1. Identifying the Impacts of Technology Transfer Beyond Commercialization FPTT National Meeting, June 12, 2007

2. “the returns [of science] are so large that it is hardly necessary to justify or evaluate the investment” (National Science Foundation, 1957; from Godin & Doré, 2004)

3. Globe and Mail Friday June 8, 2007

4. Globe and Mail, Friday June 8, 2007

5. Determinants of Knowledge Transfer (Landry et al 2006) Focus of research projects on users’ needs Linkages between researchers and research users “…researchers transferred knowledge much more actively when no commercialization was involved than when there was commercialization of protected intellectual property.”

6. Allen Consulting Group (2005) Measuring the impact of publicly funded research What does society value? Does publicly funded research contribute to the dimensions of what society values?

7. Canadian Values New federal S&T strategy: Quality of the environment Health Public safety and security Natural and energy resources National competitiveness and productivity Higher standard of living Quality of life

8. General Societal Values Allen Consulting Group (2005) Material – goods and services available Human – physical/mental health, quality of life, pleasant experiences Environmental – biodiversity, quality of air, land, water Social – social attachments, freedom from crime, political rights, engagement in political processes

9. Intuitively, we believe that R&D/innovation can make significant contributions to achieving these values Problems arise when we try to prove it, quantitatively Current impact measures fail to represent complete impact on social, cultural and organizational elements of society Godin & Doré (2004)

10. Market Failure Public funded R&D corrects market failure Based on theory that knowledge is durable and costless to use Investment required to use it Requires substantial capability on part of user (absorptive capacity)

11. In-house R&D Companies that engage in R&D gain the capabilities necessary to exploit external knowledge Build absorptive capacity SMEs – less than 10% conduct research annually Limits absorptive capacity of Canadian firms

12. R&D – Technological Innovation – Socioeconomic Linkages Linkages weak and indirect, despite efforts Research impacts on technological innovation – linear view of science: not historically supported Technological innovation impacts on socio-economic benefits Research impacts on socio- economic benefits

13. Allen Consulting Group Lack of logic that connects research outputs to final outcomes because: Timelags in getting from outputs to outcomes are substantial Difficulty in attributing outcome effects to particular research causes Separating contributions of research performance among many players over extended periods Linkages between outputs and outcomes may be different for different types of research and research fields

14. Economic Benefits of R&D Salter & Martin (2001) Increasing stock of useful knowledge Training skilled graduates Creating new scientific instrumentation and methodologies Forming networks and stimulating social interactions Creating new firms

15. New view of science Godin & Doré (2004) Abandon economic basis How science contributes to social issues and policies Completely new data sources

16. Typology of Impact of Science on Society Science Technology Economy Culture Society Policy Organization Health Environment Symbolic Training

17. Challenge Salter and Martin: “The key issue is not so much whether benefits are there, but how best to organize the national research and innovation system to make the most effective use of them”

18. Transfer/Diffusion Ekboir –Enabling environment for knowledge creation and sharing Salter & Martin –Ensuring potential benefits are transferred and exploited successfully Godin and Doré –Tech transfer mechanisms are determining factors of exploitation and use of research results –Diffusions, acquistion, integration, use

19. Knowledge Translation Framework Lavis et al (2003) The message: What should be transferred to users? The Users: To whom should the results be transferred? The messenger: Who is translating the knowledge? The Process: How is Knowledge Transferred? The Effects – measuring knowledge translation and its outcomes

20. Technology Transfer Framework John Howard (2005): framework of 4 ideal typical models expand channels of impacts from R&D Phillip KPA (2006) refined framework and defined knowledge transfer to encompass material, human, social and environmental benefits Engagement with diversity of non- academic users at local, regional, national, international levels

21. Knowledge Translation Processes Knowledge Access Make knowledge accessible Knowledge Production Sell knowledge products Knowledge Relationships Sell knowledge services Knowledge Engagement Engage to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes PhillipsKPA 2006

22. Key Messages Passive processes for transferring knowledge have been shown to be ineffective Interactive engagement with a diverse range of non-research users for mutual benefit may be most effective Interaction can occur at many stages in both research process and decision- making process Look for strategies beyond producer- push

23. Technology Uncertainty Novelty Complexity Tacitness Interorganisational Interaction CommunicationCo-operationCo-ordination FIT Technology Transfer Effectiveness Functional Operation CostTime Adapted from: Stock & Tatikonda 2004 Stock & Tatikonda 2004

24. ?