. 61. 1940-present Characterized by Dramatic Changes <ul><li>Government funding – grew phenomenally into today’s multi $Billion enterprise </li></ul><ul><li>University R&D: industrially funded Research Centers were supplemented (sometimes supplanted) by government sponsored Scientific Centers of Excellence and support of individual principal investigators (PIs) </li></ul>
    62. 62. Three Competing R&D Policy Models
    63. 63. Changes in ‘70-90s <ul><li>Industry funding surged into the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. The mainstay players, manufacturers, declined in their R&D investment while information-related technologies more than made up their decline in recent years. </li></ul>
    64. 64. Shares of national R&D expenditures, by source of funds: 1953-2000
    65. 65. Changes in 70s and 80’s <ul><li>The 1970-1990’s have seen an inventor/ entrepreneur resurgence and a major shift from general manufacturing-based businesses to technology service, information and advanced manufacturing businesses. </li></ul><ul><li>We also see an explosion of innovative R&D support structures such as science & R&D parks and technology incubators. </li></ul>
    66. 66. Privatization Policy Impacts <ul><li>Federal Governments in many countries have been THE primary source of R&D </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Centralized government </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Government owned industries and utilities </li></ul></ul>Privatization in the 80s and 90s has led to an explosion of industrial research and increase in overall research in many developing and emerging market countries
    67. 67. Global Trends 80s-90s <ul><li>Privatization promotes industry R&D </li></ul><ul><li>Cooperative Research programs in EU (now funding the 5th Framework) -- consortial research expands worldwide </li></ul><ul><li>Japan R&D enterprise expanded significantly. </li></ul><ul><li>South Korea builds an R&D infrastructure from scratch in 40 years </li></ul><ul><li>Technopolis development becomes a conscious policy, globally </li></ul>
    68. 68. Private Sector Growth <ul><li>European Research Council endorsed EU target, recommending that businesses help increase R&D to equal 3% of GDP in each member State by 2010. </li></ul>
    69. 69. Private Sector Perspectives <ul><li>Corporate R&D labs now a vestigial part of former R&D empires. </li></ul><ul><li>R&D moved to divisional responsibility -- R&D seen as a tax on Divisions... </li></ul><ul><li>Outsourcing an increasing strategy for conduct of R&D </li></ul><ul><li>Joint ventures now common </li></ul>
    70. 70. What is the prospect for the 2000s? <ul><li>Continued erosion of public investments in R&D? </li></ul><ul><li>Less basic R&D through companies – more attention to applied research? </li></ul><ul><li>Universities become the bastions of basic R&D – controversy explodes over their role in R&D </li></ul><ul><li>Private sector horns in on key R&D areas formerly conducted wholly by public/university sources… </li></ul><ul><li>R&D still seen as an engine to economic development ( rightly or wrongly… ) </li></ul><ul><li>New ethical issues arising to change landscape </li></ul>
    71. 71. Understanding How to Unlock R&D Resources <ul><li>For any of this to happen, you need to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand the Context, Players and Programs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand the Processes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand the Information Resources </li></ul></ul>
    72. 72. Federal R&D support, by performing sector: 1953-2000
    73. 73. U.S., G-7, and OECD countries’ R&D expenditures
    74. 74. Total R&D as a percentage of GDP
    75. 75. R&D as a % of GDP * Australian Ministry for Industry Science and Resources claims Australia has world’s 3rd highest ratio, 1999 NSF National Patterns in R&D Resources, 1998, Science Indicators, 1998
    76. 76. Changes in share of Federal academic research obligations, by field: 1990-99
    77. 77. Industrial R&D spending flows of U.S. and foreign affiliates, by world region: 1998
    78. 78. U.S. patents granted: 1986–99
    79. 79. R&D Spending by 5 major Latin American Countries, 1990, 1996
    80. 80. US Total Industrial R&D Billions of Current $
    81. 81. Selected US Industry Sectors 1996 Constant $Billions
    82. 82. Understanding How to Unlock R&D Resources <ul><li>For any of this to happen, you need to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand the Context, Players and Programs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand the Processes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand the Information Resources </li></ul></ul>
    83. 83. R&D Sources/Indicators <ul><li>Data Sources : NSF, OECD, UN, World Bank, country-by-country </li></ul><ul><li>Indicators : Ph.D. production, publications, patents filed, patents granted, educational science competitions, workforce data </li></ul><ul><li>OTHER Sources and Indicators? </li></ul>
    84. 84. R&D Programs <ul><li>Agencies: NSF, DOD, EPA, NIH, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Private Sector: Industry Roadmaps, special R&D, Consortial R&D </li></ul><ul><li>Programs: SBIR, ATP, Homeland Security, DARPA grants, EPCORE </li></ul><ul><li>Processes: Grants & Contracts, appropriations & program White Papers and Congressional Studies, R&D procurement, SBIR/STTR partnering, state-level R&D (e.g. Texas’ ARP and ATP programs) </li></ul>
    85. 85. Session Theses: Wrap Up <ul><li>Modeling Concept and Practice </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Modeling integrates the two </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Modeling is a key methodology of the program </li></ul></ul><ul><li>KTT definitions are not static, nor understood uniformally </li></ul><ul><li>R&D is the precursor to technology and tracking it allows for more effective R&D prospecting, forecasting, and sourcing – which can lead to new and/or better KTT! </li></ul>