KT for TT – Ensuring Use and Impact from Technology R&D Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer University at Buffalo.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
KT for TT – Ensuring Technology- based R&D matters to Stakeholders
Advertisements

Disability Research to Practice Program NIDRR RERC Project Directors Meeting April 3 & 4, 2006.
Technology and Economic Development Intellectual Property Issues in Research Jim Baker Director Office of Technology and Economic Development
Begin with Knowledge Translation; Have the End – Technology Transfer – in Mind Begin with Knowledge Translation; Have the End – Technology Transfer – in.
Contextualized Knowledge Translation Packages for Technology Transfer and Product Development ATIA Orlando, Florida January 2012 James A. Leahy Center.
Principal Patent Analyst
Overview of Technology Transfer Process RERC on Technology Transfer University at Buffalo.
Knowledge Translation. CIHR’s mandate CIHR is Canada's major federal funding agency for health research. Its objective is to excel, according to internationally.
Achieving Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer: Implications for Evaluation Presenter: Vathsala I. Stone University at Buffalo/
TTO Role in University / Corporate Partnership
How to Translate Knowledge in Three States: Discovery, Invention, Innovation Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer University.
Getting from Knowledge to Action: Effectively communicating Research & Development value to multiple Stakeholder Groups. Joseph Lane & John Westbrook RESNA.
Innovation in Universal Design “Universal integration of research, education, innovation and enterprise at DIT GrangeGorman” Joseph P. Lane, University.
Need to Knowledge Model: A framework for achieving market Innovations through sponsored R&D Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology.
Industry – The missing link between S&T Policy and Societal Benefit. Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer University.
From Theory to Practice: Operationalizing Knowledge Translation for Successful AT Commercialization Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for.
Technology Transfer for KT Practitioners
Changes in US Patent Law: How it Affects Researchers/Inventors Changes in US Patent Law: How it Affects Researchers/Inventors ATIA Orlando, Florida February.
Winning your next proposal: “Buzz Tactics” to increase the chances of success Joseph Lane, Jennifer Flagg, James Leahy Center on Knowledge Translation.
Best Practices in Technology Transfer Jennifer L Flagg Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer University at Buffalo.
Corporate/University Collaborations In New Product Development Corporate/University Collaborations In New Product Development ATIA Orlando, Florida February.
Research Project Grant (RPG) Retreat K-Series March 2012 Bioengineering Classroom.
Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) Program: Should You Take Part? Douglas Clay SR&ED Program Calgary, Alberta.
Tools for Technical, Business & Consumer Analysis in AT Product Development: Expanding the Need to Knowledge Model Joseph P. Lane, Center on KT4TT University.
WP1: IP charter Geneva – 23rd June 2009 Contribution from CERN.
The 7th Campbell Colloquium May 14-16, 2007 London, UK Knowledge Translation and Disability and Rehabilitation Research _______________________________________________.
THE IMPORTANCE OF IPR ACROSS THE LIFECYCLE OF INNOVATION Bob Stembridge Principal Patent Analyst, IP & Science.
Managing & Communicating Knowledge in Three States Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer School.
Chapter 27 The Engineering Design Process. Learning Objectives Describe the various factors that are changing the design process Discuss the steps in.
Stages of Development (SoD) National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) Copyright National Institute on.
Analytic Tools: Ensuring industry relevance for university-based R&D projects intending transfer. Joseph P. Lane & James Condron Center on Knowledge Translation.
Bridging the Evidence Gap: Level Of Knowledge Use Survey - LOKUS as a Validated Instrument Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology.
Bridging the Deliverable Gap: Improving Government’s approach to innovation intending social benefit. Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for.
The Case for Industry Leadership in STI Policy Implementation. Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer
Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics PROGRAM.
Knowledge Translation Conference KT Solutions for Overcoming Barriers to Research Use Hosted by SEDL’s Center on Knowledge Translation for Disability and.
The KT4TT Knowledge Base: Steps and Supporting Evidence to Improve Your Process! Webcast sponsored by SEDL September 29, 2010, 2:00 pm (Central) / 3:00.
Technology Transfer Principles: Methods, Knowledge States and Value Systems Underlying Successful Technological Innovation Joseph P. Lane, Director Center.
Evidence-based Management of R&D Projects Intending Market Deployment Joseph P. Lane, Director Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer.
Stages of Research and Development
Technology Transfer Office
Stephen Bauer NIDILRR Program Officer
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
Four Models to Guide AT Projects Intending Innovative Technology Development Outcomes Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer.
Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer
From Theory to Practice: Operationalizing Knowledge Translation for Successful AT Commercialization Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation.
The Social Model for A/T Technology Transfer – AAATE 2010 “From Problem Identification to Social Validation: An Operational Model” Joseph P. Lane,
Bridging the Deliverable Gap: Improving Government’s approach to innovation intending social benefit. Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation.
Need to Knowledge Model: A framework for achieving market Innovations through sponsored R&D Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology.
Changes in US Patent Law: How it Affects Researchers/Inventors
Translating New Knowledge from Technology Based Research Projects: an End-of-Grant Intervention Evaluation Study. Rationale and Methods Vathsala I. Stone.
Managing & Communicating Knowledge in Three States
Joseph P. Lane, University at Buffalo
Expanding Product Accessibility with Primary Market Research Techniques Jennifer L Flagg Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer, University.
Four Models to Guide AT Projects Intending Innovative Technology Development Outcomes Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer.
Tools for Technical, Business & Consumer Analysis in AT Product Development: Expanding the Need to Knowledge Model Joseph P. Lane, Center on KT4TT.
Joseph Lane & John Westbrook
Industry – The missing link between S&T Policy and Societal Benefit.
Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer (KT4TT)
AEA Annual Meeting , Nov , 2009 Achieving Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer: Implications for Evaluation Presenter: Vathsala I. Stone.
RESNA 2018 Annual Conference
Knowledge Translation Across RERC Activities
Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer
Reconciling Government Policies and Programs with Public Expectations: The Case of Innovation in AT Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation.
Knowledge Utility results from Rigor in Methods & Relevance in Content
The Need to Knowledge (NtK) Model: Orienting Scholar “Technology Grantees” to Best Practices in Transfer & Commercialization Joseph P. Lane, Director.
Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer
BUFFALO FUND: ACCELERATOR Full Proposal Presentation
Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Health System (PRIHS) /2020 Sean Dewitt, Program Manager, Health, Alberta Innovates Marc Leduc,
Presentation transcript:

KT for TT – Ensuring Use and Impact from Technology R&D Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer University at Buffalo

NIDRR Grantees improve QoL for PWD by solving problems with knowledge. Current state of QoL for PWD is sub-optimal in some aspects amenable to improvement. Situation reduced to Problem Statement within a NIDRR Domain – e.g. technology-based opportunity. Solution Statement involves knowledge creation via research, or knowledge application via development and production. Technology Transfer plan explains how Solution Statement will be accomplished, and how results will impact QoL for PWD.

Role of Knowledge Translation KT is a method for moving academic knowledge into stakeholder action - CIHR. Knowledge may pre-exist in Global Knowledge Base and/or may be generated via research. Origins – Evidence-based Medicine to justify Federal & Public investment. Focus on interactions with stakeholders at end of grant or integrated during grant activity.

KTA Model – CIHR

Stakeholders & Uses Six Stakeholder Groups – –Researchers; Clinicians; Consumers; Policy Makers; Manufacturers; Brokers. Three Types of Use – –Instrumental; Conceptual; Strategic.

Integrated model of KT – opp’t to involve users. All

CIHR Research Model shows 2 paths for Research- based Knowledge to reach Stakeholders

Two Paths Path 1 – Communicate Conceptual Knowledge through Publication. Path 2 – Transform Conceptual to Practical through further effort. –Development effort to create and test Prototype. –Production effort to create and test Device/Service.

“Demonstrating Evidence” burden for NIDRR and Grantees Research, Development or Production activities involve long timeframes from initial conception through completion. Achieving beneficial impacts for target populations involves even longer timeframes.

Evidence Milestones Research-based Discovery Development –based Invention Product-based Innovation Identify Opportunity Knowledge gap in literature Verify need via Supply Push or Demand Pull Feature/function gap in device or service Establish Scope Volume of topic in literature Inventor described or Analysis defined Statement of need by Users or VAR’s Propose Solution Experimental Hypothesis Champion’s vision or Stakeholder defined Value Proposition articulated Validate Originality Literature ReviewPrior Art searchState of Market survey Conduct Process Scientific Method – Control variables Experimental Method – manipulate variables Design method – optimize function within constraints Conclude Results Discovery notedInvention documentedInnovation Specified Internal Project Output Scholarly manuscriptProof of Concept Prototype Pre-Production Model

Evidence Milestones Research-based Discovery Development- based Invention Product-based Innovation Claim Intellectual Property Copyright (automatic) Invention Disclosure/ Patent Application Patent / Trademark Applications External Quality Examination Peer Review of method rigor and contribution USPTO examines claimed novelty and feasibility Government certification or Industry standard External Quality Verification Manuscript accepted Patent issuedDevice/Service approved Output Disclosure & Dissemination Discovery disclosed in Journal paper by external publisher Invention disclosed in Patent issues by U.S. Government Innovation disclosed in press release by Manufacturer

Evidence Milestones Research-based Discovery Development- based Invention Production-based Innovation Stakeholder Awareness - STO1 Subscriber base, web hits, queries IP Office inquiries, hits on disclosure Press releases, web hits, industry chatter Stakeholder Interest – STO2 Letters to editor, queries Request for package confidentiality forms Vender, customer, distributor queries Stakeholder Adoption - STO3 Author citation, quotations, plagiary Negotiations for sale or lease, emulation Advanced orders, Corporate espionage Intermediate Outcome – Use of Output by Stakeholders Discovery attributions and citations in literature Invention IP transferred legally or via infringement Innovation purchased, reviewed and promoted in marketplace Establish Merit Acclaim, Promotion, Invitations, Rebuttals Related Collaborations and new funding Ramp-up, Spin-off products, Competition Establish Worth Textbook references International honors License royalties, sponsors, partners Sales revenues, ROI, market share, efficacy Establish Impact Advance state of knowledge for field and for society Advance state of art for field of application Advance state of industry practice & Quality of Life

The 2 Paths are not equi-distant! MilestonesResearchDevelopmentProduction Identify OpportunityKnowledge Gap in Literature Project Output Stakeholder OutcomeJournal Publication Claim ImpactAdvance Quality of Life for People /Disabilities

Surrogates of Impact Grantee Output – Evidence of Research Discovery; Development Invention or Production Innovation. Short-term Outcome – Evidence of Awareness, Interest & Adoption. Intermediate Outcome – Evidence of use by Stakeholders.

Research is part of Solution Continuum that may involve combinations of R, D & P. PROBLEM STATEMENT R↓R↓ R → Discovery R↓R↓ ?? D↓D↓ ?D → Invention D↓D↓ ? P↓P↓ ??P → Innovation P → Innovation BENEFICIAL IMPACT

KT4TT Program Sponsored by NIDRR to increase evidence of Grantee R&D output use by Stakeholders. Generate evidence from research to address academic values; and evidence from development to address industry values. Link both forms of evidence to changes in articulation, review, funding and evaluation of government grant programs designed to impact QoL for PWD’s.

Why is KT for TT valuable? Together, KT and TT combine multiple NIDRR initiatives from the past twenty years: Logic modeling; Participatory Action Research; Knowledge Dissemination and Utilization; &Technology Transfer.

Grantees can help NIDRR demonstrate results! KT and TT combine to establish a single framework to optimize evidence of Grantee contributions to stakeholders. Technology-oriented Research projects can consider downstream Development and Production (TT) as well as Stakeholder use (KT). Provides a method for effectively communicating the value of new knowledge to Stakeholders.

Three Critical Questions How will the project accomplish its proposed technology-related outputs (TT)? How will adoption and use be maximized across the full range of stakeholders (KT)? How will stakeholder use generate beneficial QoL impacts for PWD's (KT4TT)?

Analogies between KT and TT “End of Grant” KT = Supply Push TT – Applying discovery from basic inquiry (Mode 1 science). “Integrated KT” = Collaborative TT – Creating discovery from validated need (Mode 2 science). “Prior to Grant” KT = Demand Pull TT – Identify Problem for which Knowledge offers Solution. Science Rigor + Industry Relevance = Impact!

KT4TT Program Increase awareness and use of KT and TT methods by Grantees. Increase awareness and use of Grantee R&D outputs by Stakeholders. Linking KT to TT, to demonstrate and test an operational KT4TT model. Validating model via prior research and current Grantee practices. Establishing “best practices” to increase outcomes and impacts from Grantee activities.

KT4TT Model is Relevant to: Investigators conducting research, development and/or production activities related to technology-based devices or services, and who intend for project outputs to be transformed by intermediary stakeholders into outcomes that beneficially impact the quality of life for persons with disabilities.

Model is not Relevant to: Basic research or inquiry driven projects. Applied research and development projects in non-technology areas. Projects with no intention to result in direct application by stakeholders, nor direct impact for target populations.

Model links three Activities Research Development Production

Phase Stages and Gates Research Stage 1: Initial Discovery GATE 1: Idea Screen Stage 2: Scoping GATE 2: Second Screen Stage 3: Conduct Research and Generate Findings Development GATE 3: Build Business Case? Stage 4: Build Business Case and Scope Development Plan GATE 4: Implement Development? Stage 5: Implement Development Plan GATE 5: Go to Testing? Stage 6: Testing and Validation Production GATE 6: Go to Production Planning? Stage 7: Production Planning and Preparation GATE 7: Go to Launch? Stage 8: Launch GATE 8: Post Production Assessment Stage 9: Post-Launch Review

Research Activity Research = Knowledge Creation; Process - New knowledge discovery results from experimentation; Output - Conceptual state embodied as publication. Value – Novelty in first articulation and contribution to knowledge base.

Development Activity Development = Knowledge Application. Process - Knowledge-based invention results from exploration. Output – Tangible state embodied as prototype. Value – Feasibility in proof of concept.

Production Activity Production = Knowledge Replication. Process – Knowledge-based innovation results from systematic specification. Output – Final form embodied as device or service. Value – Utility to producers and consumers.

KT4TT Model In Progress

Focus on QOL Goal Grantee research contributes to knowledge base, optimized through KT techniques. Grantee development contributes to product inventory, optimized through TT techniques. NIDRR mastery of R&D synergy – parity in rigor and relevance – is itself innovative and novel. NIDRR/Grantee example for all R&D programs. People with Disabilities benefit from all above.

For more information: kt4tt.buffalo.edu

Acknowledgement This is a presentation of the Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer, which is funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research of the U.S. Department of Education under grant number H133A The opinions contained in this presentation are those of the grantee and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Education.