Report May 2009: Difference between revisions

From Commons Based Research
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 62: Line 62:
* 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
**Literature review on efficiencies and barriers caused by IP in AE
**[[Data%2C_narratives_and_tools_produced_by_the_AE_field|Data, narratives and tools produced by the AE field]]
***Data and Tools need a lot more work, very little in that so far.
***Narratives have some initial information that will benefit from expansion
**[[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.
***need to work on most aspects of this area.

Revision as of 11:21, 19 May 2009

Status Report, ICP Project

Field Research Methodology

Status

Next Steps

Alternative Energy

General Status

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:
    • Literature review on efficiencies and barriers caused by IP in AE
    • Define the main legal tools of IP protection available for the field
      • need to work on most aspects of this area.
      • Only info so far is from a few reports
    • 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

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=2921"