Category: outcomes

Developing a Framework for Innovation Intermediation

matjazvidmar/ / benchmarking, evaluation, impact, Innovation, methods, outcomes, policy, Post, process, research, science

My exciting journey with the Innovation Caucus started one rainy morning in Spring 2017, when by chance I spotted an advertisement for internship applicants doing the rounds over email. This was followed by an email from my supervisor, asking all of his PhD students if we have seen the call and whether we were interested. Not being someone who declines any opportunity, my reply was immediate – yes!

Having found out about the Innovation Caucus and its work some months previously, when putting together a notice for the departmental newsletter about our engagement with policy, I was really excited by the opportunity to further translate my research interest into useful knowledge for policy-making. Having applied and made it through to the interview, I was ecstatic! Speaking to Tim and his team was interesting and inspiring, and once I was offered the internship, it took even less time than before to say “yes” and accept it.

As I am really passionate about my PhD research topic (social aspects of technology development and innovation) and my subject matter (Space Industry – yes, the stuff “up there”) I took quite some convincing to take on new challenges within the Innovation Caucus brief. In part, this was because I really wanted to create a new space of shared knowledge and sense-making, i.e. to challenge the theoretical concepts with empirical findings and policy realities – and I could only envisage doing so within the topics about which I was already somewhat knowledgeable.

However, in discussion with Innovate UK and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), I did eventually reshape my interest into developing a broader framework and typology of innovation intermediation in any geographically bound sectoral system of innovation. This was of value to Innovate UK, since it supported the ongoing development of their portfolio of Catapults and Knowledge Transform Networks, as well as other projects and policies.

This experience was a great lesson for me, not only in working with and delivering for a policy-making system, but also in expanding my own research interests into domains I did initially find uncomfortable. Presenting the headline findings of this work at one of the most prestigious innovation conferences in the world, DRUID (2018), helped me appreciate the power of broader generalisation of academic knowledge, in order to achieve more substantial societal impact.

The lessons learned and experiences from this project also enabled me to engage better with new concepts, unfamiliar settings and unknown stakeholders in my subsequent work. For instance, these skills have proved critical in working on a consultancy project for the OECD and as a Research Assistant in academia.

I have to express my big thanks to Tim and his team for their support and mentorship and to all involved with the Innovation Caucus, particularly Innovate UK and the ESRC teams involved with my internship. It was your determination and generosity that turned this project from a 3-month desk-job into a transformational professional journey.

lxvchcxo_400x400

This post has been published in October 2018 at Innovation Caucus blog: Developing a framework for innovation intermediation.

Find out more about Innovation Caucus.

From Orkney to Outer Space (Again!)

matjazvidmar/ / arts, impact, Innovation, outcomes, Outreach, Post, research, science, Space, STEM, Travel

I have been invited to deliver a series of knowledge exchange and outreach events for Orkney International Science Festival (OISF) between 6th-12th September 2018. This is my third appearance at OISF, having visited the 2015 and 2017 editions of the festival.

I am particularly excited that though some of the events I will deliver will be held on Orkney mainland I will yet again also visit some of the more remote islands in the archipelago.

Okrney-Fix

Hence, on 8th and 9th September I will be visiting the islands of North Ronalsday and Sanday, where I will speak to the local community about going From Standing Stones to Blasting Rockets: Scotland is Off to Space!

The talk is based on my extensive ESRC-funded doctoral research of the development of (“New”) Space Industry in Scotland, in particular examining emerging networks, innovation intermediaries and changes to new product development processes. With the recent announcement of UK Government investment into the creation of vertical launch capability in the North of Scotland, this is a particularly topical contribution to the discussion in many communities.

Furthermore, I have also been invited to present some thoughts on the deep connections between scientific research, arts and society as explored through my participation in the recent Social Dimensions of Outer Space network’s Edinburgh Futures Institute project. I will outline the main points from my essay on the topic in a talk entitled Universe: The Love Story, as part of the skyranMoon exhibition in Stromness on 11th September (7pm).

skyran-moon-2

Finally, in partnership with a young team of rocket engineers from Spacelink Institute, we will have a plenary discussion about the future of small-scale spaceflight in an event called Make it, Fire it Into Orbit! in King Street Halls in Kirkwall (Wednesday, 12th September, 11.30am). Details and tickets here.

As is my practice with such visits, I will also speak to pupils of local schools, both on Sanday as well as at Kirkwall Grammar School, to discuss a variety of opportunities to engage in science, technology and innovation, including studying it form a social-scientific perspective.

As such, I am delighted to be yet again complementing a variety of colleagues form the College of Science and Engineering, including Prof Peter Higgs, who will support the festival with a host of other events and activities.

I am very grateful for the generous support of my OISF 2018 visit provided by the festival, as well as Science, Technology and Innovation Studies Group at the University of Edinburgh.

 

 

Networking 101

matjazvidmar/ / impact, Innovation, methods, outcomes, policy, Post, research, ROE, Royal Observatory Edinburgh, science, Space, University of Edinburgh

This is a belatedly late post about some of my (early) research findings  – and my efforts to disseminate them.

This is build around Phase 1 of my research into the facilitation of technology transfer from basic research into high-tech industry, which is (hopefully) leading to overall economic growth and prosperity.

I am focusing on the Space Sector, the historic development of which is in its 3rd phase, sometimes referred to as the “New Space”, – after the initial state monopoly (1st phase) and the technology being commercialised by large multinational corporations (2nd phase), it is now being democratised through innovation and entrepreneurship as the (previously complex and expensive hardware becomes smaller, more standardised and cheaper (Space IGS, 2010). In the context of this transition and growth of the sector, there is a government target of increasing the UK share of global Space market from 7% to 10% by 2030 (Space IGS, 2010).

For small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) – which are the subject of my research – this is also denoting a transition in SMEs from “technology-push” to “market-pull” new product development (NPD) orientation, based on a shift from “supplying” to larger companies to “selling” to end customers/users, which is also moving from “mass-manufacturing” to developing Complex Products and Services (CoPS) (Hobday, 1998) and vertical value chain integration.

In order to help facilitate technology transfer at this transition point – one of the objective of my research – a key link between the systemic understanding of the sector and the innovation processes and practices in companies must be established. Given the prevalence of network research – which is at the core of Innovation studies both at macro as well as micro level (Freeman, 1991), due the fact that it covers the crucial aspect of knowledge commercialisation, namely interaction – this is an obvious choice to bridge the two.

In particular I am using ego-centric Social Network Analysis (SNA) (Scott, 1988; Giuliani, 2007) to plot the business network for each of the three studied companies (see table above). This is based on a survey-style questionnaire, with multiple-choice answers, but options for other (more expanded) answers as well. This enabled me a comprehensive analysis of the knowledge network, in particular the flows of knowledge and a qualitative analysis of the NPD process, by examining the specific “innovation moments” (i.e.  points at which decisions about developing an innovation into a product take place) (Edwards et. al., 2000), the role external partners play in those instances and how the differences in companies’ network make-up affect the creation of new products (and vice-versa).

Presently, the study is in its pilot incarnation, focusing on three case studies, carefully selected to represent key elements of the population of the field (upstream /downstream; hardware/software; start-up/spin-off; “Classical”/”New Space”; products/services), i.e. a set of typical cases (Yin, 2009), as summarised here:

ResTable
Analysed SMEs and their properties (Vidmar, 2015)

In short, these are the key findings so far:

  1. The networks are larger for the “New Space”, rich with open innovation, and significant knowledge flows across the firm’s boundary are detected (see the network plots below). This dynamics is gradually diminishes as we examine the other two cases, with the “classical” Space company having a very one-directional flow (and retain all of their IP within the company) and a relatively small core network.
  2. The more “New Space” a company is, the more it relies on knowledge flow from public institutions for R&D, BD and commercial transactions, and the more such partners it has. In contrast a more “classical” Space company has more private sector partners, mainly engaged in purely commercial activities, such as distributors and suppliers, through which it is sourcing components and maximising the reach of its supply.
  3. Interestingly, when analysed through the framework of Open Innovation (Chesbrough, 2006), we again find a very clear divide between hardware and software; upstream and downstream; and “classical” and “New Space”, with hardware upstream (“classical Space”) companies tend to exhibit more “closed” innovation models than software and downstream (“New Space”) ones.
  4. Analysis of the companies participating in the pilot suggests that the more the innovation process is “open” the less hierarchical it is, but also the more structured/standardised and formalised. This is in line with anecdotal experience from most successful high-tech areas, where more formalised, yet less restrictive, NPD protocols are being to be established in order to capitalise on as much innovation as possible (Neapole, -2015).
ResProfile
The network plot for Classical (left); Transitional (centre) and New Space (right) SMEs. (Vidmar, 2015)

Of course, these are only preliminary observations and substantial further research is being planned to further this work, including expanding the study to analyse all Scottish Space Sector companies.

If you are interested in a more full account of my research click through for the full paper presented at Reinventing Space 2015 conference  (Oxford, 9th-13th November 2015)

Here is also a photo of my poster (from SUPA Cormack Meeting 2015):

WP_20151123_007
At SUPA Cormack Meeting, Royal Society of Edinburgh, 23th November 2015.

Think Global, Act Global!

matjazvidmar/ / impact, Innovation, outcomes, policy, Post, research, science, Space, Travel, value

Few and far in-between are times when an interdisciplinary researcher working across different fields, such as myself, find themselves at a conference comfortably covering nearly the entire theme of their work. Most often, I myself sit with two crowds – innovation studies researchers’ meetings cater for participating in academic discussions and I attend the gatherings of the space community to keep up to speed in the trends in my research area, the Space sector.

However, the importance of bringing together of these two crowds has recently been noted within the international Space community and from 23rd to 25th June 2015, I have found myself in Munich attending the “conference of my dreams” – the Global Space Innovation Conference.

GLIC conference banner, (c) IAF

For me, the event was two part, as the “main” conference was preceded by the SpaceUp GLIC “unconference”, which provides an alternative platform for facilitating networking and discussions amongst (younger/young at heart!) Space enthusiasts. Little snippets from this event are published separately in the post “Space is Up!”.

The theme of the conference was “From Government Programmes to Entrepreneurial Actions” and was based on two main premises:

1. There is significant appetite, both from the government as well as industry point of view for more private-public partnerships or direct private enterprise to get involved in the (national and international) Space exploration efforts, including but not limited to benefiting from the (civil/non-space) applications of technology originally developed for Space exploration. 

2. There are important (negotiated?) roles for all stakeholders (public, private, academic, non-profit, etc.) in the entrepreneurial system the industry is embedded in. This system was defined along the lines of (Gnyawali and Fogel, 1994):

  • Socioeconomic Environment,
  • Entrepreneurial and Business Skills,
  • Non-financial Support,
  • Financial Support, and
  • Government Policies and Procedures

These five elements were also the themes of the GLIC’s five key discursive panels (2-6):

  • Panel 1. The View from Entrepreneurs
  • Panel 2. Socioeconomic Environment for Entrepreneurs
  • Panel 3. Entrepreneurial Education and Training
  • Panel 4. Non-Financial Assistance for Venture Creation
  • Panel 5. Financial Support for Venture Creation
  • Panel 6: Policies and Laws for Entrepreneurship

The key findings, in my view, are that stakeholders have to work to reduce the burdens on the entrepreneurs by, on one hand, (public and private) funders increasing investment in early-stage technology development and on the other, providing clever institutional support (mainly in business development) to the entrepreneurs. In theory, this should also lead to a (more) competitive and dynamic Space economy, including breaking corporate monopolies currently supported by targeted government procurement.

However, the appreciation of the complexity of the products in the Space sector is necessary and my own research here is in many ways an embodiment of the above programme and an expression of the anxiety associated with it in particular with respect to the need for a more detailed understanding of the product development processes (NPD) and the role the different stakeholders play in it. In particular, the entrepreneurial networks through which expertise and action are channelled play a crucial role here as, the project complexity requires an increased knowledge flow into the NPD or innovation process.

In fact, this was the main part of my contribution to the event, made in the context of the SpaceUp GLIC, where I outlined these important concerns and my plans to address them in the context of my research in Scotland/UK.

WP_20150623_004
Presenting the talk: “It IS Rocket Science!” at SpaceUp GLIC, Munich, 23rd June 2015

More of those plans to follow in a white paper draft to be published later this year…

Quantified Correlated Impacts (QCI) – ER4

matjazvidmar/ / cost benefit analysis, evaluation, evidence, impact, logic model, methods, outcomes, Post, research, value

To start building a (more) coherent picture of impact evaluation in science and technology programmes, we need to look for a constellation of many different methods to provide a meaningful insight into the need for, and success of, an intervention. Consequently, evaluation research is/should be organisational modus operandi, rather than a set of separate top-level exercises.

I propose a new paradigm in impact evaluation of investment and development in science, technology and innovation, namely Quantified Correlated Impacts (QCI). This approach is based on both quantitative as well as qualitative data collection, as bibliometric and econometric figures are correlated with ethnographic methods – interviews, focus groups and surveys – to determine the perceived causal contribution of the different factors, with particular focus on those pertaining from the intervention.

At it’s core, QCI are underpinned by a logic model; which is connecting the intervention with the evidence justifying the planned outputs; and leads form the inputs through action towards short-, mid- and long- term outcomes.

LogicModelBlog4EvalRes
Logic model for the proposed networking strategy in UK/Scottish Space Sector

As part my research project, for example, I am involved in an intervention driving economic growth in the UK/Scotland through stimulating the collaboration across the UK/Scottish Space industry by increasing sectoral networking. This is a particularly important part of my research in business incubation in the Scottish space sector and the related (sectoral) systemic properties, such as institutional framework, networks of actors, and knowledge creation and dissemination (following Malerba’s Sectoral Systems of Innovation approach (Malerba, 2005)). Also, there is a wealth of evidence about the importance of networking for the success (and growth) of small businesses (Brüderl and Preisendörfer, 1998; Ostgaard and Birley, 1996).

The suggested action to generate these positive effects is to support the growth of small to medium sized businesses by integrating them in a wider network across the sector and wider. This will be facilitated by the creation of, and enrolment of actors into, an on-line database/forum/platform to provide easy access to contacts. Having established that, there are also provisions to host networking events (thematic or generalist), to solidify the ties and introduce more actors into the network, particularly from the non-core businesses.

In terms of evaluation, key facilities need to be established prior to the beginning of the evaluation of outputs (database and its uptake, and the networking events). The database growth can be analysed quantitatively (i.e. number of enrolled individuals, organisations, etc), while the networking event qualitatively (i.e. interviews, feedback, ethnography).

The key next step is to tie the intervention with the outcomes/impacts through an advanced cost benefit analysis. In the example given, this can be done by analysing the investment made with respect to the growth and revenue of the companies most interconnected within the newly established network, comparing to the more peripheral ones, or ones outside the network.

The last part is the crucial correlation, which provides tangible benchmarking for the overall success of a programme (within the cost benefit analysis). This is done by comparing the noticed trends in key parameters (in our case job creation, revenue growth, etc.) with corresponding regional, sectoral, national or global trends. The key objective is to trace any significant difference which can then be (in part! – see below) attributed to the intervention.

Crucial information, however, comes from the collected qualitative data which maps the action to its value for the participants, i.e. what was the contribution of a specific intervention to the overall change. For instance, in the example above we investigate the effect/importance of the networking on business success. This data can only be obtained by interviewing the participants in networking events, and running surveys and focus groups with representatives of the companies/individuals on the database. The key questions to ask will be: What made the difference?; How?; and How significant was it? We can then comment on the part the intervention played in the difference found between the participants performance and correlated trends.

Overall, this approach enables the evaluator to marry the desirable clarity of cost benefit analysis, where standards of success/failure can be contested, with a more balanced set of criteria and tangible links. The key features are quantified data (engagement figures, costs, returns, growth, etc) about the intervention, which is qualitatively (interviews, focus groups, etc.) examined as a contribution towards the difference in participants’ performance with respect to correlated background trends (sector growth, national job creation, GDP, etc.) – revealing the impact of the programme.

As said, this new, Quantified Correlated Impacts (QCI), framework is currently under development and I am sincerely opening its tenets to comments and suggestions. (And, please, do have a look at the other posts in the series, too: ER1, ER2, ER3.)

Many thanks in advance!

Cost Benefit Analysis: “What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?” – ER3

matjazvidmar/ / benchmarking, cost benefit analysis, evaluation, impact, outcomes, Post, research

Cost benefit analysis is an attractive evaluation method, as it can provide concrete, often quantified, data about interventions, usually in a form which is easily communicated to the clients, policy makers, funders and the general (lay) public. In its core and at its best, cost benefit analysis is a very direct and straightforward evaluation process, whereby inputs and outcomes are weighted against each other and logical conclusions about the efficacy of a programme can be reached.

However, all three of these elements – inputs or costs, outcomes or benefits, and efficacy or the relationship between the two – are highly contestable. To begin with, defining your parameter space and acknowledging constrains and assumptions is the key element of this approach to evaluation. These decisions, even if very well argued for, are ultimately just decisions; a global cost benefit analysis, if such a thing was ever possible, would need to encompass much of the factors and effects left on the other side of the dividing line for the evaluation to be a true representation of the net impact of the programme.

Secondly, even though the aim is to have a quantified data as possible – best if every input and impact are turned in some sort of monetary measure – both costs as well as benefits are often indirect or intangible. In Cellini and Klee’s most stark example (2010, p. 500): what is “the value of wilderness or an increased sense of community”? Furthermore, even if a measure can be put to notions such as wellbeing, another – perhaps most challenging of all – decision has to be made, namely what ratio between costs and benefits defines effectiveness of even efficiency?

However, in my limited experience, cost to benefit analysis is effective if the intervention being evaluated is narrow and well defined in terms of the available resources, the scope and the intended outcomes, or better still, when all of the above have an intrinsic monetary value attached. The intended outcomes I look for in my research are related to innovation and consequently increased economic activity, contributions to GDP, business growth, job creation, etc., hence quantification of these parameters is not very difficult as they often come as monetary values to begin with.

The most challenging for me is to benchmark the efficacy of this cost to benefit ratio and, to be honest, even though it would be to a degree possible to put a judgment on how significant the benefits have to be to deem a programme a success, I prefer to correlate these ratios to background trends such as global economic activity, comparisons to global GDP growth, global business and job creation, and add qualitative data where possible, as I believe the later provides a broader judgment on how the intervention is impacting those in and close to it.

This advanced cost benefit analysis can then feature prominently in a new paradigm of impact evaluation – the Correlated Quantified Impacts (QCI) – the topic of the next post.

“Means, Motive, Opportunity” – ER2

matjazvidmar/ / evaluation, impact, outcomes, policy, Post, process, research, value

In order to frame this enquiry, let’s begin with a small the exploration of the motivations behind commissioning and performing the evaluations in the first place. Though examples here are from social research, these are easily compared with parallels in any intervention, including investment in the development of the science, technology (and business support facilities and services (for example STFC, 2014:5-7).

Firstly, an important part of the evaluation research is process evaluation (Rossi, 1972:34), used in order to improve on the delivery of the intervention, or – as beautifully listed in an interview with Waverley Care (a Edinburgh charity) CEO – “what we need to stop doing, what we want to keep doing and what we are not doing that we should be doing”. When working along this strand of evaluation, it is crucial that the researcher provides recommendations that can be acted upon. The best way to carry out such evaluation is often to focus on a specific small area of the intervention, for example how does an organisation collect feedback and implement changes reflecting the concerns raised by internal and external customers. Having said that, conclusions and recommendations can often be very general.

In the process evaluation, there is further check on the identifying emerging needs and (geographical, social, economic) individualisation of the delivery of outputs. This is particularly important for social projects (such as the Waverley Care), where there is significant variation across the different locales in which they work. However, this is also important in terms of social and geographical inclusiveness of science and technology investment. Hence, evaluation research in this context can provide important checks on the “fairness” of the intervention whilst it is underway.

Then there is the often missed – but in my opinion very important objective in evaluation – the inward facing component, i.e. the improvement of morale of the people engaged in the programme/intervention/organisation by celebrating their success. It is very important for the staff to appreciate the whole picture, “take a step back” to frame their work within a wider context. This is both a good motivation for future work as well as a huge morale boost as one can see how they personally and as a team are making a significant difference to people’s lives.

Finally, the primary motivation for impact evaluation is (always?), to understand the impact/difference an intervention/organisation is making. Evaluation is often considered important for funding applications, i.e. both assessing the need for the intervention as well as monitoring the delivery of outcomes (to evaluate the VALUE generated).

My research is similarly linked to the need for accountability when spending public money (Nutley, Walter and Davies, 2007:254) and in particular the effectiveness of the investment in natural sciences research (mainly cost benefit analysis), which is currently epitomised in cost benefit analysis, but that is already the topic of the next post…

Impact Evaluation Series – ER0

matjazvidmar/ / evaluation, impact, methods, outcomes, policy, Post, research, science, University of Edinburgh, value

Hello, finally a “proper” post after a while!

In fact, this post may not be so “proper” after all, as it is only marking a start of a short series about impact evaluation, an important part of my research in science, technology and innovation.

The plan is to have four posts (ER1-4): (1) an introduction to my research in (impact) evaluation; (2) an exploration of key themes in evaluation research; (3) an analysis of the cost benefit analysis model, dominant in the policy sphere; and (4) an outline of a new methodology -Quantified Correlated Impacts (QCI).

This is very much work in progress so, perhaps, more posts will appear later on and I would very much like to hear your comments on any of it!

Importantly, this effort is part of 2015 incarnation of  Evaluation Research Methods course, a postgraduate course in the School of Social and Political Science at the University of Edinburgh.

Please, do spare a minute or two and have a look at a host of other contributions at our collective blog and follow our Twitter discussion marked with: #evalres15.