Managing Knowledge in the Three States of Conceptual Discovery,

Prototype Invention & Commercial Innovation

Joseph P. Lane and Ritamae M. Lane

University at Buffalo, State University of New York, 100 Sylvan Parkway, Amherst, NY 14228 U.S.A.

Keywords: Knowledge States, Knowledge Generation Methodologies, Scientific Research, Engineering Development,

Industrial Production, Conceptual Discovery, Prototype Invention, Commercial Innovation, Intellectual

Property, Value, Open Innovation, STI Policy.

Abstract: This position paper explains that knowledge is generated through three related yet distinct methodologies,

each codified within standard practices recognized by trained professionals. The outputs from each

methodology are embodied in three different states much like the traditional states of matter: gas, liquid,

solid. Effective Information Sharing (IS) and Knowledge Management both require a clear understanding of

these distinctions and relationships. National policies designed to generating commercial innovations

through public investment in the academic sector are particularly vulnerable to problems arising from

confounding these methodologies, their outputs and the transitions between states of knowledge.

1 INTRODUCTION

This position paper attempts to untangle a set of

distinct yet related constructs underlying

technological innovations, which are frequently

conflated and thereby impede progress in defining

policies and practices required to successfully

accomplish technological innovation. These issues

exist within any organization conducting research

and development, including those embracing open

innovation. The issues are most problematic for

organizations and nation’s actively investing

resources in universities yet relying on passive

forces for communication and migration of

intellectual property to the private sector.

Governments fund scientific research in university

and non-profit laboratories to advance the base of

knowledge on which modern civilization is built. In

parallel, governments fund industrial production in

areas of national need such as energy, transportation,

aerospace and defence. Both forms of investment

are largely successful because they closely link

resources with methodologies to generate the

intended outcomes.

However, since the middle of the last century these

Science, Technology & Innovation (STI) policies

and programs have unsuccessfully forced a hybrid

process which has not enjoyed the same level of

success. That is, governments fund university

faculty trained in the methods of scientific research,

yet expect the knowledge they generate to be readily

perceived as valuable to corporate professionals

trained in the methods of new product development.

Further, the vaguely defined and poorly perceived

process of technological innovation is largely silent

about the crucial role transformational role played

by engineering development.

If Information Sharing (IS) is the foundation for

Knowledge Management (KM), and if KM applies

expertise to organizational processes, then in the

language of Logic Models, both depend on a clear

definition and understanding of the elements linking

inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes.

The paper offers evidence supporting the author’s

position, and simple clarifications regarding the

constructs important to framing and conducting

effective Knowledge Management and Information

Sharing practices.

2 THREE METHODOLOGIES

Three distinct yet related methodologies: 1)

Scientific Research; 2) Engineering Development;

3) Industrial Production, can each be conducted

539

P. Lane J. and M. Lane R..

Managing Knowledge in the Three States of Conceptual Discovery, Prototype Invention & Commercial Innovation.

DOI: 10.5220/0004705905390542

In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval and the International Conference on Knowledge

Management and Information Sharing (KMIS-2013), pages 539-542

ISBN: 978-989-8565-75-4

 2013 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

independently. However, they also combine to

generate new or improved products or services for

the commercial marketplace, or for supporting

corporate business practices. Successful IS and KM

strategies benefit from their interplay.

The three methodologies can be individually

distinguished according to five attributes:

 Purpose

 Process

 Output

 Legal

 Value

2.1 Scientific Research Methods

Purpose: Generate new to the world knowledge in

any area with intellectual merit. The traditional

distinctions between ‘basic’ and ‘applied’ research

imply that the scholar’s intentions determine

eventual value. To the contrary the record shows

that the recipient of new knowledge is the arbiter of

value.

Process: Empirical analysis reveals novel insights

regarding the relationship – causal or correlation --

between key variables under scrutiny, with other

variables held in check. Because science is exploring

the unexplained, the process must be carefully

controlled, results analyzed to determine their

likelihood of occurring by chance, and replicable by

others.

Output: A Conceptual Discovery expressed through

a written manuscript or oral presentation. The

output exists only as an observed phenomenon so it

has no inherent substance. Given this ‘gaseous’

state, the discovery itself can be instantly

manipulated through reinforcement, expansion,

revision or refutation.

Legal: A conceptual discovery gains the status of

intellectual property (IP) the moment it is

articulated. However, that IP status is limited to

be the first to articulate the discovery. This

protection is preserved through the academic citation

system and ethical safeguards against plagiarism.

Value: It is common for discovery’s to be

announced in aspirational terms, such as ‘may

someday lead to’ or ‘offers the promise of

improving’ something or other. These very

statements are evidence that the only inherent value

is novelty; being the first articulation of a new

contribution to the knowledge base; new knowledge

as know what. The intangible must be made to work

in reality before it can contribute to society.

2.2 Engineering Development Methods

Purpose: Generate functional artifacts by reducing

knowledge to practical forms. This is the

professional practice of development through

design, combination and trial, rather than the

academic definition as theory building or

intervention deployment.

Process: Trial and error experimentation and

iterative testing to demonstrate a proof-of-concept

model of some new hardware or software. While

science relies on objective inquiry, engineering

relies on intentional delivery of specified results.

Output: A Prototype Invention which is claimed and

embodied in an operational form. This reduction to

practice is key to demonstrating that something

which can be conceived can also be built to function

within the parameters of the physical world. While

more tangible than concepts, the prototype may be

constructed from expensive or fragile materials, so it

is analogous to a ‘liquid’ state of matter. The

materials or processes involved may be subject to

change but only within the parameters required to

sustain operational capabilities.

Legal: The creator of a functional prototype is

entitled to seek protection against infringement for

twenty years through a patent application. Patent

protection differs from copyright in several ways.

First, it is not passively granted but must be actively

claimed. The claims are reviewed on a country by

country basis, with patents granted based on being

‘first to file’ a claim on that particular invention.

Also, acknowledging the source through citation

does not grant rights to use. Instead, the creator

(inventor) can grant permission for others to use

through a license or sales agreement.

Value: A prototype invention must demonstrate both

the novelty of a conceptual discovery, as well as the

feasibility of a functional prototype. There are no

patents for claims that cannot work in reality such as

anti-gravity or perpetual motion machines.

Demonstrating feasibility – no matter how – is the

hallmark of a patented invention; new knowledge as

know how, as in how to make it work in practice.

2.3 Industrial Production Methods

Purpose: Generate products, components or services

which can be successfully sold in the commercial

KMIS2013-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing

540

marketplace. These methods typically integrate the

outputs from both scientific research and

engineering development, while avoiding

unnecessary replication.

Process: The systematic specification of materials,

and components to yield a defined set of attributes,

within acceptable operating parameters. The

intention here is not only to reduce a concept to

practical form but to do so as efficiently and

effectively as possible.

Output: A Commercial Innovation embodied as a

viable device or service in a defined context of a

market opportunity. To gain economies of scale and

meet customer expectations the output must

represent a final form which can be mass produced,

widely distributed and supported through a standard

set of skills and resources. This is analogous to the

‘solid’ state of matter, because none of the element

comprising the final form can easily or readily

altered. Once they are, the new/improved device or

service is given a new model or version designation

to demarcate it from previous versions.

Legal: A device or service can obtain additional

intellectual property protection by applying for and

receiving a trademark or service mark, based on

words or symbols assigned as unique identifiers.

The court system recognizes that such identifiers

accrue monetary value, so non-owners can be sued

for damages in the event of improper use which is

assumed to impair revenues or damage reputations.

Value: A commercial innovation clearly must

contain both novelty and feasibility attributes to

have any chance of success in the competitive

marketplace. However, it must also demonstrate

utility, defined as generating revenue for the

manufacturing company and providing functional

benefit to the customer. When one speaks of the

value proposition for a new commercial venture, it

necessarily addresses all three values.

The three methodologies generate new knowledge in

three distinct states, so the next question is how is

knowledge communicated between sectors and

transformed between states.

3 THREE TRANSITION POINTS

Professionals involved in Information Sharing and

Knowledge Management roles face the unenviable

task of monitoring and tracking activity that is

largely hidden from view, precedes announcements

of the resulting outputs, and often rely on the tacit

knowledge of those conducting the work.

The scientist announces their discoveries after the

fact, while the engineer’s inventions only become

public after the patent is filed or granted.

Corporations treat as proprietary on-going

product/service projects until they are unveiled

through press releases and marketing campaigns.

These three examples are all information sharing and

each results from a deliberate strategy of knowledge

management. They all represent opportunities to

identify a point where knowledge in one state of

matter is being absorbed for transformation into

another. Here again the terms associated with each

shift should be distinguished and understood.

3.1 Knowledge Translation

Knowledge Translation (KT) is the latest iteration of

related terms associated with the effective

communication of new knowledge from the creator

to the audience of potential adopters. The KT

wrinkle is that new knowledge must be conveyed

within the value systems and operating contexts of

the audiences to facilitate uptake and application.

This adds a new responsibility on scholars to seek

common ground with audiences either at the end of

their projects – or hopefully – prior to initiating new

projects. The KT approach fits within the analogy to

gaseous matter as the investigator can compose the

message accompanying the conceptual discovery to

best fit the target audience’s context. Of course, this

assumes that there is some relevant to the discovery,

beyond the rigor applied to the scientific research

methodology.

Identifying instances of successful knowledge

translation is a matter of identifying case examples

where the conceptual discovery has been cited in the

publications of another scholar, or adopted in the

practices of professionals.

3.2 Technology Transfer

The phrase Technology Transfer (TT) has gained as

many meanings as the term ‘innovation’ in society.

In this paper’s context it is appropriately limited to

the exchange of ownership and control over

intellectual property protected as patented

inventions. The claimed invention’s novelty and

feasibility become valued by some third party that

seeks to apply the claims in a practical form.

ManagingKnowledgeintheThreeStatesofConceptualDiscovery,PrototypeInvention&CommercialInnovation

541

The invention’s owner may offer temporary control

through a license – which may be exclusive or non-

exclusive to the licensee – or may surrender

permanent control through a sale. This exchange

from one party to another is evidence that the

receiving party intends to transform the prototype

into a commercial devices or service.

Given the liquid state of the prototype, one cannot

be certain how it will be transformed, yet the results

can be inferred by considering the core claims in the

context of the organization acquiring the rights to

practice the invention. Of course, some patents are

acquired not to practice but to hold as a safeguard

against practice by others, but that is another topic.

3.3 Commercial Transaction

The transfer of ownership over an invention to a

corporation is likely to be the last public disclosure

until a new product or service appears in the

marketplace. Yet that appearance is evidence that

the third transformation has occurred. That specific

kernel of knowledge has been transformed from a

liquid (prototype) to a solid (product) state of matter.

4 CONCLUSIONS

Professionals concerned with STI policies and the

programs they support may follow the linkages

between these three transformations to see how –

and to what extent – the three methodologies and

their related sectors combine to generate

technological innovations. Milestones for progress

through each of the methodologies, and their

respective outputs, outcomes and impacts can also

be traced to assign credit and identify opportunities

for further commercial exploitation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper Center on Knowledge Translation for

Technology Transfer, which is funded by the

National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation

Research, U.S. Department of Education, under

grant #H133A080050

REFERENCES

Flagg, J. L., Lane, J. P. & Lockett, M. M. (2013). Need to

Knowledge Model. Implementation Science, 8:21

www.implementationscience.com/content/8/1/21/abstract

Lane, J. P. & Flagg, J. L. (2010). Translating Three States

of Knowledge. Implementation Science, 5:9. www.

implementationscience.com/content/5/1/9

Stone, V. I. & Lane, J. P. (2012). Modeling Technology

Innovation. Implementation Science, 7:44.

www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/44

KMIS2013-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing

542