IKC Green Paper Funding 1.0 2015

Funding Research for Impact Version: 1.0 2015 Author: Lena Holmberg

A Green Paper Report

Funding Research for Impact

Funding Research for Impact 1

Preface It is my belief that funding agencies can significantly increase the positive impact on society through research utilisation by making only a few simple changes and additions to their work. This report provides a number of such suggestions based on my experience of working with and for research funding agencies in many roles.

Although this is a paper with my own opinions, it draws on the collective work of the Innovation Office at Chalmers and it is to a large extent the result of discussions with Jesper Vasell. Much inspiration has also been found in the works of Dr. Eugenia Perez Vico and her colleagues at SP and Chalmers as well as that of Professor Ulf Petrusson and his colleagues at the University of Gothenburg. In addition, I would like to thank Inger Danilda, Lars Hultman, Tomas Kjellqvist and Olof Lindgren for their valuable comments.

It should be noted, that the report focuses on the state of affairs in Sweden, which is one of the few countries in the world sticking to the principle of the "professor's privilege" when it comes to who owns the knowledge assets developed through research. However, it is my belief that many of the arguments and examples can be applied in other countries as well. Many of the examples are taken from Chalmers, but since I have worked a lot with other universities I know that similar situations and activities can be found in other places.

I have tried to provide a large amount of references to both scientific and practical work, although I have not had the opportunity to undertake a more systematic search for material. However, the ambition was to write an opinion paper, not a scientific article. I hope it will contribute to the discussion but most of all to making research have an even more positive and sustainable impact on society.

Lena Holmberg, Innovation Advisor The Innovation Office at Chalmers Gothenburg November 2015

Contents 1. Background ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1. Research Utilisation Among Researchers .................................................................................................... 3 1.2. The Government's Carrots and Sticks .......................................................................................................... 4 1.3. Development at the Universities ................................................................................................................. 6 2. The Role of Funding Agencies ......................................................................................................................... 7 3. Possible Actions to Take to Increase the Likelihood of Impact ..................................................................... 10 3.1. Before a Project ......................................................................................................................................... 11 3.2. During a Project ......................................................................................................................................... 16 3.3. After a Project ............................................................................................................................................ 19 4. Recommendations and Discussion ............................................................................................................... 20


Summary In Sweden, several steps have been taken towards increasing the focus on the positive impact of research on society. The government has used a carrot-‐and-‐stick approach, combining more resources with amplified demands. The reason for this can be traced not only to discussions in Sweden, but also to development trends in Europe.

When the ambition is to increase the positive impact on society of research, there are many aspects to consider, all the way from legislation to the situation for individual university employees. This position paper focuses on the role of funding agencies in developing a sustainable capacity for accomplishing impact from research.

Funding agencies have the opportunity to increase the likelihood of positive impact through several kinds of proactive actions: as part of the call process, as well as during and after a programme. These actions can make it possible to avoid potential problems later on in the innovation process, advance utilisation and increase the number of options. In comparison to the government, funding agencies should be able to make quicker changes if necessary as long as these are in line with their mission and other regulations.

In order for this to happen, the funding agencies need to consider their role in relation to possible impact processes. Instead of only looking at the potential impact from each particular project that has received funding, the focus should be on how to help research groups develop their capacity for impact generation over time, even in projects funded by other organisations.

This position paper outlines opportunities funding agencies can act upon and provides some examples of actions already in place. As a next step, an empirical investigation of how various funding agencies operate today and their opinions regarding possible developments to further enhance impact would be useful. Of course, it would also be good if more research could look into what effects various measures have on impact.

Sweden, with its strong history of both academic excellence and innovation, is in a good position right now when it comes to the global competition in the knowledge economy, but we need to improve constantly to retain this position. If researchers, innovation managers and funding agencies work together, this position can become even stronger.

Some recommendations regarding what funding agencies can do:

1. Focus on developing tools, examples, requirements and support that help researcher develop their capacity for creating impact long-‐term and even if they don't get funding.

2. Develop and communicate a broader perspective on utilisation and impact, including various aspects such as open innovation, education, commercialisation, outreach, and influencing decision-‐makers.

3. Make the projects focus on intellectual assets such as methods, data, designs and inventions in all phases: before, during and after the project.

4. Ask the researchers and partners for the bigger picture in order to capture the relevance of the project and the feasibility of what it will try to achieve.

5. Strongly recommend contact with an innovation office, and the use of publicly available tools for enhancing research utilisation and thus increase the likelihood of getting funding.


1. Background Dave Goulson provides excellent examples of how a researcher can engage in a broad range of research utilisation activities. His books "A Sting in the Tale" (Goulson, 2014) and "A Buzz in the Meadow: The Natural History of a French Farm" present a brilliant mix of facts, stories, self-‐distance and British humour. Starting out as a PhD student just wanting to know more about insects, he describes how his research made him more and more aware of the fragility of the eco-‐system and how he started to take action.

In addition to publishing more than 200 scientific articles on insects, he started the Bumblebee Conservation Trust in 2006. He has also bought a farm in France in order to create a haven for insects and wild flowers, and to be able to do the kind of longitudinal studies no funding agency is willing to support. Although it took a while to convince a publisher, his books are now worldwide bestsellers. Goulson and his colleagues also took on the fight against "Big Business" regarding the use of neonicotinoid insecticides. Without funding, they managed to conduct a study demonstrating the devastating effects this widely distributed (in more than one sense) insecticide has on bumblebees and get an article published in Science. This in turn eventually led to a two-‐year EU suspension on three of the poisons.

Research utilisation has been accomplished for a long time and comes in many shapes and sizes (see a long although by no means non-‐exhausting list in Appendix A). In this section, researchers' attitudes and actions are investigated together with what the government and universities are doing to support utilisation. This provides a backdrop for the next section where the focus is on the role of funding agencies in increasing the utilisation of research in order to create a positive impact on society.

The illustrations used are taken from presentations developed by the Innovation Office at Chalmers, normally used at workshops with researchers and training sessions with PhD students. Links to most of this material can be found in Appendix B.

1.1. Research Utilisation Among Researchers “The final reward for any researcher is to see his or her lifetime of work extend beyond academia and laboratories, into the mainstream of our global society where it can breathe hope into the world.”

Professor Ei-‐ichi Negishi at the Nobel Dinner, December 10 2010

There is no doubt that research has led to a lot of impact on society, both today and historically and in all kinds of areas. One indicator of this is that the Nobel Prizes are becoming more and more difficult to select. It is also clear that researchers engage a lot in utilisation activities and that to a very large extent, they have a positive attitude towards this aspect of academic work (Wahlbin, & Wigren, 2007; Wigren-‐Kristoferson, Gabrielsson & Kitagawa, 2011; Perkmann et al 2013). However, there are differences in what they do and for what reason (D’Este & Perkmann, 2011), how much time they spend on it and when during their career they engage in utilisation activities.

For example, researchers may take on various roles in the innovation process (Perez Vico, 2013; Perez Vico et al, 2015). They may see a need for a new kind of profession, thus engaging in creating new master programmes at the university or special courses for practitioners. Others want to have an impact on legislation and engage in public debates, while some spend lots of effort on creating infrastructure such as labs, equipment and data so that other researchers and companies may use it. Some commercialise their research and make it available through licensing or by starting a company that provides services. Although networking is very much part of the research work, a real

networker creates and maintains networks though meetings and information. Evaluators put results in a larger context and provide clues for improvement. As a midwife or catalyst you don't add any new knowledge yourself, but combine the efforts of others in a new way. You can also provide advice directly to an organisation or as a member of a committee or board.

Researcher( Infrastructure(Developer(

Educator(

Networker( Advisor( Debater(

”Midwife”( Entrepreneur( Evaluator(

Roles(in(the(U>lisa>

on(Process(

U"lisa"on)Barometer)


Ulf Petrusson and his colleagues at the University of Gothenburg have described three different approaches to research and utilisation (Petrusson, 2015). It can be idea-‐driven, where you think what you have already partly developed can be used for some specific purpose. The researcher can also be knowledge-‐driven, wanting to know more and more about a particular topic. Or the researcher can be driven by the importance of addressing some kind of major challenge in society.

In sum, it is likely that many factors interact when researchers select what kinds of utilisation activities they engage in such as:

• The research area they work within, both regarding the culture and tradition but also the kind of research done and the target groups it involves.

• What kind of utilisation the researcher is interested in and good at, since not all people like to do outreach or commercialisation.

• The explicit or implicit utilisation strategy applied by the research group the researcher belongs to.

• To what extent utilisation activities can be integrated in other academic work at the university in order to enhance the researcher's career.

• What kind of support the university provides in terms of communicated values, infrastructure, processes and advice.

• How much funding is available for the utilisation and how much effort it takes to get it.

• How much knowledge the researcher has about various utilisation options and their implications.

From the list above, it can be deduced that several of the factors are associated with the state of affairs at the university where the researcher works but also what happens in the national context.

1.2. The Government's Carrots and Sticks In Sweden, a majority of academic research is funded through taxation1. Therefore, it is natural that the government has introduced several means to increase the likelihood of a positive impact on society from the knowledge developed through research. During the last couple of years, several such measures have been taken, both in terms of adding more resources and in new requirements.

For example, in 2008 the government bill2 included investment in strategic research areas with an emphasis on utilisation3. In 2009, the Swedish Higher Education Act4 was changed in order to provide a stronger expression regarding utilisation:

"The universities’ assignment shall include collaborating with society, providing information about its activities and working to ensure that the research results generated at university are utilised", from chapter 1, section 2, paragraph three of the Swedish Higher Education Act (2009:45) (my translation)

1 For an overview of Swedish research funding (in Swedish), see www.uka.se/arkiv/effektivitet/forskningsfinansieringviduniversitetochhogskolor.5.10c9f1e5145028239db38.html and http://www.stratresearch.se/Global/publikationer/om%20SSF/Research_Finace_sv_webb.pdf

2 www.regeringen.se/informationsmaterial/2009/08/20080950/ 3 www.vr.se/omvetenskapsradet/regeringsuppdrag/regeringsuppdrag/utvarderingavsatsningpastrategiskaforskningsomraden.5.7feb5f56147e843c0e9b4c08.html 4 The Swedish Ministry of Education and Research (1992). The Swedish Higher Education Act 1992:1434. web2.hsv.se/publikationer/lagar_regler/hogskolelagen.shtml

Paths&to&Impact&

Idea%Driven+

Knowledge%Driven+

Challenge%Driven+X is a great challenge –

what new knowledge needs to be developed to address

it?!&

I think my X would be useful for this group of

people – how can I make it happen?!

We have developed lots of new models, metods, data and so on – how can they come to use?!

Inspired&by&Ulf&Petrusson&


In 2009, the government decided to invest in eight Innovation Offices with the broad task of supporting all kinds of research utilisation5. These offices were strongly encouraged to collaborate with the infrastructure already in place and to some extent funded by the government, namely the university holding companies and incubators. Prior to that, Vinnova had started the long-‐term Key Actors' Programme6, where several universities engaged in developing their local innovation systems.

The governmental innovation agency Vinnova and The Swedish Research Council were given the task to initiate a special programme for the universities to boost their ability to utilise research and collaborate with the society. The Knowledge Triangle programme started in 20137, where universities could apply alone or together with other universities for project.

At the same time, both funding agencies were given the task from their respective ministry to investigate the possibility of designing a model for measuring impact and/or collaboration, as a basis for distributing some of the research funding. This work has been much influenced by the discussions in the EU leading to the design of the Horizon2010 programme with its three priorities: excellent science, industrial leadership and societal challenges, and equal emphasis on research excellence, impact and implementation8.

The development in the UK9 with the RAE and REF programmes has also had a large impact. The work has involved dialogues and workshops with representatives from the universities and other organisations and resulted in two models, with one of them being piloted right now. Unfortunately, many of the questions you can raise when it comes to measuring impact have not been answered or even discussed (Aspgren, Holmberg & Vasell, 2013). They concern basic issues such as why we should measure impact, how it should be done, what should be measured, when and by whom. One major problem with these measuring models is that they tend to measure whatever is easy to count.

Research utilisation has also been a theme for many investigations and Swedish Government Official Reports. For example, Flodström made an inquiry into how research funding could be distributed based on performance (2011). Lidhard and Petrusson (2012) looked into how the government manages collaboration and utilisation at universities, and concluded that there are many contradictory demands. In the same year, a report was published on how the innovation support at universities could be improved (SOU 2012:41). In 2015, an official report on the role of intellectual property rights in the innovation system was published (SOU 2015:16) and the Swedish Research Council published a proposal for national guidelines regarding open access to scientific information10.

During the last ten years, there has been a shift in the conceptual framework used in the debate and government. We have moved from a position much inspired by the developments in the US where entrepreneurship and commercialisation were in focus to a discussion with far more emphasis on a broad perspective on innovation and on a sustainable impact on society where economic, social and environmental issues are considered holistically where Sweden has a potential to take lead.

This perspective can also be found when looking at some of the models that have been suggested for measuring or describing impact, such as the one

5 www.regeringen.se/regeringsuppdrag/2009/02/u2009973uh/ 6 www.vinnova.se/sv/Var-‐verksamhet/Innovationsformaga-‐hos-‐specifika-‐malgrupper/Kunskapstriangeln/Nyckelaktorsprogrammet/ 7 www.vinnova.se/sv/Var-‐verksamhet/Innovationsformaga-‐hos-‐specifika-‐malgrupper/Kunskapstriangeln/Utveckling-‐av-‐kunskapstriangeln/ 8 ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/press/horizon2020-‐presentation.pdf 9 www.ref.ac.uk 10 https://publikationer.vr.se/en/product/proposal-‐for-‐national-‐guidelines-‐for-‐open-‐access-‐to-‐scientific-‐information/

Paradigm(Shi+s(in(Innova1on(Management(in(Academia(

•  Inven1ons(•  Commercialisa1on(

–  Licensing(–  Venture(Crea1on(

•  Science(and(Technology(•  Entrepreneur(•  Cherry@picking(•  Revenue(stream(back(to(the(

university(

•  All(kinds(of(intellectual(assets(•  Various(ways(to(u1lisa1on(•  All(research(areas(•  All(kinds(of(roles(in(the(

innova1on(process(•  Itera1ve(•  ROI(in(terms(of(stronger(

posi1on(for(researcher(and(university(through(impact(on(society(

Old$Paradigm:$Funnel$(Money)$ New$Paradigm:$Megaphone$(Impact)$


published by Vinnova (Perez Vico et al, 2014). This model focuses on four basic collaboration patterns: (1) technology transfer, (2) research collaboration, (3) educational collaboration and (4) other forms of collaboration such as outreach.

A similar model has been developed by the University of Gothenburg (Petrusson, 2015) where a distinction is made between knowledge assets that are made public to everyone, those made available to special groups, those transferred through contractual agreements and those made available through knowledge-‐based companies.

The same broad perspective on utilisation and collaboration can also be found at public resources such as the national research website www.forskning.se11.

In sum, the government has provided both support but also pressure on the universities in improving on the requirements from the Higher Education Act. They have also responded by developing new processes.

1.3. Development at the Universities As described above, the Swedish universities acted upon the opportunities provided by the government. Right now, many projects are ongoing to improve processes related to innovation and utilisation. Several universities are collaborating on the KLOSS project12 resulting in, for example, recommendations regarding how to include data on utilisation efforts and performance in a researcher CV and how to encourage mobility.

However, some universities have also engaged in development on their own. The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) has done a series of evaluations of their main areas, including research and innovation, much inspired by the British RAE200813. KTH's Research Assessment Exercise (RAE2012)14 included a section on the economic and societal impact of KTH research. They identified their own set of paths to impact, including the following:

• Identify key bottlenecks in the future for industry and society and direct research groups to this work

• Changing organisational culture and practices • Improving health and well-‐being • Enhancing cultural enrichment and quality of life • Increasing public engagement with research and related societal issues • Provide highly skilled and analytical personnel to society • Evidence-‐based policy-‐making and influencing public policies

At the same time, Chalmers also began efforts to develop its capacity for utilisation of research. At the policy level, the vision for the university was formulated around the idea to contribute to a sustainable future. It was also decided that the university should have three main processes: to research, to educate and to utilise. A description of the utilisation process was developed, including the identification and development of intellectual assets as a key component as well as a broad range of paths to impact. A collaboration strategy was also developed.

11 www.forskning.se/forskningutveckling.4.4c620b9a1350cdb4358ab.html

12 www.kth.se/samverkan/kloss 13 www.rae.ac.uk 14 www.kth.se/forskning/rae

Layers of Support

Organisa(on*

Ac(vi(es*

Policy*

Events,(development(projects,(special(ac3ons(

Support(units(and(how(they(interact,(special(roles(at(various(levels(

Vision(for(the(university,(process(strategy,(innova3on(strategy,(collabora3on(policy(

Planning*General(long(term(planning,(planning(for(each(department(and(support(units(


Every year, each department makes a plan and a budget for the next couple of years. This is based on the general long-‐term plan for the whole university, and where utilisation of research is one of the main components.

The researchers and managers receive support from a number of functions at the university and from the local innovation system. The top management team and staff includes several positions with a special focus on utilisation. They participate in the regional development and represent the university in several boards of organisations in the innovation system. There is a communications unit, an innovation office, an incubator, a library, a holding company, a company providing commissioned education and a research institute. In addition to departments, Chalmers is also organised into cross-‐disciplinary areas of strength focusing on sustainable development such as Energy, Transport and Materials. Chalmers hosts around 40 research centres and is also engaged in three science parks and a science centre.

Although the list of support entities to some extent match the list of possible roles for researchers to take on in the utilisation process (see above), not all of them are covered and resources are not evenly distributed. Much time and money are spent on commercialisation and communication with the public.

Several units often come together in joint activities and projects such as the MuCh project addressing best practice for developing and evaluating collaboration15, the internal conference Chalmers Impact Day, the GoINN project developing the innovation system, PhD courses on utilisation and innovation, the Rendezvouz Avancez Water initiative bringing researchers and companies together.

Chalmers also has a virtual Grants Office, where several units collaborate on supporting researchers applying for funding. An underlying assumption is that much greater impact can be accomplished if support is provided throughout the whole research

process, starting much earlier than the actual call and continuing even after the project has ended.

Many universities in Sweden have developed similar structure and processes as KTH and Chalmers, although there are differences between the smaller and larger universities in terms of how much and what kinds of infrastructure. For example, not all universities have been granted holding companies and innovation offices.

Most of the universities in Sweden are public authorities, except for two: Chalmers and Jönköping. However, because of the funding structure, all are dependent on the government. According to Petrusson (2014), the government controls university utilisation through four basic means: (a) setting goals for utilisation and collaboration, (b) providing performance-‐based resources, (c) demands when applying for public funding for research or innovation and (d) legal aspects. This means that although the universities may have their own goals and act upon them, the government provides a framework, although sometimes all the parts do not work together optimally.

2. The Role of Funding Agencies Sweden is at the top of many ranking lists such as Global Innovation Index and Innovation Union Scoreboard16 and a large percentage of GDP is spent on innovation (3,42%). The business sector accounts for around 70% and the higher education sector for 27% of this spending. Companies largely fund their

15 www.innovationskontorvast.se/much/ 16 www.globalinnovationindex.org and ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/innovation-‐scoreboard/index_en.htm

Opportuni)es,for,Posi)ve,Disrup)on,–,U)lisa)on,,

Defining,project,objec)ves,,

desired,output,,outcome,and,

impact,

Engaging,partners,

Iden)fying,opportuni)es,

Iden)fying,intellectual,

assets,

Replanning,and/or,conflict,resolu)on,

Contract,development,

Exploring,U)lisa)on,

Opportuni)es,

Research,and,Innova)on,Strategy,

Development,

Communica)on,

Repor)ng,and,evalua)on,

Before, Call, Project, AIer,

Exploring,U)lisa)on,

Opportuni)es,


own research, but receive some contributions from the government and abroad17. Funding for academic research is distributed among a number of funding agencies but most of it (around 70%) is funded directly from the government.18

The public and semi-‐public funding agencies differ in terms of what kind of research areas they support, for example The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (Mistra), and The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS). Public agencies such as The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) and The Swedish Energy Agency also provide funding for research.

They are also different regarding to what extent they focus on more so-‐called basic research or lean towards applied research, where they require participation and sometimes even funding from partners outside academia. For example, the Swedish Research Council (VR) focuses on research excellence, whereas The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF) encourages industry collaboration and requires strategic motivation for the research and the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems (VINNOVA) often not only requires collaboration but also significant funding from companies, in cash or in-‐kind, similar to The Knowledge Foundation (KKS). However, most of the agencies require at least some kind of plan for dissemination and/or utilisation. Lately, VR has started to put greater emphasis on impact.

Recently, three of the more autonomous funding agencies were evaluated since it had been 20 years since they were started; SSF19, KKS20 and Mistra21. All evaluations concluded that the agencies had contributed to Swedish competitiveness and the development of the industry, and in certain aspects also had a system-‐changing influence. However, there were also concerns that the relationships between academia and industry should be stronger and suggestions concerning how to support the impact process even further. Examples of such suggestions were:

• Support opportunities for product commercialisation, application and business development by providing contacts with relevant private and public actors.

• Consider providing extra funds for commercialisation.

• Support programmes to help settle the intellectual property rights and confidentiality agreements before the programme.

• Consider the routines and instructions given to the programmes in relation to the final reporting, for instance the reporting of programme results and impacts.

Similar to the researchers' positive attitude on utilisation, Swedish research funding agencies are in general also in favour of creating impact and can also prove that they have done so. They also provide several means to enhance the likelihood of impact. For example:

• SSF provides special funding for utilisation, providing a list of what the money can be used for and what is not covered.

• In the Challenge-‐Driven Innovation programme, Vinnova requires the whole chain of actors to be part of the project in order to ensure impact, including the users.

• KKS requires both participation and funding from Swedish companies in their research programme, also encouraging them to be part of the whole research process from formulating the research question to co-‐publishing the results.

17 www.vr.se/inenglish/researchfunding/applyforgrants/theswedishsystemofresearchfunding.4.aad30e310abcb9735780007228.html 18 www.uka.se/arkiv/effektivitet/forskningsfinansieringviduniversitetochhogskolor.5.10c9f1e5145028239db38.html 19 www.stratresearch.se/Documents/SSF_Impact_assessment_final_report_141015_TÅ.pdf 20 kks.se/om/Lists/Publikationer/Attachments/189/Samproduktion%20för%20tillväxt%20-‐%20Resultat%20och%20effekter%20av%20forskningsfinansiering.pdf 21 www.mistra.org/download/18.7331038f13e40191ba5943/1378682258954/Mistra_Syntesrapport_webb.pdf


• Formas encourages researchers to publish their data in publicly available databases. They also require that the publications resulting from their funding should be available through Open Access, six months from the publication date.

• Vinnova and Mistra fund long-‐term centres/programme where they require collaboration between several kinds of actors from the innovation system/cluster, and funding from various sources.

• In some SSF programmes, the researchers are required to report the development of intellectual assets such as methods, models, data, designs, software and inventions throughout the project.

• Many funding agencies such as Sida, Vinnova and SSF provide training for project participants and leaders in innovation and utilisation.

• Vinnova and SSF have invited people from academia, industry, the public sector and NGOs to discuss their general strategies and, sometimes, specific programmes.

• SSF has engaged in a dialogue with the innovation offices, in order to ensure a closer collaboration and better support to researchers.

However, in 2011 at the CIP Forum conference in Gothenburg, the manager of the Innovation Office at Chalmers, Jesper Vasell, asked a panel of research funding agency representatives from Sweden, Finland and the US if they had ever withdrawn funding from a project based on poor utilisation performance. The answer was negative from all three. This indicates, that although impact and utilisation is said to be important, in practice the performance on these issues does not influence funding.

This is not only bad for the positive impact on society that might be lost, but also for the quality of the research itself. According to the Head of Research Policy at HEFCE, Steven Hill22, the statistics from REF2014 demonstrates that there is a strong relationship between the impact scores and the other measurements. There is, in other words, no trade-‐off between good research and impact on society. On the contrary, there seems to be a reinforcing spiral.

One challenge for all research funding agencies is when to stop funding and allow for other stakeholders to step in. The model "From Inputs to Impacts" describes the steps from setting up a project to delivering some kind of

impact. The model is used at Chalmers to emphasise the differences between outputs, outcomes and impact. The design was inspired by the UN requirement for project applications to describe how they consider this process to be achieved23. However, the funding for research projects often only covers the

costs for delivering outputs in terms of new models, methods, data, designs, software and/or inventions.

It is neither possible nor desirable that researchers should take on the responsibility to manage and perform the tasks necessary to go all the way from new knowledge to a broad impact on society, and research funding agencies should not be required to fund the whole process either. However, actions taken early in the innovation process can have a fundamental impact later on, so it is important to provide good support. For example, if more intellectual assets are discovered and discussed, more can be utilised. With more knowledge about utilisation options, more optimal solutions can be chosen. Better processes for intellectual

asset management can make sure that results can actually be used instead of ending up in a drawer. 22 http://snitts.smrt.se/download/Steven-‐Hill-‐12-‐mars.pdf

23 www.un.cv/files/UNDG%20RBM%20Handbook.pdf

Inputs'

The$financial,$human$and$material$resources$used$for$the$project$

Ac*ons'

Ac7ons$taken$through$which$inputs$are$mobilized$to$produce$specific$output$

Outputs'

The$intellectual$assets$developed$through$the$project$

Outcomes'

The$short$and$medium>term$effects$we$can$see$as$a$direct$result$of$the$project$

Impacts'

Actual$changes$in$society$with$respect$to$economical,$social$and/or$environmental$aspects$

From'Inputs'to'Impacts'

Innova&on'process'

What%is%our%role%and%responsibility?%What%is%being%u4lised?%How%do%we%u4lise?%Research(based+

knowledge+Value+and+benefit+in+society+

!' ?'

IMPACT'


One could argue that since the private and semi-‐public funding agencies provide such a small percentage of the whole research funding available, what they do regarding processes for improving impact may have little effect. However, their programmes are very popular since receiving funding in such a competitive way is positive for your career. Such projects are also often used as a foundation for other projects. Partner companies often employ the PhD students involved in the projects after the project, so it is beneficial if they develop utilisation skills they can apply in new settings.

It should be noted that in comparison to the government, funding agencies should be able to make quicker changes if necessary as long as they are in line with their mission and other regulations. If they make changes in how they support utilisation and innovation that prove to be successful, the government may follow.

3. Possible Actions to Take to Increase the Likelihood of Impact I 've had many roles in the research-‐funding context. I've been a researcher applying for funding and reporting results, represented a company collaborating with researchers, evaluated research proposals, supported research projects as part of a programme committee, participated in cluster development as part of an industry research institute, designed research programmes/calls, supported researchers applying for funding, supported university-‐based incubators, helped funding agencies marketing their calls, and helped researchers utilise their research. Based on these experiences, I have compiled a list of various actions that a funding body can take in order to increase the likelihood of impact.

Having a research background, I'm the first to admit that there is very little research done that can prove the effect of these measures, especially how they can be used in combination. Instead, the recommendations are based on logic and practice. I also recognise that it may be impractical and sometimes too much effort to put some of them in place, and also that some funding agencies may have goals or regulations that make it impossible to implement some of them. However, many of them are rather simple and not controversial, so I hope the list will inspire discussion and perhaps some changes.

Funding agencies have the opportunity to increase the likelihood of positive impact through several kinds of proactive actions: as part of the call process, as well as during and after a programme. They can support the development of the capacity to create impact among the individual researchers and the universities as an organisation by providing competence development opportunities (knowledge), tools and resources.

Another kind of support, although not always recognised as such, is to provide requirements. Taken together, these actions can make it possible to avoid potential problems

later on in the innovation process, advance utilisation and increase the number of options.

However, one prerequisite for this to take place is that the funding agencies need to consider their role in relation to possible impact processes. Many researchers spend lots of time applying for funding, but often the probability of getting the money is less than 15%24. Instead of only looking at the potential impact from each particular project that has received funding, the focus should be on how to help research groups develop their capacity for impact generation over time, even in projects funded by other agencies.

24 See for example www.vr.se/forskningsfinansiering/bidragsbeslut/storautlysningen.4.405c4f3813823f65fee4ea0.html 15%

Funding'Agencies'Poten/al'Ability'to'Increase'Impact'from'Research'

Before&the&Programme&

During&the&Programme&

A2er&the&Programme&

Requirements&

Knowledge&

Tools&

Resources&

Capa

city&Building&

Conceptual+Shi/+Output%from%Project% Impact%from%Research%Group%

Increase(long,term(ability(to(accomplish(impact(AND(Make(something(happen(now!

Make(something(happen(now(from(this(particular(project!


The list below is organised into three major sections: (a) before, (b) during and (c) after a research project. Each section is divided into the following subsections: requirements, knowledge, tools and resources.

Funding agencies often have a portfolio of various kinds of programmes such as special grants for mobility, support for young scientists, more innovation-‐oriented projects, support for infrastructure development, etc. However, the recommendations provided here mostly concern general middle-‐sized research projects involving several actors, often from both academia and industry. It should be noted though, that most of them are applied to research leaning towards both applied and so-‐called basic research. Isaac Asimov once said that "the most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'". The suggestions provided below increase the likelihood of both exclamations.

3.1. Before a Project It is difficult to design a good call that attracts a good number of relevant applicants. By adding too many restrictions or requirements you may end up discouraging the ones you want to apply. The list below should thus be seen as a number of examples, not intended for all being applied to the same call.

One thing you can start thinking about as a funding agency is how information and instructions regarding utilisation and innovation are positioned in the call text and in the instructions to the evaluators. Often you find them at the end, sometimes giving the impression of being an after-‐thought.

It is also helpful for the researcher if the funding agency has published a detailed policy regarding its views on utilisation, for example why they consider it important, what roles they consider vital in the process, what role they see themselves having, their views on the relationship between output-‐outcome-‐impact, how they collaborate with other actors in the innovation system and so on.

3.1.1. Requirements Many research calls already include requirements regarding utilisation, collaboration and innovation. However, they are often rather general in character. More detailed requirements could be rather helpful; especially if they include more specific instructions, on topics such as strategic relevance, collaboration, intellectual assets and IP management, gender and dissemination.

Strategic relevance Sometimes, especially in SSF and Vinnova calls, the researcher is required to indicate the strategic relevance for a project. They often struggle with this, which is no surprise since this is a rather difficult task. In my opinion, this question should be included in many more calls, requiring researchers to put their work into perspective. It might become easier if the task is divided into several parts, first describing the strategic relevance for the partner organisations involved, the business area they represent and finally the development in Sweden and internationally.

I also recommend a stronger requirement to put the project into a broader research area context as well, where you as an evaluator can more easily see how the particular project is positioned with respect to what other research groups are doing. Tools like Google Scholar or Web of Science25 can provide good statistics on how fields are developing. If the research is oriented towards technology or natural science, it could also be a good idea to ask for information regarding searches in patent databases in order to ensure freedom of operation for potential results. Excellent examples of this process are provided in Petrusson (2015).

As innovation advisors, we recommend researchers and research teams develop and communicate a research and innovation strategy. This makes it easier to keep a more stringent approach when applying for funding, resulting in better research and more utilisation. It would, of course, be useful if researchers would be required to provide information about how a certain application for funding fits into such a long-‐term strategy.

25 scholar.google.com and wokinfo.com


Sometimes a letter of confirmation from the university management that it is strategically relevant is required. Since this is often a distributed process and it seems very difficult for the management team to actually say no to a researcher, it unfortunately sometimes results in quite a number of "highly strategic" projects from one and the same university. More detailed instructions on how the project should describe the relationship to the university strategy and making including references compulsory might help to some extent.

There might also be a point indicating that in order to describe a strategic choice, you also need to describe the potential alternatives and why you didn't choose them.

Collaboration As a proponent of open innovation, I am all in favour of collaborative projects preferably involving researchers from different areas and universities working together with representatives from society. I think this is a good way of developing new knowledge and also increasing the likelihood of impact, especially if the intended users of the resulting knowledge become involved. Very few ideas are completely novel, thus implementation of new knowledge is much more dependent on the inclinations of the people participating in the process and what support is provided by the innovation system.

Many funding agencies already require or encourage collaboration projects. However, by including more specific instructions on how to describe the collaborators and the collaboration process it is my belief that more relevant project groups could be put together and made to collaborate in a more productive way.

For example, if it is recommended that all partners in a project should collaborate on the whole research process, put in a requirement that the story behind the research proposal should be described. Who came up with the idea and when? How did you organise the process of writing the proposal? One of my colleagues experienced an interview with a project team consisting of two professors who had never met and thus did not recognise each other at the hearing. They didn't get funding.

In my opinion, a proposal becomes much stronger if it is clear that the voice of the proposal is collective. Requirements could emphasise this, treating all partners as equal and making the same requirements of them regarding information about how they will contribute in various stages of the project and why this project is strategic to them. An overview in a table in much appreciated in order to help the evaluator check how the collaboration is organised. That said, I recognise that many projects are designed in such a way that the researchers (often PhD students) do much of the work, so it is natural that the research part is bigger. It should also be recognised that companies may be reluctant to reveal too much of their strategies, but on the other hand, what is really strategic to them short-‐term is seldom put into a research project.

It could also be recommended that the application should contain clear information about the partners' expectations of the project, but also what they contribute. This is something that is very good to do as a workshop with all partners present, so agencies can also provide recommendations regarding how to do such workshops and where to find conceptual tools. For example, Gothia Science Park is very good at this so we have included their model and method in our toolbox at the Innovation Office at Chalmers26 (a summary is provided in Appendix B).

If a programme is more oriented towards innovation, success is more likely if the work is connected to the surrounding innovation system such as incubators, science parks, business associations, and investors. A requirement to describe how the project plans to make use of such resources and what kinds of connections they already have will increase the probability of finding the right actors to support the next step in the innovation process. Being connected is much more important than having a description of a proposed linear process, since innovation work seldom develops in a straightforward way.

If the project work does not involve partner organisations, but still claims to be relevant to some specific companies, I suggest that it should be compulsory to include some kind of detailed statement from such organisations or references to business associations of strategic research agendas for relevant areas.

26 innovationskontorvast.se/ikv/utvecklingsprojekt/open-‐resources-‐on-‐innovation-‐management-‐in-‐academia


As Perkmann and Salter (2012) indicate, collaboration between academia and industry can take on many forms. One way of helping the researchers manage expectations would be to require them to indicate what kind of collaboration the project will be based on, for example open multi-‐stakeholder collaboration going after grand challenges or closed short-‐term research for only one company acting as an extended workbench.

Sometimes there seems to be confusion regarding the various levels of collaboration. If the funding agency has requirements regarding the interaction strength, it might be a good idea to indicate the difference between dissemination, participation and collaboration. Or

include in the instructions that the project team should clearly indicate at what level they intend to operate.

Intellectual assets and IP Management Funding agencies often require projects to handle intellectual property issues in the contracts when they have been granted funding. However, since the management of intellectual assets is key to what can actually be utilised in the end, I strongly recommend including requirements in the call itself. For example, previous research is often described in the proposal but seldom in such a way that it is possible to identify intellectual assets that serve as so-‐called "background". Key assets that the project uses as a foundation should be described in such a way that it is possible to identify ownerships and claims together with publication information. This way, it is possible to avoid funding research that can never be properly utilised since the ownership of the assets developed is muddled.

It is also good to signal to the participants in the project, that they need to agree upon a method for managing intellectual assets during the work. A requirement for describing this process can become a good support.

Gender There are many reasons for including gender aspects in order to increase the quality of both research and innovation. By including more voices in the formulation of a problem or research question, more and more relevant aspects can be identified. This can also be the case when it comes to deciding what methods to use and who to include in the research process, including interpreting the results and seeing opportunities for utilisation. A gender approach can open up far more novel approaches, leading to more impact (also in terms of citations) and more funding. More people might also be interested in applying the results.

"We can continue with business and innovation as usual if we want to produce “more of the same” and take the high-‐risk track associated with a lack of a gender perspective. If, on the other hand, we would like to communicate images of modern industries, clusters and companies to attract human resources, capital and investments we need to improve existing practices and sometimes also break with the existing order." Danilda & Granat Thorslund, 2011, p.

Gendered Innovations at Stanford27 has provided examples of what might happen if gender and sex knowledge is not applied in science and innovation. The examples include drugs withdrawn from the market, because of life-‐threatening health effects. the majority posing greater health risks for women than for men, causing human suffering, death and taking an economic toll. Another example is not considering short people (many women, but also many men) leads to greater injury in automobile accidents. Other examples provided are failing to use both female and male tissues, leading to faulty results and not collecting data on caregiving work leading to inefficient transportation systems.

27 http://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/what-‐is-‐gendered-‐innovations.html

Interac(on*strength*

Dissemina(on*

Par(cipa(on*

Collabora(on*

One-directional communication of Results, during and after.

Consultation before, during and after.

Co-production of outputs and agreed upon outcomes.

Strength*


Another good reason from a utilisation perspective is that the agencies funding the next steps after research projects such as VINNOVA and Region Västra Götaland have adopted gender policies, so it seems like a good idea to introduce such issues as early as possible in the innovation process.

Finally, there is a need for the funding system, including the peer review process to improve when it comes to gender (Bondestam & Grip, 2015). One way to increase awareness would be to require researchers to consider such aspects when applying for funding in order to learn more about the area. This, of course, also implies that research funding agencies must consider how they approach and work with the issue.

Dissemination Just because the project includes one co-‐worker from a company, it does not automatically mean that the knowledge produced will be distributed in that context. The absorptive capacity is sometimes very low in companies, and sometimes you work with the R&D department who then have to convince other parts of the organisation to change their ways. The article ”Best Practices for Industry-‐University Collaboration” in MITSloan Management Review 2010 revealed that although about 50% of commissioned research projects were considered to generate applicable results, only 40% of these were actually implemented (Pertuzé et al, 2010). And that was research where the companies paid to get the results.

Many funding agencies require some kind of dissemination plan. When I teach PhD students about what to consider when applying for funding, I often show them this picture. In my experience, the dissemination plan too often includes publishing academic papers (surprise!), sometimes a workshop or two, and more often now than before, a project website with news items.

It is my belief that the dissemination will be much more efficient and effective if you require the project team to clearly state the stakeholders they perceive as relevant for the project and why (which is very important), together with a list of activities they plan to organise in order to reach or involve them, as well

as what kind of impact they hope to achieve. It would also be good if the quality of the selection could be verified by some kind of measurement. For example, in a course on innovation we made researchers investigate to what extent the target group of their potential invention was really interested in what they had to offer. It turned out that not all of them wanted to grow by competing through innovation, but instead focused on growing in new markets.

It would also be beneficial if the requirement for such a detailed plan were also to be combined with rules for how these activities should be clearly present in the budget. Should the budget for the project in total be cut by the funding agency, it is important to keep the same proportions for research and utilisation.

The people working in the project are often required to include their CV. If you want the project to be successful at utilisation, it wouldn't hurt to require them to contain information about previous utilisation activities and their impact. It might also be a good idea to provide instructions on including links to publicly available personal information such as LinkedIn, ResearchGate and ImpactStory28, or why not the university's own information about its employees. My guess is that the probability of impact is related to how present he/she is in (professional) social media, since it increases networking.

The EU often emphasises the importance of the Knowledge Triangle, where research, education and innovation is combined. Since education is a very important means for utilisation and students often find it to be a great resource, it would be good if more funding agencies required researchers to clearly state in applications how these three activities would be integrated, especially since it takes a very long time for research results to have an impact on textbooks.

28 linkedin.com, researchgate.net and impactstory.org

Dissemina(on:++Who+will+get+funding,+A+or+B?+•  We+will+publish+our+results+in+

academic+journals.+Also,+we+will+put+informa(on+on+a+website.+We+will+invite+other+researchers+and+people+from+industry+to+a+conference+and+two+workshops.++

•  Our+dissemina(on+strategy+includes+a+selec(on+of+ac(ons+focusing+various+target+groups.+In+addi(on+to+established+ac(vi(es,+we+have+also+added+some+novel+ones+aDer+a+dialogue+with+our+most+important+target+groups:+

A" B"

A" B" C" D"

1+ x+ x+ x+

2+ x+ x+

3+ x+ x+ x+

4+ x+ x+ x+


3.1.2. Knowledge Many of the requirements listed above can be hard to achieve for researchers who aren’t so well connected to the rest of society. Therefore, funding agencies can provide help in terms of information that will make the task easier. It can be argued that the best researchers already know how to get this information, so making it available to everybody makes the selection process harder. However, if the goal is to raise the quality of applications in general and make the application process more efficient for both researchers and evaluators, I think providing help is a really good idea.

For example, if the funding agency requires strategic positioning, it can refer to relevant policy documents, as well as on-‐going triple helix initiatives such as the strategic innovation agendas and programmes funded by Vinnova29 or business associations. It can also provide such investigations themselves, such as the ICT-‐oriented report provided by SSF that formed the basis for several programmes.30

Should gender aspects be required to be included, it's a good idea to provide links to material on this topic and references to resources such as the models and examples provided by Gendered Innovations at Stanford31 or the work done by the Swedish Secretariat for Gender Research32.

If a funding agency is interested in getting applications with a broader range of utilisation activities, it is probably a good idea to include references to such models, for example the one provided by Perez Vico et al (2014). If a call requires partners to be engaged in the whole research process, then links to models such as the one provided by van de Ven (2007) can help.

Often applications to public funding agencies are public information, although they are often cumbersome to acquire. However, if you want to raise the quality of applications, it seems a good idea to publish the ones that actually got funding. This also creates better transparency.

If you require researchers to include information in their CV about how they perform regarding utilisation, it might also be a good idea to provide some recommendations on how they can improve in this area. The agency can develop such a list of their own, or link to material available such as Stacy Konkiel's "The 30-‐Day Impact Challenge: the ultimate guide to raising the profile of your research"33.

3.1.3. Tools Tools can be conceptual models, guiding your thinking methods or even software available on the internet. For example, a very simple tool for describing dissemination can be a table with target groups and actions. Another, slightly more complex one we use at the Innovation Office at Chalmers is the Innovation Circle, where you can indicate to what extent you aim to change rules such as regulations, laws or standards, or practices in terms of methods and the way people go about doing things, or how people think (logics).

Often these kinds of impacts are related, for example, if you want people to change their behaviour it might be a good idea to try to change the way they think. "Being able

to envision potential or actual outcomes visually" helps the thinking of the project members and also makes it easier for evaluators to appreciate the project.

29 www.vinnova.se/sv/Var-‐verksamhet/Gransoverskridande-‐samverkan/Samverkansprogram/Strategiska-‐innovationsomraden/ 30 www.stratresearch.se/Documents/Strategirapport%20IKST%20mjukvara%202007.pdf 31 http://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/what-‐is-‐gendered-‐innovations.html 32 http://www.genus.se 33 blog.impactstory.org/wp-‐content/uploads/2015/01/impact_challenge_ebook_links.pdf

PRACTICES)

LOGICS)RULES)


Another kind of visualisation concerns relationships between researchers and research groups, and citation. There are several tools available and libraries, such as Chalmers Library34, sometimes use them. Such tools can provide data that can be used by researchers to promote themselves and demonstrate how well connected they are, or by evaluators to get a better overview of a particular topic. Again, Petrusson (2015) provides good examples.

Sometimes it is hard to find relevant partners for your project, so matchmaking tools where potential partners can indicate areas they are interested in and resources they can contribute with can be effective. Other tools can be methods for business surveillance, helping researchers to become more aware of what happens in society that could influence the outcome of the project. The Innovation Office at Chalmers has developed two such tools: Freedom To Research and The Research Resilience Review (see Appendix B).

The Innovation Office at Chalmers has also put together a number of conceptual and practical tools in order to support researchers when planning research strategies and projects35. Other universities have also published information about their tools. One idea would be for innovation offices and funding agencies to publish a common best practice list of tools that could be linked to the calls.

3.1.4. Resources Tools are of course one kind of resource, as well as support and funding. In addition to providing information about the call on a website, funding agencies also often make it possible to call a programme manager in order to ask questions. Sometimes workshops or information meetings are held. In Sweden, these meetings are often for free and held in the capital Stockholm, thus those who don't live there try to point out that they are not for free since it costs a lot to travel. This is why some agencies have started to broadcast such meetings on the web and also make it possible for people to ask questions from a distance.

If utilisation and impact are considered important, it is vital that this is reflected in the selection of evaluators. Few academics have work experience from outside the university, hence a mix of people from various kinds of organisations is a good idea. However, it might be the case that they need to be educated to some extent. I remember one group of evaluators who all gave high scores for the application based on their close collaboration with companies, not observing that this was actually a prerequisite stated clearly in the call.

On the subject of evaluators, it must be emphasised that the research world today is much more specialised than even 20 years ago. This means that it is extremely hard to find someone who is actually a specialist in all the topics that a certain call covers. This makes it even more important to use tools and other resources, because they provide support not only to the applicants but to the evaluators too.

Another important resource is to have a long-‐term plan for promoting research in a particular area. Developing excellence takes time, as do relationships with organisations from other parts of society, so it is important to have access to funding for many years.

There are also resources available outside the funding agency that could be helpful. For the researcher, the Grants and/or Innovation Offices can be useful, and not all researchers are aware of this opportunity (despite a lot of marketing). The innovation office can provide tools, models and examples, but also does part of the investigations needed and provides coaching. A recommendation to get support at the university (in good time, that is) can make a huge difference, especially if you are requested to indicate if you have done so. Sometimes similar support can be provided for companies, from science parks or business associations.

3.2. During a Project There is plenty of support that can be provided by funding agencies at the beginning and during a research project in order to increase utilisation. This can be organised as support for project managers, project teams and/or for an entire programme.

34 www.lib.chalmers.se/en/publishing/bibliometrics-‐and-‐ranking/visualization/ 35 innovationskontorvast.se/ikv/utvecklingsprojekt/open-‐resources-‐on-‐innovation-‐management-‐in-‐academia


3.2.1. Requirements Many funding agencies require the project to come up with a contract regarding intellectual properties. Those often focus on inventions and include statements concerning first right of refusal and so on. However, more intellectual assets than inventions can provide the foundation for innovation so it is important that the project comes up with a process for continuously making inventories of all kinds of assets and keeps the discussion going on what to do with them individually and in combination. It is vital to keep coming back to the list in order to detect how assets already developed can be combined with new ones. It is also very important to discuss early on in the project what to do with the data generated during the work, since PhD students very often need this long after the project has finished.

One special case is the management of data gathered during the project. It is vital that the ownership of and potential claims on the data is clear, but also how the data will be managed during and, more importantly, after the project.

It is also often good to involve people from outside in this process, since they can detect new application areas. This is why the inventory should also keep track of who developed the asset and who has claims on it. Together this diminishes the work necessary later on in the innovation process, when you have to be really sure about possible claims in order to continue. It also makes it easier to describe what you bring to a new project when applying for funding for the next step (so-‐called background).

If connections between people are considered important, the requirements should indicate this. For example, the annual reporting could contain a request to describe indicators of connectedness such as co-‐authoring of papers, mobility of workforce, but also who has been working with whom on the project. If the connections are weak, for example only one researcher working with one person in a company, this can be easily spotted with this kind of more detailed reporting. A simple matrix with the names of everybody involved in the project can help identify relationships, and provide a foundation for discussion.

3.2.2. Knowledge As stated above, many funding agencies already provide courses and other learning opportunities for the researchers involved in their programmes. There are several topics relevant for increasing the ability to utilise research that could be included in such training:

• Paths to impact and roles in the innovation process • Intellectual Asset management and IPR • How to formulate a utilisation hypothesis and test it • How to use social media for dissemination • How to pitch an idea to potential partners/users/investors • Project and expectation management • How to use the innovation support system • And much more

Some of these topics are already covered in training for researchers such as the CTRIVE® programme at Karlstad University36 and the PhD course Research Utilisation at Chalmers37. Suitable material is also available on the web, such as the collection of tools and educational material38 from the Innovation Office at Chalmers' but also commercial websites such as the excellent material provided for free by Alex Osterwalder and his team39.

36 www.kau.se/en/research/ctrive-‐competence-‐development 37 innovationskontorvast.se/ikv/aktiviteter 38 innovationskontorvast.se/ikv/utvecklingsprojekt/open-‐resources-‐on-‐innovation-‐management-‐in-‐academia 39 strategyzer.com


3.2.3. Tools There are plenty of conceptual tools around that have been used in the training mentioned above and some links have already been provided.

For example, the Innovation Office at Chalmers has developed a simple matrix for keeping track of intellectual assets, and most of the innovation offices in Sweden have received training on how to use it. It is based on the more elaborate model developed by the University of Gothenburg who also contributed to the development of a software tool that is free to use40.

The Business Model Canvas, developed by Alex Osterwalder, is another example where the Innovation Office at Chalmers has developed a version more suitable for the academic environment where utilisation can take on many forms, not only through commercialisation: The Utilisation Hypothesis. For more innovation-‐oriented projects, such a model can also be included in the requirements for how to describe the project already in the application.

3.2.4. Resources Training opportunities have already been mentioned as one kind of resource in order to provide knowledge development opportunities. These can be organised in various ways such as longer courses for project managers and workshops for PhD students. One important way to increase utilisation is to create opportunities for members of different projects to come together and discuss experiences. This can be done through informal workshops or through conferences where external people are also invited.

Often, programmes include some kind of half-‐term evaluation. In order to improve both the utilisation process and the performance on such an occasion, support can be provided to the projects by, for example, making them first present to the programme committee. Associated with a half-‐term evaluation could also be some kind of extended funding for both research and utilisation, which could kick in provided that the first goals have been fulfilled.

Other kinds of resources that could be provided by funding agencies are:

• Platforms for communicating results, such as a Vimeo41 channel for videos, newsletters and blogs

• Website toolkits, making it easy for the projects to quickly create a presence on the web

• Collective websites such as the British Science Media Centre42 and the Swedish Forskning.se

• Contacts with media, especially business press, and media training/coaching

• Online report series and other open access means (including funding for publishing)

• Open Data repositories

• Expert databases (although it must be recognised than not all researchers are willing to expose themselves in such contexts, since they find that the attention they receive infringes on their time for conducting research)

The process from creating new knowledge to it actually being applied in society is often both long and complex. Many opportunities need to be explored in order to see what is at all possible from a practical point of view, what is desirable from a research strategy perspective and to what extent there is a potential group of users who are really interested in the new opportunity. This process starts with a utilisation hypothesis that needs to be investigated and refined. One important resource that agencies can provide is funding for this process, since it often involves engaging people outside the project. 40 www.iamanager.se 41 www.vimeo.com 42 www.sciencemediacentre.org

Knowledge)needed)to)create)

the)u0lity)

A)way)to)deliver)u0lity)

A)hypothesis)of)u0lity)

Intellectual)Assets) U-lity) Needs) Target)group(s))

Packaging)

Partners) Intermediaries)

Funding) Key)Resources)


If the innovation system surrounding the project is weak, the agency may consider providing funding for developing it. This can be done through competence development, supporting connectivity through workshops, providing seed capital for initiatives aiming at making organisations work together, or through providing co-‐funding.

3.3. After a Project It must be emphasised that providing support throughout the whole project process is much better than only offering it at the end. The earlier the support takes place, the more options become available and more mistakes can be avoided. However, there are some measurements suitable at the end of a programme.

3.3.1. Requirements Normally a project is requested to provide a final report when the funding is up. Of course, the recommendations provided above regarding the continuous reporting of intellectual assets and relationships are valid also for the final report. However, it could be emphasised that the level of detail regarding the next steps should be higher. One important aspect is to what extent the results are used as a basis for new projects.

If partner organisations have been involved, one idea is to require them to make detailed statements regarding what kinds of benefits the project has delivered. For example, in an investigation of a Vinnova programme43 the partners listed the following positive outcomes:

• New knowledge that has been further developed by the companies themselves, which has resulted in new as well as improved and more competitive materials, processes, products and services reaching the market and thereby resulting in turnover

• Bases for decisions on critical technological choices

• Software developed by R&D providers that is being used by companies to speed up and increase the quality of internal processes and development stages, which in turn has resulted in increased competitiveness

• Competence development of existing personnel through participation in R&D projects together with R&D providers and other companies

• Increased competence for the personnel at large through recruitment of PhD graduates (and to some extent, MScs)

• New internal working practices in R&D-‐related matters

• Access to laboratory facilities and valuable networks

This is very much in line with the research done by Perez Vico and her colleagues (2013), demonstrating that research influences society in many ways, for example the direction of the search for new solutions, legitimising organisations to address certain topics, market formation, entrepreneurial experimentation, resource mobilisation, knowledge development and diffusion, as well as social capital development.

In addition to a list of publications the project has generated, it would also be good with some kinds of indicators as to what extent they already had had an impact on other researchers, i.e. bibliometric impact. It would also be useful to see if the project resulted in a positive change in the researchers' network and co-‐authoring of articles.

3.3.2. Knowledge One way of supporting the final stages of the projects including the final reporting would be to provide lots of examples of good reports. For example, the Economic and Social Research Council in the UK

43 www.vinnova.se/upload/EPiStorePDF/va-‐11-‐07.pdf


provides many useful sources44: a database with project information, impact stories, and toolkits on how to create impact.

3.3.3. Tools Of course, reporting becomes much easier with frameworks or templates. If it is requested that the final report should include a list of utilisation activities, one suggestion is to use available frameworks such as the one provided by Perez Vico (2014).

Another useful tool, inspired by the work of Perez Vico and her colleagues, is the Utilisation Barometer, helping the researcher reflect on the roles he or she have taken on regarding utilisation45 (the innovation office at the University of Gothenburg have also developed a similar tool, see Petrusson 2015). There is little chance of creating sustainable impact if the individual researcher has not reflected upon and decided what role she or he wants to take on in the innovation process and what kind of impact he or she would like to contribute to.

3.3.4. Resources Since the innovation process often takes years and even decades, it is difficult for project participants to keep track of the impact. Programme evaluations thus become important, where funding agencies can provide resources for that kind of investigation. However, it is important that they use broad frameworks regarding utilisation to capture more of the impact on society.

If impact stories are requested as part of the final reporting, it can be a good idea to provide support on how to develop these. It's not always easy to understand the distinction between output, outcome and impact so examples, instructions and writing workshops can come in handy. Since it might become the case that impact stories will be included in the government's evaluation for research funding distribution, it would also be good if there were an alignment in instructions and examples. Inspiration on how to design good impact stories and reports can be found in the foreign aid sector, for example the Swedish Sida46 and the UN47.

Another kind of resource that would be very beneficial for support organisations is application statistics. Those who provide support are, of course, very much interested in knowing more about to what extent the support had any effects and to detect researchers who could actually get funding with a little support.

4. Recommendations and Discussion Research takes on many forms, so not all kinds of utilisation are relevant to all researchers and not to all kinds of funding agencies. However, I totally agree with Petrusson (2015) that we have a great and special opportunity in Sweden today to improve both our research and our society if we can work together: researchers, support functions and funding agencies.

Sweden is one of the few countries that has not implemented regulations similar to the Bayh-‐Dole Act making the university the principal owner of all intellectual assets developed by its researchers and thus having refrained from only investing in Technology Transfer Offices focusing on inventions, patents and licenses. Instead, with the new Innovation Offices in combination with existing support structures, there is a good opportunity for broad support for all kinds of utilisation and a focus on sustainable impact on society taking environmental, social and economic aspects into consideration.

The scientific process is one of our greatest innovations, making constant improvement possible. However, the innovation process is not as elaborated and we need to work on making it better, leading to more positive impact on society in a more efficient way. Much that is traditional to the research process can also be applied when it comes to utilisation and innovation. If there is a claim for relevance for a particular kind of organisation, why not show some relevant data? The utilisation hypothesis tool is based

44 www.esrc.ac.uk/research/ 45 innovationskontorvast.se/ikv/utvecklingsprojekt/open-‐resources-‐on-‐innovation-‐management-‐in-‐academia 46 www.sidaresearch.se/media/7479/reporting%20guidlines%20individual%20research.pdf 47 web.undp.org/evaluation/handbook/ch2-‐4.html


on scientific reasoning, which helps the formulation and verification of beliefs regarding utilisation. The ambition is to find potential mistakes as early as possible, in order to change the hypothesis or refocus on something else. In order to create really good impact stories, you actually need to do more research, although not the kind of research that originally took place and probably by other kinds of researchers. These are only a few examples of how scientific methods and approaches can be applied in the innovation process.

It is my belief that funding agencies play a key role in this development. Money always talks when it comes to getting things done. Few of the recommendations provided in this paper require much in terms of monetary investments. Instead, they require more in terms of competence development and a change in attitude. If I had to pick just a few, I strongly recommend putting the following in place:

1. Focus on developing tools, examples, requirements and support that help researchers develop their capacity for creating impact long-‐term and even if they don't get funding.

2. Develop and communicate a broader perspective on utilisation and impact, including various aspects such as open innovation, education, commercialisation, outreach, and influencing decision-‐makers.

3. Make the projects focus on intellectual assets such as methods, data, designs and inventions in all phases: before, during and after the project.

4. Ask the researchers and partners for the bigger picture in order to capture the relevance of the project and the feasibility of what it will try to achieve.

5. Strongly recommend contact with an innovation office, and the use of publicly available tools for enhancing research utilisation and thus increase the likelihood of getting funding.

It is my belief that implementing these changes would lead to fewer applications but with higher quality, improving the research and increasing the amount and quality of utilisation, and in the end have a larger positive impact on society. I hope it will lead to utilisation processes that will have a large and broad impact instead of a system that is optimised for the extremely rare occasions of finding something that could become a so-‐called unicorn company or that keeps on benefiting only a small number of large companies.

As stated above, these recommendations are based on logic and experience. As a next step, it would be interesting to do a study on how various funding agencies operate today in order to collect, discuss and disseminate best practice on how they try to enhance utilisation and their opinions regarding possible developments. Of course, it would also be good if more research could look into what effects various measures have on the impact and for those results to be utilised worldwide.


References Aspgren, A., Holmberg, L., & Vasell, J. (2013). Measuring the Utilisation of Research — Important

Questions to Start Answering. Innovationskontor Väst, Chalmers. http://innovationskontorvast.se/ikv/wp-‐content/uploads/2013/08/IKV-‐Green-‐Paper-‐Mätning-‐Eng-‐2013-‐1.0.pdf

Bondestam, F., & Grip, L. (2015). Fördelning eller förfördelning? Forskningsfinansiering, jämställdhet och genus -‐ en forskningsöversikt. Nationella sekretariatet för genusforskning. Göteborgs universitet, Forskningens villkor 2015:1. http://www.genus.se/digitalAssets/1540/1540025_forskningens-‐villkor-‐2015-‐1.pdf

Danilda, I., & Granat Thorslund, J. (eds) (2011). Innovation & Gender. VINNOVA, Tillväxtverket & Innovation Norway. http://www.vinnova.se/upload/EPiStorePDF/vi-‐11-‐03.pdf

D’Este, P. & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer 36, 316-‐339.

Flodström, A. (2011) Prestationsbaserad resursfördelning för universitet och högskolor. http://www.ksla.se/wp-‐content/uploads/2012/03/7356-‐Rapport-‐Prestationsbaserad-‐resurstilldelning-‐f%C3%B6r-‐universitet-‐och-‐h%C3%B6gskolor.pdf

Lidhard, J. & Petrusson, U. (2012). Forskning och innovation – statens styrning av högskolans samverkan och nyttiggörande. Finansdepartementet, Regeringen. http://www.iis.gu.se/digitalAssets/1376/1376585_lidhard_petrusson_forskning-‐och-‐innovation_esorapport12.pdf

Perez Vico, E. (2013). The Impact of Academia on the Dynamics of Innovation Systems: Capturing and explaining utilities from academic R&D. Göteborg : Chalmers University of Technology. http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/publication/183229

Perez Vico, E., Hellström, T., Fernqvist, N., Hellsmark, H. & Molnar, S. (2014). Universitets och högskolors samverkansmönster och dess effekter. VINNOVA.

Perez Vico, E., Hellsmark, H., & Jacob, M. (2015). Enacting knowledge exchange: a context dependent and ‘role-‐based’ typology for capturing utility from university research, Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation, DOI: 10.1080/08109028.2015.1060699 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08109028.2015.1060699?journalCode=cpro20

Perkmann, M., & Salter, A. (2012). How to Create Productive Partnerships With Universities. MIT Sloan Management Magazine, June 18, 2012. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733312002235

Perkmann, M. et al, (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, Vol 42, No 2, pp. 423-‐442.

Petrusson, U. (2015). Forskning och nytta. Göteborg: Tre Böcker Förlag.

Pertuzé, J. A. et al (2010). ”Best Practices for Industry-‐University Collaboration”, MITSloan Management Review, Vol. 51 No 4. http://osp.mit.edu/sites/osp/files/u8/bestpractices.pdf

SOU 2012:41. Innovationsstödjande verksamheter vid universitet och högskolor: Kartläggning, analys och förslag till förbättringar. http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/15654/a/194144

van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged Scholarship. Oxford University Press.

Wigren-‐Kristoferson, C., Gabrielsson, J. & Kitagawa, F. (2011) Mind the gap and bridge the gap: research excellence and diffusion of academic knowledge in Sweden. In Science and Public Policy, 38(6) Special issue: Academic knowledge production, diffusion and commercialisation: policies, practices and perspectives.


Wahlbin, C. & Wigren, C. (2007). Samverkan i det akademiska vardagslivet http://www.hkr.se/upload/INFO/doc/info_060-‐2007.pdf

Appendix A There have been many attempts to summarise the various kinds of utilisation actions that can be taken in one simple picture that everybody can agree upon. For example, this is the way Aalborg University presents how they interact with various groups in society48:

Chalmers has an innovation process promoting five basic paths to impact: collaboration in education, research collaboration, open innovation, licensing and venture creation. I have used this model to group various kinds of utilisation initiatives but also added communication as a special category. The list is by no means exhaustive, but is aiming to serve as inspiration and perhaps an eye-‐opener. It also contains actions that researchers and universities can take. The model as such is not important; the activities are, especially when implemented and leading to a positive impact on society.

Collaboration Through Education This presupposes that research results or processes are integrated with education.

• Courses where professional people are mixed with master students • Commissioned education • Project-‐oriented courses • Problem-‐based learning during courses • Students engaged in research projects • Student innovation competitions solving real problems • Open Educational Resources • Textbooks • Massive Online Open Courses (MOOC) • Work-‐integrated education • Courses and lectures open to the public • External mentors

48 www.nordregio.se/Global/Research/HEI/PP%20Aalborg.pdf


• Students working as consultants • Industrial PhD students • External lecturers • External members in department boards and programme committees

Research Collaboration • R&I Centres • Science Parks • Knowledge Transfer Networks • Commissioned research • Research projects with non-‐academic partners • Matching researchers and organisations who focus on the same issue, through workshops or

websites • Makers Lab/Maker Space • Living Labs/Open Labs • Action research • Campus as a Living Lab • Helping SMEs grow through research collaboration • Co-‐publishing • Mobility grants where researchers can work for a company some time and vice versa • Verification of potential solutions • Providing infrastructure that others aside from particular research groups can use • Cluster collaboration • Participation in local/regional/national development • Participation in development of national innovation strategies for a particular area • Evaluation of projects or organisations in society • Strategic partnering with other organisations • Professors of Practice, with experience from outside academia • Part-‐time work outside academia • Areas of advance or other means for cross-‐disciplinary collaboration • Open conferences • Participating in large R&D projects, such as EU Flagships or KICs

Open Innovation • Open Access • Ideations/Innovation Competitions • Open Data • Open Source • Toolkits • Crowdsourcing • Creative Commons publishing

Licensing • Traditional licensing • Easy Access Licensing • Collaborations with licensing companies • Idea Banks

Venture Creation • Start a company with or without the help of an incubator or holding company • Do consulting on your own • University consulting companies • IdeaSpace • Business plan competitions


• Participate in crowdfunding, spreading information and collecting money • Social companies • Impact Investment Fund

Communication • University Press company publishing books and journals • Publishing research results on Wikipedia • Research festivals • Public presentations • Visit schools, Meet a Scientist • Science centres, museums and archives • Botanical garden • Newsletters and press releases • Participating in TEDx • Participating in research communication competitions • Publishing in journals, including business specific press • Provide expert advice on demand and on committees • Present information about utilisation activities on the university website • Provide information about projects on websites and in social media • Blog • Podcast • Video channel • Impact stories • Visualisation • Exhibitions • Science Café • Participate in the public debate • Study visits • Make the library into a meeting place • Participate in or organise a competition such as Dance Your PhD Thesis • Stay in touch with your student and staff alumni


Appendix B The tools mentioned below can be found at this webpage: http://innovationskontorvast.se/ikv/utvecklingsprojekt/open-‐resources-‐on-‐innovation-‐management-‐in-‐academia

General Information About Research Utilisation

At Innovationkontor Väst, we apply a very broad perspective on research utilisation, recognising that the paths to impact are many as well as the roles that researchers can take on in the innovation process.

• Videos in Swedish but with English subtitles: Part 1 and Part 2

• Information on Chalmers’ Intranet (available to the public): In English and in Swedish

Measuring Utilisation

How to measure impact and/or utilisation is a hot topic in many countries, especially since governments and research funding agencies want to use it for distributing money. However, before choosing a model, it’s important to pose a number of important questions. In this material we go through the why, what, when, how and who.

• Report in English: Measuring Research Utilisation (2013)

• Report in Swedish: Mätning av nyttiggörande (2013)

• Video på svenska: Mätning av nyttiggörande, från Innovation By Collaboration 2013

Open Innovation

The open innovation concepts are almost impossible to separate: crowdsourcing, crowdfunding, open access, easy access, open source and so on. In this report we go through them all and provide lots of examples, all the while from an academic perspective, showing how researchers can apply them in utilisation.

• Report in English: ”Open Innovation – A Handbook for Researchers” (2013)

Freedom To Research

This tool helps you get an overview of what’s going on that might have an impact on your research such as what companies are active in your area, current publication trends, funding trends and so on.

• Tool: Freedom2Research questions

• Videos: Part 1. Introduction, Part 2. How To Use The Tool, Part 3. An Example and Part 4. How The Example Was Generated

• Short info about Freedom2Research

Intellectual Assets Inventory

From 2012-‐2014, we held 15 courses all over Sweden on how to use this very simple tool. It helps researchers do an inventory of the models, methods, data, designs, software and inventions developed in a project. Here is the material used in these courses:

• Tool: The IAI template and The Project Canvas (in Swedish)

• Presentation: Slides from the course

• Guidelines: In English and in Swedish

• Videos: Part 1. Background, Part 2. Concepts and Definitions and Part 3. How To Use the Tool

• Short info about Intellectual Assets Inventory


Intellectual Asset Verification

In order to go from a vague idea of what your new knowledge can be used for and by whom, this tool helps you identify what questions you need to answer first. It is very much inspired by the Business Model Canvas, but with a more general vocabulary addressing more situations than commercialisation.

• Tool: The Utilisation Hypothesis Canvas and IKV IAV Canvas Tool

• Videos and texts: Part 1 (Background), Part 2 (The Utilisation Hypothesis Canvas) and Part 3 (Application examples)

Utilisation Role Analysis

As a researcher, you can take on many roles in the innovation process: educator, evaluator, networker, infrastructure developer and so on. These tools help you reflect upon which roles you take on. It can also be applied in groups in order to find out if new partners or members might be needed, given the utilisation objectives. This role analysis is based on research done at Chalmers and SP by Staffan Jacobsson, Eugenia Perez Vico, Hans Hellsmark and others.

• Tool: The Utilisation Role Analysis

• Extended tool: Utilisation Barometer

• Video about the Utilisation Role Analysis

• Short info about the Utilisation Role Analysis

Research Resilience Review

This tool helps researchers identify opportunities and threats posed by demands related to sustainable development. It looks at both research direction and methods used.

• Tool: Research Resilience Review

• Video in Swedish, but with English subtitles: Research Resilience

• Short info about Research Resilience Review

Innovation Strategy Design

All the tools above can be used as a foundation for designing an innovation strategy. This helps a research group make decisions regarding what groups to focus on, what partners to work with, how to position the group and so on.

• Tool: ISD questions, The Then-‐Now-‐Future Canvas (in Swedish) and The Partnership Canvas (in Swedish)

• Presentation: ISD slides to be used at a workshop including a canvas

• Video: Part 1. Preparation, Part 2. The Workshop and Part 3. The Next Step

• Short info about Innovation Strategy Design