Step 3.8

Compile results from literature reviews/external experts/scientific research activities, perform analyses and integrate findings into project plan.

Primary findings

Secondary findings

Primary findings

Barriers

Research agendas about open innovation often stay within OI and fail to leverage knowledge in other disciplines like marketing or engineering.
Literature review findings
(View full citation)

Organizations are limited with their capability to locate and process external knowledge, particularly when the innovation opportunities are well beyond their existing cognitive comfort zone.
Case study analysis
(View full citation)

Carriers

Studying user identities and individual motivations is a useful application of researching open innovation.
Literature review findings
(View full citation)

Bibliometric searches conducted with software which identifies related ideas within the text and groups them into themes are on par with subject headings assigned by human readers.
Literature review findings
(View full citation)

Firms and government agencies rely on social scientists as consultants to ground business strategies and for managing the innovation process.  
Findings of data analysis
(View full citation)

Universities are embedded in the regional innovation system as influencers promoting technological innovation and economic development in their regions. 
Case-based research
(View full citation)

A well designed information hub interface can reduce time spent locating internal information by over 35%. 
Literature review and case study.
(View full citation)

Convening an interactive forum (a knowledge translation event that brings researchers and knowledge users together to jointly interpret research findings) can provide opportunities for stakeholders to network with each other and gauge how others are using (or intend to use) the research findings. These inter-stakeholder discussions often extend beyond the forum.
Literature review and single case study.
(View full citation)

Convening an interactive forum (a knowledge translation event that brings researchers and knowledge users together to jointly interpret research findings) is one way to broaden stakeholder learning about research findings.
Literature review and single case study.
(View full citation)

Factors that may positively influence the likelihood that an academic/researcher will engage in informal knowledge transfer (fostering the flow of knowledge through informal communication processes) include: affiliation in the fields of chemistry, computer sciences, and physics, mathematics and statistics (rather than with life sciences) — based upon an examination of six fields, physics, mathematics and statistics, chemistry, computer science, earth sciences, and life sciences.
How academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities.
(View full citation)

Factors that may positively influence the likelihood that an academic/researcher will engage in informal knowledge transfer (fostering the flow of knowledge through informal communication processes) include: private funding, network assets, research unit size, experience, affiliation to the engineering field (rather than the life sciences field), and being a man (rather than a woman) — based upon an examination of six fields, physics, mathematics and statistics, chemistry, computer science, earth sciences, and life sciences.
How academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities.
(View full citation)

Factors that may positively influence the likelihood that an academic/researcher will engage in the production of scientific papers include, being in the fields of engineering, computer sciences and earth sciences (rather than in life sciences), and by being an assistant or an associate professor (rather than a full professor) — based upon an examination of six fields, physics, mathematics and statistics, chemistry, computer science, earth sciences, and life sciences.
How academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities.
(View full citation)

Factors that may positively influence the likelihood that an academic/researcher will engage in the production of scientific papers include, reliance on internal funding, novelty of research (significant changes in materials or production techniques), research unit size, experience, affiliation with the field of chemistry (rather than to life sciences), affiliation with large research universities (rather than small and medium ones), and being a man (rather than a woman) — based upon an examination of six fields, physics, mathematics and statistics, chemistry, computer science, earth sciences, and life sciences.
How academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities.
(View full citation)

Methods

Internal metaroutines for idea generation include working sessions and using an integrated knowledge management system.
Case study analysis
(View full citation)

“Big Data” can be quantified in several ways: volume of databank; variety of data types; velocity of production; and veracity of the information’s’ predictability and reliability. 
Literature review and case study.
(View full citation)

Companies that could benefit from an early-stage empirical analysis should create a new, separate organization focused on truth seeking — or outsource this function to qualified academic researchers. A small team manages the operation, recruiting both internal and external staff and consultants with expertise and objectivity. The teams design critical experiments to rule in or rule out a product's key attributes. Teams should be small and fluid comprised of persons motivated by intellectual curiosity. No one follows any of the projects into the later NPD stages to maintain their objectivity.
Private sector experience in pharmaceutical industry.
(View full citation)

Knowledge Creation Cycle is depicted as having three generations descending through a funnel, to represent how knowledge is sifted and filtered so that only the most useful knowledge is left for application. First generation knowledge is that created through research activity or through experiential activity. Second generation knowledge results from a process for the identification, appraisal and synthesis of studies or information related to a specific question. Third generation knowledge is embodied in summaries, practice guidelines and decision aids, where the knowledge is available in formats that meet the needs of targeted stakeholder groups.
Summary of the Knowledge to Action Model and its application to knowledge translation.
(View full citation)

Look at the KT community, think about how to synthesize research and think about using models not as strict as Cochrane. Results that do not meet Cochrane standards may still have an impact. There is a more realistic approach to knowledge synthesis evolving (Meta-Narrative Synthesis?), based on studies sponsored by the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, and by the United Kingdom's National Health Service.
Summary of expert panel meeting to guide future KT work sponsored by a Federal agency.
(View full citation)

When it is critical to identify barriers to market success early in the NPD process, proof of concept testing may be outsourced to external experts who advise on experimental designs, and external vendors who can advise on manufacturing, potential hazards and specialized services. Such outsourcing reinforces truth-seeking by injecting dispassionate outside perspectives. This also frees internal experts to focus on the analysis of the evidence generated by the external experiments.
Private sector experience in pharmaceutical industry.
(View full citation)

Tips

Research execution: Face-to-face engagement with stakeholders and active participation in community-based activities can be effective KT strategies.
Applying integrated KT in Mental Health research.
(View full citation)

Secondary findings

Carriers

In many cases, when researchers and knowledge users meet face-to-face to jointly interpret research results, knowledge users perceptions of the utility of that research is often increased.
Source: Mohrman (2001); Rynes (2001); Huberman (1994); Walter (2003). In: Ginsburg, L.R., Lewis, S., Zackheim, L. & Casebeer, A. (2207)

It is important to communicate research findings in a manner that can influence stakeholders. Quality and accessibility factors play important roles.
Source: Casebeer (2000); McColl (1998). In: Bowen, S., Martens, P. & The Need to Know Team (2005)

Knowledge Producers can facilitate the uptake of their research by addressing five questions: 1) What should be disseminated? 2) To whom should it be disseminated? 3) By whom should it be disseminated? 4) How should it be disseminated? 5) With what effect should it be disseminated?
Source: Lavis, J et at (2003). In: Graham, I.D., Logan, J., Harrison, M.B., Straus, S.E., Tetroe J., Caswell, W. et. al. (2006)

Tips

Research-based knowledge is not used as a can-opener is used. Generic knowledge is seldom taken directly off the shelf and applied without some sort of vetting or tailoring to the local context.
Source: Humberman M. (1987). In: Graham, I.D., Logan, J., Harrison, M.B., Straus, S.E., Tetroe J., Caswell, W. et. al. (2006)