technology transfer and knowledge diffusion lessons learned from a 15 year research program
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION: LESSONS LEARNED FROM A 15-YEAR RESEARCH PROGRAM

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 52

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION: LESSONS LEARNED FROM A 15-YEAR RESEARCH PROGRAM - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 294 Views
  • Uploaded on

RVM TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION: LESSONS LEARNED FROM A 15-YEAR RESEARCH PROGRAM Barry Bozeman Research Value Mapping Program Georgia Institute of Technology Presentation to the National Advisory Commission on Innovation, South Africa, October 2003 Objective RVM

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION: LESSONS LEARNED FROM A 15-YEAR RESEARCH PROGRAM' - oshin


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
technology transfer and knowledge diffusion lessons learned from a 15 year research program
RVM

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION: LESSONS LEARNED FROM A 15-YEAR RESEARCH PROGRAM

Barry Bozeman

Research Value Mapping Program

Georgia Institute of Technology

Presentation to the National Advisory Commission on Innovation, South Africa, October 2003

objective
Objective

RVM

  • To review chief findings of Research Value Mapping Program during a 15-Year projects on technology transfer, knowledge utilisation
    • Considering salient differences between the South African and the U.S. Context
    • Distilling general lessons for public policy
sponsored by
Sponsored by:

RVM

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Basic Energy Sciences

National Science Foundation

Societal Dimensions of Engineering,

Science, Technology

National Institute of Health,

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

rvm projects on technology transfer and knowledge diffusion
RVM Projects on Technology Transfer and Knowledge Diffusion

RVM

  • Canada Council of Science and Technology Agencies (CSTA) study of “Determinants of Effective Inter-Institutional Partnerships
  • Department of Energy study of the Impact of Research Centers Design and Management on Innovation
  • IBM study of Government-Sponsored University-Based Research Centers
  • NIH study of Diffusion of “Translational” Research from NIH Science Centers
  • National Science Foundation study of Technology Transfer from Government Laboratories to Industry
  • Department of Energy study of the Economic and Technological Impacts of Basic Science
  • National Science Foundation study of Diffusion of Knowledge through “Scientific and Technical Human Capital”
what is technology transfer and knowledge utilisation
What is Technology Transfer and Knowledge Utilisation?
  • Many different definitions, little agreement
  • Disaggregated view less possible as science evolves every more quickly into application (e.g. biotech)
  • One view: technology is physical embodiment of knowledge
slide6
Adapted Bozeman’s model of knowledge utilisation*
  • KNOWLEDGE PRODUCER
  • Universities
  • Science Councils
  • National research
  • facilities
  • DEMAND ENVIRONMENT
  • Existing demand for knowledge
  • Potential or induced demand
  • KNOWLEDGE USERS
  • Government
  • Business / Industry
  • Civil society
  • Scientific community
  • DISSEMINATION MODE
  • Journals
  • Conference
  • Patents / Licenses
  • KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTS
  • Scientific knowledge
  • Tacit knowledge
  • Technologies

* National Advisory Council on Innovation. ‘‘Utilisation of Research Findings: Extent, Dynamics and Strategies.” South Africa, July 2003, p. 9

knowledge utilization occurs with the national innovation system
Knowledge Utilization Occurs with the National Innovation System
  • NIS = intricate network of agents, policies and institutions supporting the process of technical advance in an economy

Viz., Government of the Republic of South Africa, South Africa’s

National Research and Development Strategy, August, 2002, pp. 25-34

Viz., National Advisory Council on Innovation, Utilisation of Research Findings Extent, Dynamics, and Strategies, Draft, July 2003.

slide8
Study 1: RVM project on U.S. NIS (summarized in Crow and Bozeman 1998)
  • Attempt to profile “The 16,000”
    • Questionnaires from panel survey of ~ 1,600 labs
    • Case studies of more than 100 by “type”
    • Focus: Environment, output, design and structure, management
current components of u s nis
Current Components Of U.S. NIS
  • Civilian technology programs at both the national and state levels that are designed to promote economic growth
  • Defense R&D with an emphasis on dual-use technologies and conversion of defense R&D from military to civilian applications
  • Federal Government’s national laboratories, industry-university research centers, multidisciplinary multipurpose research centers
cooperative technology policy paradigm
Cooperative Technology Policy Paradigm
  • Premise: relies on networks and cooperation between government, industry, and universities as well as inter-firm cooperation resulting in increased technology development and transfer
  • Governmental Policies: aid research by
    • Changing patent policy to expand use of government technology
    • Relaxing anti-trust regulations to promote cooperative R&D
    • Developing cooperative research centers and consortia
    • Altering guidelines for disposition of government owned intellectual property
the major change in u s policy for tech transfer and utilisation
The Major Change in U.S. Policy for Tech Transfer and Utilisation:

Pre-1980: “If the public pays anyone may use”

Post-1980: “If it belongs to everyone it belongs to no one.”

intensive case studies
Intensive Case Studies

[Using this pulsed laser deposition system,

D. Norton and C. Park deposit buffer layers of

cerium oxide]

  • California Institute of Technology

Center for Neuromorphic Systems Engineering

  • Carnegie Mellon University

Center for Light Microscope Imaging and Biotechnology

  • Georgia Institute of Technology

Interconnect Focus Center

  • Iowa State University

Center for Nondestructive Evaluation

  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

National Center for Electron Microscopy

  • Ohio State University

Network for Research on Plant Sensory Systems

  • University of Michigan

Center for Ultrafast Optical Science

difference factors
United States

“Developed” country

Knowledge production

Strong university tradition that aids in capacity building

Institutional history of NIS

South Africa

“Developing” country

Reliance on imported know-how

Recent commitment to educational reform

Focus since mid-1990s

Difference Factors
academic staff in s t higher education
Academic Staff In S&T Higher Education

South Africa, 1999*

United States, 2001**

<5000 university faculty, bottom heavy

20,000+ university faculty, top heavy

*NACI, South African Science and Technology: Key Facts and Figures 2002

**NSF/Division of Science Resource Statistics, 2001 Survey of Doctoral Recipients

institutions in the science and technology system
South Africa*

United States**

Institutions in the Science and Technology System

*NACI, South African Science and Technology: Key Facts and Figures 2002

**Approximate Figures.

the key to the success of the u s nis
The Key to the Success of the U.S. NIS

Figure: R&D Funding, by Source

NSF (2000)

what can south africa nsi and u s nsi learn from one another
What can South Africa NSI and U.S. NSI Learn from One Another?
  • Not details, not a template, but concepts and institutional innovations
  • More focus on state governments’ technology-based economic development programs
study 2 rvm project on federal lab industry technology transfer
Study 2: RVM Project on Federal Lab-Industry Technology Transfer
  • B. Bozeman, M. Papadakis, K. Coker. Federal Laboratory-Industry Technical Partnerships: CRADA’s and Technology Transfer, Report to the National Science Foundation, 1996.
    • Study of 239 cooperative R&D projects with 214 companies and 18 national laboratories
    • Objective: assess technology transfer effectiveness
study 2 rvm project on federal lab industry technology transfer23
Study 2: RVM Project on Federal Lab-Industry Technology Transfer
  • B. Bozeman and D. Wittmer. "Technical Roles and Success of US Federal Laboratory-Industry Partnerships." Science and Public Policy, 28, 4, June 2001, pp. 169-178.
  • Barry Bozeman and Maria Papadakis, “ Firms’ Objectives in Industry-Federal Laboratory Technology Development Partnerships,” Journal of Technology Transfer, December, 1995.
  • J. Rogers and B. Bozeman, “Basic Research and the Success of Federal Lab-Industry Partnerships,” Journal of Technology Transfer Vol. 22, 1999, (3): 37-48.
  • P. Savaanda and B. Bozeman, “Industry-Federal Laboratory Technology Development: The ‘Gradient Effect,’ 2003
question who developed a product as a result of the partnership
Question: Who Developed a Product as a Result of the Partnership?
  • 46 of 155 (who had product development among their objectives) actually developed a product
  • Companies developing products generally did so within 1.5 years of the conclusion of the project
what were the characteristics of product developers
What were the characteristics of “product developers?”
  • Smaller firms (500-1000 employees)
  • Project initiated by the firm
  • Low R&D intensity
  • Geographic location NOT important (Coker, 1998)
  • Used federal laboratories’ specialized equipment
business strategy what coupling of technical roles is optimal for product development
Business strategy: What coupling of technical roles is optimal for product development?
  • Companies played the following technical roles:
    • None (federal lab did all technical work)
    • Basic research
    • Pre-commercial applied
    • Applied
    • Development
    • Testing
slide28
Relation of

Technical

Strategy to

Product:

INCONCLUSIVE

[1] If n=<10, not reported.

business strategy and technical roles the gradient effect
Business strategy and technical roles: the “Gradient Effect”
  • It is not the combination of roles but their proximity; there is a “gradient effect” (Saavandra and Bozeman, 2003)
  • That is,
    • The combination that works best (in terms of product and cost benefit) is for the federal laboratory to perform a role one step ahead of the company with respect to the research continuum. (If the company performs development, the federal lab performs applied; if the company performs applied, the federal lab performs basic
how about the what is the estimated benefit cost
How about the $? What is the estimated benefit-cost?
  • Reported net benefit correlated with product development and pursuing a product– both NEGATIVELY correlated
  • Little relation between reported satisfaction with project (96%!!) and estimated benefit cost
  • No relation to job creation (only .5 per project)
how about the what is the estimated benefit cost31
How about the $? What is the estimated benefit-cost?

BenefitCostNet Benefit

$925,975 $419,355 $487,588

--BUT,

Mean net benefit = $1.2 million Median net benefit = ZERO

slide32
Net Benefit Greater if Products Based on Basic Research Performed by Lab

Source: J. Rogers and B. Bozeman, BASIC RESEARCH AND THE SUCCESS

OF FEDERAL LAB-INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIPS, Journal of Technology Transfer Vol. 22(3): 37-48.

slide33
Source: B. Bozeman and D. Wittmer, “Technical Roles and Success of Federal Laboratory Partnerships, Science and Public Policy, 2001

Illustration

CRADA

Technical

Activity Type

And Level of

Benefit

major implications
Major Implications
  • Chief motivation is access, capacity, and, training, not product development.
  • Those with highest satisfaction rating valued capacity and training, those with lowest sought to develop a product
  • Geography matters relatively little
  • Business technology strategy and performance role is key: “gradient effect”
  • It is not an important means of job creation, at least not in the near term
study 3 rvm project on scientific and technical human capital and knowledge diffusion
Study 3: RVM Project on “Scientific and Technical Human Capital and Knowledge Diffusion”
  • Objectives:
    • Understand the relation of institutional setting, program funding, and the ability to create capacity through S&T human capital
    • Examine impacts on scientists’ careers and knowledge diffusion, comparing URC affiliates and sample of academic researchers
  • Methods:
    • Case studies, surveys and—
    • Analysis of CV’s
slide36
Technology Walks on Two Legs
  • KNOWLEDGE PRODUCER
  • Universities
  • Science Councils
  • National research
  • facilities
  • DEMAND ENVIRONMENT
  • Existing demand for knowledge
  • Potential or induced demand
  • KNOWLEDGE USERS
  • Government
  • Business / Industry
  • Civil society
  • Scientific community
  • DISSEMINATION MODE
  • Journals
  • Conference
  • Patents / Licenses
  • KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTS
  • Scientific knowledge
  • Tacit knowledge
  • Technologies

* National Advisory Council on Innovation. ‘‘Utilisation of Research Findings: Extent, Dynamics and Strategies.” South Africa, July 2003.

what is scientific and technical human capital s thc
What is “Scientific and Technical Human Capital” (S&THC)?
  • S&THC is the amalgamation of:
    • The individual’s endowments and abilities-
      • Formal training
      • Craft knowledge and tacit knowledge
      • Cognitive skills
      • Intelligence
      • Creativity
  • (i.e. capacity to produceknowledge)

Source: B. Bozeman, J. Dietz and M. Gaughan (2001) “Scientific and technical human capital,”

International Journal of Technology Management, 22, 7/8, 2001, 716-740

what is scientific and technical human capital s thc38
What is “Scientific and Technical Human Capital” (S&THC)?

And…,

2. Social ties and network linkages

    • Formal social linkages (e.g. professional

Association relations)

    • Informal linkages (e.g. acquaintances, professional friends)
  • (i.e. capacity to disseminate and utilize knowledge)
slide39
ResearchProject

Cognitive Skills

Knowledge

Cognitive Skills

Cognitive Skills

Craft Skills

Knowledge

Knowledge

Craft Skills

Craft Skills

Team Member (t - 1)

Team Member (t)

Team Member (t + 1)

Legend

Weak Tie

Strong Tie

Project Boundary

Institutional Settings

(e.g., academia, industry, government)

Roles (e.g., entre-preneur, funding agent, colleague)

Illustration: Basic Model of S&T Human Capital- Research Project Contributions over Time

Source: B. Bozeman, J. Dietz and M. Gaughan (2001) “Scientific and technical human capital,”

International Journal of Technology Management, 22, 7/8, 2001, 716-740

how does s thc relate to technology transfer and utilisation
How does S&THC relate to Technology Transfer and Utilisation?
  • It provides the social and institutional glue required for linkages
  • It is the “stuff of knowledge,” its human embodiment
  • It ensures knowledge mobility
  • It ensures knowledge mutability
  • It links individual career trajectories to corporate and NIS technology trajectories
results of s thc studies
Results of S&THC Studies
  • University Research Centers differ enormously in level of S&THC creation; the best ones create graduates highly valued by industry (Bozeman and Boardman, 2003)
  • There are multiplier effects of institution building programs, EPSCOR, HBCU (Bozeman and Rogers, 2002)
  • Collaboration is vital in S&THC but most collaborations (55%) within one’s own research group (Bozeman and Corley, in press)
  • Women and minorities have very different experiences with grants than men have (Gaughan and Bozeman, 2002)
differential impacts of grants on women monica gaughan and barry bozeman
Differential Impacts of Grants on WomenMonica Gaughan and Barry Bozeman
  • Data source: Curriculum Vita from 1,080 Researchers at NSF Science Centers, ERC’s and DOE Facilities
  • Questions:
    • How do women and men compare in grants acquisition
      • Likelihood?
      • Amount
slide43
Median Grant Award by Gender, in Dollars

Grant

All

Men

Women

Ratio

M/F

First

110,000

140,000

47,000

3.0:1

Second

125,000

130,000

70,000

1.9:1

Third

94,530

94,600

58,368

1.6:1

Fourth

80,000

89,400

63,214

1.4:1

Fifth

90,000

85,000

87,964

.97:1

slide44
Impact of Grants and Gender on Time to Tenure: It is whether one has had a grant, and not the value of grants, that predicts the length of time to tenure. Women and men are equally likely to be tenured.

Cox Proportional Hazard Model:

Beta

Sig

Odds

Time since Ph.D.

0.08

0.001

1.08

Time squared

-0.001

0.001

0.99

Male

0.01

0.95

1.01

Ever had Grant

0.35

0.001

1.41

Policy implication: to involve women and minorities in the NIS, give more grants

even if it means smaller average grants.

lessons learned s thc
Lessons Learned S&THC
  • S&THC must be nurtured and understood; with inadequate S&THC the NIS cannot adequately produce, absorb or utilise scientific and technical knowledge
  • Institutions and policies matter, after S&THC adequacy is achieved
  • Different NIS has different S&THC requirements at different times and stages
what next
What next?
  • Knowledge utilisation study for NIH science centers program
    • Problem: Seek to fund “bench to bedside,” moving basic research to clinical research to clinical application; not happening
    • Approach: “User/Non-User Survey”
      • Identifies knowledge products, projected audiences, surveys about awareness and use
slide47
Conceptual Model for Use/Non-use Study

Product Uses, 1…n

Knowledge

Product

Developed

Product

Used

Investigate: Determinants of Use-Non-use

Product not used

Unaware Aware but rejected

what next48
What next?
  • Kellogg Foundation:
    • “Science and the Maldistribution of Benefits: How Can the Disadvantaged before the Advantaged?

Viz., Government of the Republic of South Africa, South Africa’s National Research and Development Strategy, section 5.6 “Science and technology for poverty reductionAugust, 2002, pp. 42-44.

slide49
Biological +

Capacity-

Impact

Political +

Opportunity -

Individual

Impact

Basic Needs -

Basic Needs +

Social

Impact

Consumption

Impact

Opportunity +

Political -

Fig. One:

S&T Social Impact Model

Biological -

what does the model imply
What Does the Model Imply?
  • There are different dimensions of maldistribution of S&T costs and benefits
    • Biological
    • Basic needs
    • Political
    • Opportunity
  • All driven by interaction of S&T and Economics
what does the model imply51
What Does the Model Imply?
  • S&T Products can be characterized in terms of:
    • Social vs. Individual Impact
    • Consumption impact vs. Capacity-Building Impact
  • Developing hypotheses about interaction of dimensions, case studies of technology development and use
slide52
For More Information:

http://rvm.gatech.edu/

Research Value Mapping Program

School of Public Policy

Georgia Tech

Atlanta, GA 30032

[Dave Gardner, testing coiled resonator

on thermoacoustic engine, Los Alamos]

ad