Report April 2009: Difference between revisions

From Commons Based Research
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 129: Line 129:
** Fiona Murray (MIT) - Meeting scheduled for May, 7th
** Fiona Murray (MIT) - Meeting scheduled for May, 7th
**[http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/hal/ Hal Abelson] - MIT Professor. Board of Science Commons and ccLearn<br>
**[http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/hal/ Hal Abelson] - MIT Professor. Board of Science Commons and ccLearn<br>
Becky Ward - Executive Director of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School<br>
**Becky Ward - Executive Director of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School<br>
**[http://mcb.berkeley.edu/courses/mcb115/penhoet.htm Ed Penhoet] - Co-founder Chiron Corporation<br>
**[http://mcb.berkeley.edu/courses/mcb115/penhoet.htm Ed Penhoet] - Co-founder Chiron Corporation<br>
**[http://qb3.org/leaders.htm Regis B. Kelly] - Professor, Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California ad Executive Director of QB3<br>
**[http://qb3.org/leaders.htm Regis B. Kelly] - Professor, Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California ad Executive Director of QB3<br>

Revision as of 11:07, 17 April 2009

Status Report, ICP Project

Field Research Methodology

Status

  • Developed first draft of Field Research Methodology
    • Field Research Methodology: The initial draft has evolved to fit the specifics of each specific field.
  • Developed mapping tool and some toy models for fields
    • Foundational data (BGP)
    • Narratives (BGP)
    • Tools (BGP)
    • Textbooks (EM)
  • Developed first draft of Questionnaire for Commons-Based Case Studies
  • A deeper Work on methodology has been put on temporary hold to focus on researching specific fields.
  • After some research, we abandoned the idea of a standard “Questionnaire for Interviews”, and we are developing informal interviews (through email, call conferences and meetings) with experts (scholars and market) from the different fields. We may go back to a quantitative strategy through standard interviews in a second phase of the project, when the descriptive part of each area is more developed.

Next Steps

  • Field Research Methodology: Compare how the questions are being used or are being helpful in each field to make sure the questions are still the same across fields of study. Improve questions language;
  • Mapping Tool: Formalize methodology and develop clearer criteria;
  • Develop a good and uniformed approach to field definition to be used for all vertical fields. This should be enough to present a clean definition of each field and a clean exclusion of issues we will not be focused on;
  • Define types of research deliverables for each field.

Alternative Energy

General Status

Work Completed

Work Remaining

  • Our research remains weak in the following areas:
    • Literature review on efficiencies and barriers caused by IP in AE
    • Data, narratives and tools produced by the AE field
    • Define the main legal tools of IP protection available for the field
    • 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

  • 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

  • It is difficult to answer: Are there associations in this field/market that are relevant for the IP debate in this field? Identify their policies, recommendations and/or best practices related to IP of their members.
    • Primary materials created by the associations (web sites, white papers, brochures. etc) did not reveal positions on IP protection. Law reviews and other journals have been consulted with similar results
    • This is an area that might best be understood through interviews with association leaders.
  • We recently discussed the need to further incorporate the role of public policy in innovation. Many economic incentives and permitting procedures can be seen playing an important role in the alternative energy markets and regional variations in innovation have developed.
    • This information will soon be incorporated and it should develop quickly given the background research we have for this area.
  • Is wave part of tidal?
    • They are different technologies but they are often grouped. We have some wave technologies defined.
  • Interplay of the renewable energy resource and the technology that converts it to electricity i.e. wind, sun, and tidal regional data and access to this data.
  • should we do comparative studies of university policies towards openness on data, narratives, and tools?
  • research and development - product development - power plant development - transmission/conversion - consumption
  • Development Chain
    • The innovation that leads to product development is dependent on transmission and consumption technologies.
      • Which areas should we emphasize?
      • DO we want to investigate the end of the development chain?
  • We are often pushed out if the country in our research. Many of the companies and research collaborations quickly become interantional. How should we limit out international research? When is it relevant to discuss international materials?
    • One example is GE. They purchased their intellectual property through acquisition. Is this an interesting model of innovation? Do we want to investigate cross border acquisitions as a form of innovation in the US.

Next Steps

  • Develop methodologies to asses innovation in the field, and if this goes toward closedness or openss:
    • A list of foreign technologies in use by USA companies and the USA efforts to develop national technology. After a first assessment, decide if there are interesting case studies;
    • Find court cases of patent infringement in Alternative energy, and if this is a relevant issue in the field. After a first assessment, decide if there are interesting case studies;
    • Consider the role of public policy as it relates to innovation (ie. economic incentives, permitting required for testing and implementation)
    • Look at the association websites and figure out their motivations.
  • Development Chain (to be added to business models)
    • research and development - product development - power plant development - transmission/conversion - consumption
  • Knowledge Flow
    • We need to break down the flow into sciences. We will need to talk about the level of innovation/openness for each subpart.

Biotechnology, Genomics, and Proteomics

General Status

  • Good progress in completing our general study of the field - by now we are able to give an anecdotal picture of the field, including an idea of what are the stable markets and what are the evolving markets. We have developed an extensive bibliography, and have offered initial answers to most of the field research questions. However, big holes remain in some of the most important areas related to actors that are developing strategies around openness, and some answers remain cursory. Our objective now is to fill in the details, provide specific examples to justify our claims, be sure we are covering the literature we need to review;
  • The division of the industry into data; narratives and tools proved very useful and ideal to this field;
  • Toy mapping models were developed in Foundational Data, Narratives and Tools (We need to do more investigation on observational data in the field);
  • The idea for two papers, which would accompanied the first phase report, were developed: “Sage - A Merck Project” - focused on the historical of data-sharing strategies - and “A brief history of license practices in BGP - the case of PCR” - focused on licensing strategies on a breakthrough technology. However, just the former will be developed this time in co-authorship with John Wilbanks, from Science commons and part of the Sage Board.

Work Completed

Work Remaining

Research Methodology in use:

  • Literature review
  • Business School Cases review
  • Media review: Area Specific Blogs and News
  • Market databases and corporate reports review
  • Interviews
    • John Wilbanks (SC) - Interviewed in April
    • Fiona Murray (MIT) - Meeting scheduled for May, 7th
    • Hal Abelson - MIT Professor. Board of Science Commons and ccLearn
    • Becky Ward - Executive Director of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School
    • Ed Penhoet - Co-founder Chiron Corporation
    • Regis B. Kelly - Professor, Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California ad Executive Director of QB3
    • Lee Flemming - Professor, HBS
  • Participation in Events
    • Open Innovation Workshop at MIT in May - Yochai and Carol

Problems and Considerations

  • In answering questions related to Commons-based, peer-production, and open business models in BGP, there simply is not a lot of publicly available content online. To find out whether and how BGP actors are engaging in open models we will develop a series of interviews. For that, we will start to work in a list of potential interviewees.
  • How specific should we get in the history of the field?
  • Who collaborates more? big companies or start-ups?
  • How much do companies encourage publishing?
  • We need to define batter the basic concepts of the field, e.g., what is a tool? What is foundational data?

Next Steps

  • Keep literature review;
  • develop Interviews strategy for information we could not find in secondary sources;
  • xxx

Educational Materials

General Status

  • Satisfactory progress has been made in terms of general study of the EM field; but many key questions, which have been addressed, have not yet been effectively answered; and holes, both large and small, persist in all areas
  • An extensive bibliography has been compiled and grows daily
  • Good contacts have been, and continue to be made, with academics and actors in the field

Work Completed

Work Remaining

Research Methodology in use

  • Literature review
  • Business School Cases review
  • Media review: Area Specific Blogs and News
  • Market databases and reports review
  • Interviews
    • Nicole Allen, Make Textbooks Affordable - Feb, 2009
    • Diane Harley, Ph.D., Director, Higher Education in the Digital Age Project, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley - Feb, 2009
    • Jonathan Emmons, Community Development Specialist Connexions (http://cnx.org) - Mar,2009
    • Joel Thierstein, Executive Director Connexions - Email sent

Problems and Considerations

  • Some of the content relevant to the weaker areas listed above need to be eventually disaggregated and re-contextualized from the Overall Picture of the EM field area
  • Our outputs framework of data, narratives, and tools is challenging to differentiate and map onto Educational Materials, which are almost universally narrative
    • Any data that has been compiled for educational use is generally packaged in a format for use in well-defined activities
    • Tools such as multimedia educational software are still essentially narrative products in terms of content
  • The largely narrative nature of educational materials restricts the IP regulation analysis to copyright and fair use
  • In contrast to IP in EM, the economics (and politics) of the industry can be very complex due to the range of interested and influential parties advocating for and regulating policies on textbooks at all levels of education
  • The study of this particular industry was slightly delayed due to HR difficulties through February

Next Steps

  • Keep literature review
    • Continue to consolidate various links and sources into main wiki
  • Develop Interviews strategy for information we could not find in secondary sources
  • Re-double efforts now that the research assistant's other part-time job is ending

Telecommunication

General Status

  • Good progress in completing our general study of the field. Expect to have a first draft of 5-10 page overview narrative, with tables and figures, in the next couple weeks
  • Need to assemble more systematic bibliography and better document sources for this narrative
  • Have initial case study candidates, with principle sources identified for a subset of those.
  • Need to post identified case sources to wiki

Work Completed

  • We have fairly extensive research in the following areas:
    • Overview of Economics of Intellectual Property in Telecom
    • Overall picture of the Telecom field
    • Outputs and Products of the Field (in the BGP taxonomy, tools + an additional category, services)
    • Profile of Biggest for-profit companies in Telecom (which seem by the far the most important actrs, other than associations, which are really just aggregations of the for profits)
    • Profile of non-profit companies in Telecom (none that I have found)
    • Legal tools available for and in use by the actors in Telecom (patents, with various licensing strategies)
    • Competitive advantages in Telecom (though more so for operators than for vendors)
    • Initial identification of interesting cases

Work Remaining

  • Our research remains weaker in the following areas:
    • Deeper Understanding of Associations and Standard Setting Arrangments in Telecom
    • University and Other Public Sector (incl. military) Role
    • Deep Dive into Specific Cases

Research Methodology in use

  • Literature review
  • Business School Cases review
  • Media review: Area Specific Blogs and News
  • Market databases and reports review
  • Interviews
  • Participation in Events

Problems and Considerations

  • Need to make sure work is fully documented and in a condition to hand off easily starting in a couple weeks, and remains in that condition

Next Steps

  • Draft field overview narrative
  • Post better bibliographies
  • Fill in research gaps, perhaps including a few focused interviews
Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/?title=Report_April_2009&oldid=1712"