Identifying the Impacts of Technology Transfer Beyond Commercialization

FPTT National Meeting, June 12, 2007

“the returns [of science] are so large that it is hardly

necessary to justify or evaluate the investment”

(National Science Foundation, 1957; from Godin & Doré, 2004)

Globe and Mail Friday June 8, 2007

Globe and Mail, Friday June 8, 2007

Determinants of Knowledge Transfer (Landry et al 2006)

Focus of research projects on users’ needs

• Linkages between researchers and research users

• “…researchers transferred knowledge much more actively when no commercialization was involved than when there was commercialization of protected intellectual property.”

Allen Consulting Group (2005)Measuring the impact of publicly funded research

What does society value?

Does publicly funded research contribute to the dimensions of what society values?

Canadian Values

New federal S&T strategy:

• Quality of the environment

• Health

• Public safety and security

• Natural and energy resources

• National competitiveness and productivity

• Higher standard of living

• Quality of life

General Societal ValuesAllen Consulting Group (2005)

Material – goods and services available

Human – physical/mental health, quality of life, pleasant experiences

Environmental – biodiversity, quality of air, land, water

Social – social attachments, freedom from crime, political rights, engagement in political processes

• Intuitively, we believe that R&D/innovation can make significant contributions to achieving these values

• Problems arise when we try to prove it, quantitatively

• Current impact measures fail to represent complete impact on social, cultural and organizational elements of society

Godin & Doré (2004)

Market Failure

• Public funded R&D corrects market failure

• Based on theory that knowledge is durable and costless to use

• Investment required to use it• Requires substantial capability on

part of user (absorptive capacity)

In-house R&D

• Companies that engage in R&D gain the capabilities necessary to exploit external knowledge

• Build absorptive capacity• SMEs – less than 10% conduct

research annually• Limits absorptive capacity of

Canadian firms

R&D – Technological Innovation – Socioeconomic Linkages

• Linkages weak and indirect, despite efforts

• Research impacts on technological innovation – linear view of science: not historically supported

• Technological innovation impacts on socio-economic benefits

• Research impacts on socio-economic benefits

Allen Consulting GroupLack of logic that connects

research outputs to final outcomes because:

Timelags in getting from outputs to outcomes are substantial

Difficulty in attributing outcome effects to particular research causes

Separating contributions of research performance among many players over extended periods

Linkages between outputs and outcomes may be different for different types of research and research fields

Economic Benefits of R&DSalter & Martin (2001)

• Increasing stock of useful knowledge

• Training skilled graduates

• Creating new scientific instrumentation and methodologies

• Forming networks and stimulating social interactions

• Creating new firms

New view of scienceGodin & Doré (2004)

• Abandon economic basis

• How science contributes to social issues and policies

• Completely new data sources

Typology of Impact of Science on Society

• Science

• Technology

• Economy

• Culture

• Society

• Policy

• Organization

• Health

• Environment

• Symbolic

• Training

Challenge

Salter and Martin:“The key issue is not so much

whether benefits are there, but how best to organize the national research and innovation system to make the most effective use of them”

Transfer/Diffusion• Ekboir

– Enabling environment for knowledge creation and sharing

• Salter & Martin– Ensuring potential benefits are

transferred and exploited successfully

• Godin and Doré– Tech transfer mechanisms are

determining factors of exploitation and use of research results

– Diffusions, acquistion, integration, use

Knowledge Translation FrameworkLavis et al (2003)• The message: What should be

transferred to users?

• The Users: To whom should the results be transferred?

• The messenger: Who is translating the knowledge?

• The Process: How is Knowledge Transferred?

• The Effects – measuring knowledge translation and its outcomes

Technology Transfer Framework• John Howard (2005): framework of

4 ideal typical models expand channels of impacts from R&D

• Phillip KPA (2006) refined framework and defined knowledge transfer to encompass material, human, social and environmental benefits

• Engagement with diversity of non-academic users at local, regional, national, international levels

Knowledge Translation Processes

Knowledge Translation Processes

Knowledge Access

Make knowledge accessible

Knowledge ProductionSell knowledge

products

Knowledge Relationshi

psSell knowledge

services

Knowledge Engagemen

tEngage to achieve mutually beneficial outcomesPhillipsKPA 2006

Key Messages• Passive processes for transferring

knowledge have been shown to be ineffective

• Interactive engagement with a diverse range of non-research users for mutual benefit may be most effective

• Interaction can occur at many stages in both research process and decision-making process

• Look for strategies beyond producer-push

Technology Uncertainty

Novelty

Complexity

Tacitness

Interorganisational Interaction

Communication Co-operation Co-ordination

FIT

Technology Transfer Effectiveness

Functional Operation

Cost Time

Adapted from: Stock & Tatikonda 2004

Stock & Tatikonda 2004

?