Report May 2009: Difference between revisions

From Commons Based Research
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 63: Line 63:
===Work Remaining===
===Work Remaining===
* Our research remains weak in the following areas:
* Our research remains weak in the following areas:
**Literature review on efficiencies and barriers caused by IP in AE
**[[IP_in_AE|Define the main legal tools of IP protection available for the field]]
**[[IP_in_AE|Define the main legal tools of IP protection available for the field]]
***need to work on most aspects of this area.
***Our international wind research is starting to give us a comparative analysis of patent usage but it is still relatively primitive and dependent on interviews.  More interviews and secondary research needs to be collected in this area.
***Only info so far is from a few reports
**Competitive advantages in AE
**Competitive advantages in AE
**Add under public policies the government funding for resource maps.
**Use the GE energy case as a study of the incremental innovation and transfer of patents and IP.
**Buy locally clause in Spanish FIT is important to mention in international models.


=== Research Methodology in use ===
=== Research Methodology in use ===

Revision as of 11:26, 19 May 2009

Status Report, ICP Project

Field Research Methodology

Status

Next Steps

Alternative Energy

General Status

Generally, our literature review on efficiencies and barriers to technological development and implementation has been greatly improved over the last month.


Yochai Feedback

  • Questions to Investigate Further for the Wind industry:
    • Whether there is development that is distributed?
    • Whether the appropriation is through intellectual property?
      • ie. At maturity, there is engineering innovation, and lack of patent dependence
    • How are they licensing the technology (ie GE)
      • We worry big players slowing down innovation with patents
  • Tidal/Wave
    • If they have the same incentives, keep them together
  • Financing
    • Include information about VC culture (does it require patents for funding?)
    • Keep in mind what it is that is motivating and funding innovation
      • Which funding requires openness or enclosure?
  • Our Research Focus: International v. US
    • Use a global map (size and color code should represent where the major players are)
      • We want to get this global open/closed model
      • He wants to use Carolina's idea of comparative chart. The recent national announcements make this relevant
  • Energy Policy
    • Policy on institutional interventions are the most interesting findings
      • Feed-in tariff v. renewable portfolio standards policy is significant
      • Regulation of siting can be a significant barrier. This is a useful distinction to include.
  • Framing our Research (The Big Picture)
    • It is important to consider the political position of the company separate of the actual ip position (IBM: biggest holder of patents but open policy)
    • How are market interventions justified (ie are there constraints?)
    • Consider if policies are enclosure devices
    • Consider the feasibility of a commons based strategy (what shows us the feasibility?)
    • Confirmatory evidence and negative evidence are both important
  • Visualizing Research Results
    • Inventory market players (include market shares and sales)
    • Use a conceptual 2-d map to show where companies stand
    • Use color coding or other means of visually representing the kinds of appropriation and funding strategy an entity uses
      • patents, gov funding, etc.
      • market, government, non-profit, etc.

Work Completed

Work Remaining

  • Our research remains weak in the following areas:

Research Methodology in use

  • Literature review
  • Business School Cases review
  • Media review: Area Specific Blogs and News
  • Market databases and reports review
  • Interviews:
    • Eric Lammers - (Principal at ArcLight Capital Partners LLC - Private equity focused in AE) - Interviewed on April 15
    • Prof. Susskind (MIT) - Email sent
    • Prof. Dworkin (Vermont Law) - Email sent
    • Other possible names:
      • Thomas Ackermann
      • Jeremy M. Firestone
      • Peter Mandelstam
      • Walt Musial
      • Ryan Wiser
      • Ed Markey
  • Participation in Events
    • Structuring an Energy Technology Revolution, April 23, Carol and Silas

Problems and Considerations

Next Steps

Biotechnology, Genomics, and Proteomics

General Status

  • We have begun to investigate specific cases of commons-based and peer-produced resources in biotech, such as Harvard's onco-mouse
  • We have made good progress examining specific cases of biotech narrative, data, and tool producers, coming up with detailed company profiles for the largest firms
  • We have completed a more detailed mapping of the narratives and tools industries within biotech
  • Have good idea of cost structure, competitive advantage, and attitudes towards openness and enclosure within the field

Work Completed

Work Remaining

Research Methodology in use

  • Case studies
  • Literature review
  • Industry analysis
  • Business reports and press releases
  • University reports and press releases

Problems and Considerations

  • How can the next phase of research further develop the quadrants already mapped?
  • What information should we aim to obtain through new research methods (e.g., interviews)?
  • How much should we focus on the largely defunct data production businesses in biotech?

Next Steps

  • Continue to investigate universities, non-profits, associations, and businesses relevant to the field
  • Deepen our understanding of how production and demand are controlled
  • Provide further documentation for the quadrants as we have identified them so far

Educational Materials

General Status

  • Between late April and early May, the EM section of the wiki has enjoyed significant expansion, while undergoing a necessary restructuring
    • The textbook market was chosen as a major focus for the current stage EM research
    • Using the textbook market as a model the Field Research Methodology questions were split between two sectors of EM: The K-12 Level and The Higher Education Level to represent the different actors and market forces that determine the trends toward regulation/deregulation, openness/closedness
    • We now have a much stronger sense of the traditional publishing business strategies as compared with OER and a variety of alternative business models
  • The anecdotal mapping of actors and outputs in Higher Ed reported on in the April Report, has become clearer in our quadrant mapping tool
  • We are still learning about the K-12 market and need to explore both the market and social barriers that seem to be complicating this sector even more than the Higher Ed sector
  • Our extensive bibliography has grown significantly; additional contemporary research and market news continue to become available and prove enlightening
  • Our list of useful contacts is still expanding as well; and new interviews have been conducted and continue to be scheduled
  • Finally, the Executive Summary on EM was successfully drafted for the report to the Ford Foundation in June 2009

Work Completed

Work Remaining

Research Methodology in use

  • Literature review (ongoing)
  • Business School Cases review (awaiting reply from HBS staff)
  • Media review: Area Specific Blogs and News (ongoing)
  • Market databases and reports review
    • MarketResearch.com has been a key resource for K-12 and College market analysis
    • The ORBIS database has been useful in profiling individual companies
  • Interviews, see Contacts for EM
    • Nicole Allen, Campaign Director for Make Textbooks Affordable - followed up in May 2009
    • Ahrash Bissell, Executive Director of ccLearn - interviewed by e-mail in May 2009
    • Joel Thierstein, Executive Director Connexions - contact in April 2009

Problems and Considerations

  • Having focused mainly on textbooks thus far, how broad do we extend our research?
    • Supplementary materials often blur into the textbook market through the business strategy of bundling (including educational software)
  • Arguments criticizing the high cost of textbooks in the US often point toward lower prices in foreign markets (the UK particularly), is there a place for a comparative study of reasons for lower prices for identical textbooks and greater price elasticity of those markets?
  • Splitting The K-12 Level and The Higher Education Level has helped analysis and organization, however we find a number of orphaned, duplicated research question-based pages; there is a need to consolidate relevant information for each sub-sector and glean superfluous pages/questions.

Next Steps

  • Continue literature review
    • Expand policy analysis
    • Keep abreast of latest news and trends on OER and company blogs
  • Need to better understand both the economic/political and various social barriers to innovation
    • Do professors trust certain forms of EM over others, affecting OER adoption?
    • Do state's require mandates like California's to legitimize OER and peer produced EM at the K-12 level?
  • Conduct a survey of K-12 teachers and higher education professors to look at social barriers
  • Use California as a potential paradigmatic case in public policy pressure on business trends
  • Expand descriptive research exercise to the remainder of the EM field, as defined:
    • More on higher education upper-level course EM, including University Press practices
    • More on supplementary materials (digital and non-digital)
    • Study educational software as market vs. sub-market

Telecommunication

General Status

Work Completed

Work Remaining

Research Methodology in use

Problems and Considerations

Next Steps

Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/?title=Report_May_2009&oldid=2923"