There is a difference between invention (educational research leading to new knowledge) and innovation (application of the knowledge for socio-economic benefit). I want to build a development model/process that brings these two worlds together.
Thre are 2 models that i know
the pentathlon framework of innovation and Triple helix model.
Hope this helps http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0911/0911.4291.pdf
We are trying something in the area of wild-land fire fighting. My graduate students are developing new and unique fire-growth models based on real-time information gathered by a UAV and fusing that with GIS data, real-time weather and stochastic nature of the winds to assist the incident command make better decisions regarding safety and resource allocation. We've conducted a few tests with the West Virginia forestry and the USERS are extremely pleased and excited. Students have this as their project in the graduate level "Systems Engineering Analysis" class I teach annually and we hope that this effort will culminate in a product which will be cost-effective, a paradigm shift and save lives and property. The System Engineering framework lends itself well to bridge the gap between the research and making an socio-economic impact.
@kashyap - Thank you for the reference. It is quite philosophical. I'm hoping to find some real-world examples of how industry, government and academia actually end up co-developing products. In particular how the Technology Maturity Level, and the Product Development Process interact to take care of uncertainties and funding gates.
Well there is a benchmark for industry,government and acadameia and is relative to what exactly are we talking about, for example the big 3 universities Stanford, Harvard adn MIT account for almost 100 billion dollar businesses or more perhaps.They are quite powerful. Beyond innovation framewroks there is lobbying it its peak and that is due to the image as well as potential at these places.Industry too thrives here and well government is in favour when there so much money making , it cant deny.
Just to give you an example i have attached a document to show you the power of Stanford University in Business as such.
Gerhard:
Interesting question that can be addressed in a number of ways. I addressed this type of issue in a paper in 2002 that is available at: http://www.systemsconcept.org/static_files/2002/INCOSE02_ITM.pdf
In the model presented in this paper there are three streams of innovation, the technology stream, the application stream and the product stream. Basic research (invention) helps develop the technology stream, innovation transforms technology into new applications and products.
I expanded this model at a later time to include a science stream, and technology stream, an application stream, a product stream and a organization stream. An example of this model can be found in the charts presented at: http://www.systemsconcept.org/html/Content/PNNL_Final.pdf
Another example of this type of model can be found at:
http://www.systemsconcept.org/static_files/2008/IEEE08_SOS.pdf
Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,
Joe
@Joe
Thank you for your input! Your work relates to what I am grappling with at present and will be most useful. In our context I think there are primarily two streams that can perhaps be characterised by the following: Research vs Product Development; Invention vs Innovation; Science vs Engineering, Knowledge vs Application. I think that in the first (Research-centric) stream, the NASA TRL's (and perhaps some variants) work nicely to move the technology towards a useful end. In product development you needs a more systems-engineering approach that starts with a user requirement and leads to sales and support of volume products.
Unfortunately most organisations I have dealt with don't recognise the differences in process, risk, commercialisation approach and organisation culture that are needed in these environment.
I am hoping to see how these processes link and play out in our national context in business, research institutions and government.
Gerhard:
In my experience the main driver is potential value.
In very high risk areas of research, the cost is socialized because of the high cost of failure. Once an effective pathway is discovered, then the social, political process of distributing the value associated with the discovery begins.
Have fun,
Joe