Need to Knowledge (NtK) Model: an evidence-based framework for generating technological innovations with socio-economic impacts

Implementation Science

Michelle M Lockett¹  Joseph P Lane¹  Jennifer L Flagg¹ 

[1] Center for Assistive Technology, University at Buffalo (SUNY), 100 Sylvan Parkway, Suite 400, Amherst, NY, 14228, USA

关键词: Innovation;    States of knowledge;    Industrial production;    Engineering development;    Scientific research;    Technology-based;    Evidence-based;    Commercial transaction;    Technology transfer;    Knowledge translation;   

Others  :  813775
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-5908-8-21

 received in 2012-04-24, accepted in 2013-02-04,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Traditional government policies suggest that upstream investment in scientific research is necessary and sufficient to generate technological innovations. The expected downstream beneficial socio-economic impacts are presumed to occur through non-government market mechanisms. However, there is little quantitative evidence for such a direct and formulaic relationship between public investment at the input end and marketplace benefits at the impact end. Instead, the literature demonstrates that the technological innovation process involves a complex interaction between multiple sectors, methods, and stakeholders.

Discussion

The authors theorize that accomplishing the full process of technological innovation in a deliberate and systematic manner requires an operational-level model encompassing three underlying methods, each designed to generate knowledge outputs in different states: scientific research generates conceptual discoveries; engineering development generates prototype inventions; and industrial production generates commercial innovations. Given the critical roles of engineering and business, the entire innovation process should continuously consider the practical requirements and constraints of the commercial marketplace.

The Need to Knowledge (NtK) Model encompasses the activities required to successfully generate innovations, along with associated strategies for effectively communicating knowledge outputs in all three states to the various stakeholders involved. It is intentionally grounded in evidence drawn from academic analysis to facilitate objective and quantitative scrutiny, and industry best practices to enable practical application.

Summary

The Need to Knowledge (NtK) Model offers a practical, market-oriented approach that avoids the gaps, constraints and inefficiencies inherent in undirected activities and disconnected sectors. The NtK Model is a means to realizing increased returns on public investments in those science and technology programs expressly intended to generate beneficial socio-economic impacts.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Flagg et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Kline S, Rosenberg N: An Overview of Innovation. In The Positive sum strategy: harnessing technology for economic growth. Edited by Landau R, Rosenberg N. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1986:xiv, 640.
• [2]Mowery DC, Sampat BN: Universities in national innovation systems. In The Oxford handbook of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005:209-239.
• [3]Stokes DE: Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; 1997.
• [4]Sarewitz D, Pielke RA: The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environ Sci Policy 2007, 10:5-16.
• [5]Bush V: The Endless Frontier. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation; 1945.
• [6]Conant JB: Science and Common Sense. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1951.
• [7]Ozer M: A Survey of New Product Evaluation Models. J Prod Innov Manag 1999, 16:77-94.
• [8]Shum P, Lin G: A World Class New product Development Best Practices Model. Int J Prod Res 2007, 45(7):1609-1629.
• [9]Galia F, Legros D: Complementarities between obstacles to innovation: evidence from France. Res Policy 2004, 33(8):1185-1199.
• [10]Miotti L, Sachwald F: Cooperative R&D: Why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Res Policy 2003, 32:1481-1499.
• [11]Wessner CW (Ed): SBIR and the Phase III Challenge of Commercialization: Report of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2007. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11851.html webcite
• [12]Wessner CW (Ed): An assessment of the SBIR Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2008. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11989 webcite
• [13]Fisher R, Polt W, Vonortas N: The impact of publicly funded research on innovation: An analysis of European Framework Programmes for Research and Development. Luxembourg: European Communities; 2009.
• [14]Harris JK, Provan KG, Johnson KJ, Leischow SJ: Drawbacks and benefits associated with inter-organizational collaboration along the discovery-development-delivery continuum: a cancer research network case study. Implement Sci 2012, 7(69):1-12.
• [15]Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer. http://kt4tt.buffalo.edu webcite
• [16]Thursby JG, Jensen RA, Thursby MC: Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing a survey of major U.S. universities. J Technol Transf 2001, 26(1–2):59-70.
• [17]Johnson WHA: Managing university technology development using organizational control theory. Res Policy 2011, 40:842-852.
• [18]Malik K, Georghiou L, Grieve B: Developing new technology platforms for new business models: Syngenta’s partnership with the University of Manchester. Res Technol Manage 2011, 54(1):24-31.
• [19]Gulbranson CA, Audretsch DB: Proof of Concept Centers: Accelerating the Commercialization of University Innovations. http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/POC_Centers_01242008.pdf webcite
• [20]Goddard J, Robertson D, Vallance P: Universities, Technology and Innovation Centres and regional development: the case of the North-East of England. Camb J Econ 2012, 36(3):609-627.
• [21]Holly K: The Full Potential of University Research. http://scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/holly_innovation.pdf webcite
• [22]Kahn KB, Castellion G, Griffin A: The PDMA handbook of new product development: Second edition. Hoboken: Wiley; 2005.
• [23]Frishammar J, Ylinenpaa H: Managing information in new product development: A conceptual review, research propositions and tentative model. Int J Innov Manag 2007, 11(4):441-467.
• [24]Troy L, Hirunyawipada T, Paswan A: Cross-functional integration and new product success: An empirical investigation of the findings. Am Mark Assoc 2008, 72:132-146.
• [25]Cotterman R, Fusfeld A, Henderson P, Leder J, Loweth C, Metoyer A: Aligning marketing and technology to drive innovation. Res Technol Manage 2009, 52(5):14-20.
• [26]Moenart RK: R&D/marketing communication during the fuzzy front-end. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 1995, 42:243-258.
• [27]Johnston L, Robinson S, Lockett N: Recognizing “open innovation” in HEI-industry interaction for knowledge transfer and exchange. Int J Entrepreneurial Behav Res 2010, 16(6):540-560.
• [28]Bruneel J, D’Este P, Salter A: Investigating the factors that diminish barriers to university-industry collaboration. Res Policy 2010, 39:858-868.
• [29]Mitton C, Adair CE, McKenzie E, Patten SB, Waye-Perry B: Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Q 2007, 85(4):729-768.
• [30]Howells J, Ramlogan R, Cheng SL: Universities in an open innovation system: a UK perspective. Int J Entrepreneurial Behav Res 2012, 18(4):440-456.
• [31]Lane JP, Flagg JL: Translating three states of knowledge: Discovery, invention and innovation. Implement Sci 2010, 5(9):1-14. http://www.implementationscience.com/content/5/1/9 webcite
• [32]Stone VI, Lane JP: Modeling technology innovation: How science, engineering and industry methods can combine to generate beneficial socio-economic impacts. Implement Sci 2012, 7(44):1-19. http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/44 webcite
• [33]Riek RF: From experience: Capturing hard-won NPD lessons in checklists. J Prod Innov Manag 2001, 18:301-313.
• [34]Gera R: Bridging the gap in knowledge transfer between academia and practitioners. Int J Educ Manag 2012, 26(3):252-273.
• [35]Van Aken J: Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-Tested and Grounded Technological Rules. J Manag Stud 2004, 41(2):219-246.
• [36]Dobbins M, Rosenbaum P, Plews N, Law M, Fysh A: Information transfer: what do decision makers want and need from researchers? Implement Sci 2007, 2(20):1-12.
• [37]Campbell D, Stanley J: Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally; 1963.
• [38]Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, Robinson N: Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map? Contin Educ Health Prof 2006, 26(1):13-24.
• [39]Center on KT4TT NtK Model. http://kt4tt.buffalo.edu/knowledgebase/model.php webcite
• [40]Sudsawad P: Knowledge translation: Introduction to models, strategies, and measures. 2007. http://www.ncddr.org/kt/products/ktintro/ webcite
• [41]Flagg JL, Lockett M: The need to knowledge model: A roadmap to successful outputs for NIDRR grantees. Focus Technical Brief 2010., 28http://www.ncddr.org/kt/products/focus/focus28/ webcite
• [42]Flagg JL: Webcast 28: The KT4TT knowledge base: Steps and supporting evidence to improve your process. 2010. http://www.ncddr.org/webcasts/webcast28.html webcite
• [43]Center on KT4TT Knowledge Base. http://kt4tt.buffalo.edu/knowledgebase/search.php webcite
• [44]Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ: Benchmarking Best NPD Practices-III. Res Technol Manage 2004, 47(6):43-55.
• [45]Padilla-Meléndez A, Garrido-Moreno A: Open innovation in universities: What motivates researchers to engage in knowledge transfer exchanges? Int J Entrepreneurial Behav Res 2012, 18(4):417-439.
• [46]Coughlan J, Manduchi R: Functional Assessment of a Camera Phone-Based Wayfinding System Operated by Blind Users. IEEE Computer Society and the Biological and Artificial Intelligence Society 2007.
• [47]Stockstrom C, Herstatt C: Planning and Uncertainty in New Product Development. R&D Management 2008, 38(5):480-490.
• [48]Cooper RG: The Stage-Gate idea-to-launch process—Update, what's new, and NexGen systems. J Prod Innov Manag 2008, 25(3):213-232.
• [49]Lane JP, Leahy JA, Bauer SM: Accomplishing technology transfer: Case-based lessons of what works and what does not. Assist Technol 2003, 15(1):69-88.
• [50]Song XM, Thieme RJ, Xie J: The Impact of Cross-Functional Joint Involvement Across Product Development Stages: An Exploratory Study. J Prod Innov Manag 1998, 15:289-303.
• [51]Ruegg R, Feller I: A toolkit for evaluating public R&D investment: Models, methods and findings from ATP’s first decade. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2003.
• [52]Stone VI, Lockett M, Usiak DJ, Arthanat S: Beyond Technology Transfer: Quality Of Life Impacts From R&D Outcomes. Assist Technol Outcomes Benefits 2010, 6(1):87-128. http://www.atia.org/files/public/ATOBV6N1ArticleSix.pdf webcite
• [53]Lane JP: At the confluence of academic research and business development: Merging technology transfer with knowledge translation to deliver value. Assist Technol Outcomes Benefits 2010, 6(1):1-38. http://www.atia.org/files/public/ATOBV6N1ArticleTwo.pdf webcite