The knowledge exchange intermediary as service provider : a discussion and an Australian case

The critical impact of innovation on national and the global economies has been discussed at length in the literature. Economic development requires the diffusion of innovations into markets. It has long been recognised that economic growth and development depends upon a constant stream of innovations. Governments have been keenly aware of the need to ensure this flow does not dry to a trickle and have introduced many and varied industry policies and interventions to assist in seeding, supporting and diffusing innovations. In Australia, as in many countries, Government support for the transfer of knowledge especially from publicly funded research has resulted in the creation of knowledge exchange intermediaries. These intermediaries are themselves service organisations, seeking innovative service offerings for their markets. The choice for most intermediaries is generally a dichotomous one, between market-pull and technology-push knowledge exchange programmes. In this article, we undertake a case analysis of one such innovative intermediary and its flagship programme. We then compare this case with other successful intermediaries in Europe. We put forward a research proposition that the design of intermediary programmes must match the service type they offer. That is, market-pull programmes require market-pull design, in close collaboration with industry, whereas technology programmes can be problem-solving innovations where demand is latent. The discussion reflects the need for an evolution in knowledge transfer policies and programmes beyond the first generation ushered in with the US Bayh-Dole Act (1980) and Stevenson-Wydler Act (1984). The data analysed is a case study comparison of market-pull and technology-push programmes, focusing on primary and secondary socio-economic benefits (using both Australian and international comparisons).

Road safety knowledge exchange and capacity building between China and Australia

Road traffic injuries are one of the major public health burdens worldwide. The United Nations Decade of Action for Road Safety (2011-2020) implores all nations to work to reduce this burden. This decade represents a unique and historic period of time in the field of road safety. Information exchange and co-operation between nations is an important step in achieving the goal. The burden of road crashes, fatalities and injuries is not equally distributed. We know that low and middle-income countries experience the majority of the road trauma burden. Therefore it is imperative that these countries learn from the successes of others that have developed and implemented road safety laws, public education campaigns and countermeasures over many years and have achieved significant road trauma reductions as a result. China is one of the countries experiencing a large road trauma burden. Vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists make up a large proportion of fatalities and injuries in China. Speeding, impaired/drug driving, distracted driving, vehicle overloading, inadequate road infrastructure, limited use of safety restraints and helmets, and limited road safety training have all been identified as contributing to the problem. Some important steps have been taken to strengthen China’s approach, including increased penalties for drunk driving in May 2011 and increased attention to school bus safety in 2011/12. However, there is still a large amount of work needed to improve the current road safety position in China. This paper provides details of a program to assist with road safety knowledge exchange between China and Australia that was funded by the Australian Government which was undertaken in the latter part of 2012. The four month program provided the opportunity for the first author to work closely with key agencies in Australia that are responsible for policy development and implementation of a broad range of road safety initiatives. In doing so, an in-depth understanding was gained about key road safety strategies in Australia and processes for developing and implementing them. Insights were also gained into the mechanisms used for road safety policy development, implementation and evaluation in several Australian jurisdictions. Road traffic law and enforcement issues were explored with the relevant jurisdictional transport and police agencies to provide a greater understanding of how Chinese laws and practices could be enhanced. Working with agencies responsible for public education and awareness campaigns about road safety in Australia also provided relevant information about how to promote road safety at the broader community level in China. Finally, the program provided opportunities to work closely with several world-renowned Australian research centres and key expert researchers to enhance opportunities for ongoing road safety research in China. The overall program provided the opportunity for the first author to develop knowledge in key areas of road safety strategy development, implementation and management which are directly relevant to the current situation in China. This paper describes some main observations and findings from participation in the program.

Knowledge Exchange study: How Research Tools are of Value to Research: Use Cases and Recommendations

Research tools that are freely available and accessible via the Internet cover an emergent field in the worldwide research infrastructure. Clearly, research tools have increasing value for researchers in their research activities. Knowledge Exchange recently commissioned a project to explore use case studies to show research tools’ potential and relevance for the present research landscape. Makers of successful research tools have been asked questions such as: How are these research tools developed? What are their possibilities? How many researchers use them? What does this new phenomenon mean for the research infrastructure? Additional to the Use Cases, the authors offer observations and recommendations to contribute to effective development of a research infrastructure that can optimally benefit from research tools. the Use Cases are: •Averroes Goes Digital: Transformation, Translation, Transmission and Edition •BRIDGE: Tools for Media Studies Researchers •Multiple Researchers, Single Platform: A Virtual Tool for the 21st Century •The Fabric of Life •Games with A Purpose: How Games Are Turning Image Tagging into Child’s Play •Elmer: Modelling a Future •Molecular Modelling With SOMA2 •An Online Renaissance for Music: Making Early Modern Music Readable •Radio Recordings for Research: How A Million Hours of Danish Broadcasts Were Made Accessible •Salt Rot: A Central Space for Essential Research •Cosmos: Opening Up Social Media for Social Science A brief analysis by the authors can be found: •Some Observations Based on the Case Studies of Research Tools

Report on Knowledge Exchange workshop Sustainable Business Models for Open Access Services

The work on the sustainability of organisations which exist to provide services to the Open Access community, commissioned by Knowledge Exchange, identified that such organisations need to have a business-like approach and that the absence of rigorous attention to all aspects of the business may lead to sub-optimal performance and, potentially, failure. With this in mind, a Sustainability Index was drafted for consideration by attendees at the Knowledge Exchange workshop on sustainability in Utrecht (February 2014). Over fifty participants, representing Open Access service providers, IT-infrastructure and research funders, and users,worked to making past recommendations from KE work on Open Access actionable.

Knowledge Exchange meeting on Research tools

Knowledge Exchange investigated the diversity and complexity of research tools, techniques and researchers' behaviours to identify how and where the initiative can eliminate barriers to cooperation between different parts of the whole system. Experts from the partner organisations and beyond exchanged knowledge and experiences, during our meeting on Research Tools which took place on 27 June 2012, in Utrecht, the Netherlands. Experts considered ‘the use of digital technologies in research' or ‘digital research tools' with a view to informing future Knowledge Exchange activities.

IPR POLICY AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE REPORT FOR SCIENTIFIC POLICY MAKERS

The report provides recommendations to policy makers in science and scholarly research regarding IPR policy to increase the impact of research and make the outcomes more available. The report argues that the impact of publicly-funded research outputs can be increased through a fairer balance between private and public interest in copyright legislation. This will allow for wider access to and easier re-use of published research reports. The common practice of authors being required to assign all rights to a publisher restricts the impact of research outputs and should be replaced by wider use of a non-exclusive licence. Full access and re-use rights to research data should be encouraged through use of a research-friendly licence.

KE Workshop report: Report Knowledge Exchange workshop Making data count - Research Data and Research Assessment

The possibilities of digital research have altered the production, publication and use of research results. Academic research practice and culture are changing or have already been transformed, but to a large degree the system of academic recognition has not yet adapted to the practices and possibilities of digital research. This applies especially to research data, which are increasingly produced, managed, published and archived, but play hardly a role yet in practices of research assessment. The aim of the workshop was to bring experts and stakeholders from research institutions, universities, scholarly societies and funding agencies together in order to review, discuss and build on possibilities to implement the culture of sharing and to integrate publication of data into research assessment procedures. The report 'The Value of Research Data - Metrics for datasets from a cultural and technical point of view' was presented and discussed. Some of the key finding were that data sharing should be considered normal research practice, in fact not sharing should be considered malpractice. Research funders and universities should support and encourage data sharing. There are a number of important aspects to consider when making data count in research and evaluation procedures. Metrics are a necessary tool in monitoring the sharing of data sets. However, data metrics are at present not very well developed and there is not yet enough experience in what these metrics actually mean. It is important to implement the culture of sharing through codes of conducts in the scientific communities. For further key findings please read the report.

Report on Knowledge Exchange workshop Price of keeping knowledge: financial streams for digital preservation

In contrast to cost modeling activities, the pricing of services must be simple and transparent. Calculating and thus knowing price structures, would not only help identify the level of detail required for cost modeling of individual instititutions, but also help develop a ”public” market for services as well as clarify the division of task and the modeling of funding and revenue streams for data preservation of public institutions. This workshop has built on the results from the workshop ”The Costs and Benefits of Keeping Knowledge” which took place 11 June 2012 in Copenhagen. This expert workshop aimed at: •Identifying ways for data repositories to abstract from their complicated cost structures and arrive at one transparent pricing structure which can be aligned with available and plausible funding schemes. Those repositories will probably need a stable institutional funding stream for data management and preservation. Are there any estimates for this, absolute or as percentage of overall cost? Part of the revenue will probably have to come through data management fees upon ingest. How could that be priced? Per dataset, per GB or as a percentage of research cost? Will it be necessary to charge access prices, as they contradict the open science paradigm? •What are the price components for pricing individual services, which prices are currently being paid e.g. to commercial providers? What are the description and conditions of the service(s) delivered and guaranteed? •What types of risks are inherent in these pricing schemes? •How can services and prices be defined in an all-inclusive and simple manner, so as to enable researchers to apply for specific amount when asking for funding of data-intensive projects?Please

Report on Knowledge Exchange workshop Cost models for keeping knowledge: economic models for digital preservation

Organised by Knowledge Exchange & the Nordbib programme 11 June 2012, 8:30-12:30, Copenhagen Adjacent to the Nordbib conference 'Structural frameworks for open, digital research' Participants in break out discussion during the workshop on cost modelsThe Knowledge Exchange and the Nordbib programme organised a workshop on cost models for the preservation and management of digital collections. The rapid growth of the digital information which a wide range of institutions must preserve emphasizes the need for robust cost modelling. Such models should enable these institutions to assess both what resources are needed to sustain their digital preservation activities and allow comparisons of different preservation solutions in order to select the most cost-efficient alternative. In order to justify the costs institutions also need to describe the expected benefits of preserving digital information. This workshop provided an overview of existing models and demonstrated the functionality of some of the current cost tools. It considered the specific economic challenges with regard to the preservation of research data and addressed the benefits of investing in the preservation of digital information. Finally, the workshop discussed international collaboration on cost models. The aim of the workshop was to facilitate understanding of the economies of data preservation and to discuss the value of developing an international benchmarking model for the costs and benefits of digital preservation. The workshop took place in the Danish Agency for Culture and was planned directly prior to the Nordbib conference 'Structural frameworks for open, digital research'

Research Data Management — Activities and Challenges Report on the Knowledge Exchange Workshop

Workshop Research Data Management – Activities and Challenges 14-15 November 2011, Bonn The Knowledge Exchange initiative organised a workshop to highlight current activities and challenges with respect to research data management in the Knowledge Exchange partner countries and beyond. The workshop brought together experts from data centres, libraries, computational centres, funding organisations, publishing services and other institutions in the field of research and higher education who are working to improve research data management and encourage effective reuse of research data. A considerable part of the programme was dedicated to sharing perspectives from these communities, leading to the development of a roadmap of practical actions for the Knowledge Exchange initiative, partner organisations and other stakeholders to progress over the next two years. On the first day, principal investigators and project managers from a great variety of recent projects shared their insights on objectives and methods for improving data management ranging from discipline-specific to more general approaches. A series of short presentations of selected projects was followed by an extensive poster session that functioned as a “trade fair” of current trends and activities in the field of research data management. Moreover, the poster session offered ample network opportunities for participants. The second day was dedicated to intensive group discussions looking at a number of data management challenges. First the most important findings from the "Surfboard for 'Riding the Wave'" report were presented. This included the state of the art on activities and challenges in the field of research data management. The subgroups will concentrate on the following key themes: funding, incentives, training and technical infrastructure. These discussions culminated in the identification of practical recommendations for future cooperation on practical as well as on strategic levels that should be taken forward by the KE partner organisations and beyond. These activities aim to improve the sustainability of services and infrastructures at both national and international levels.

Research Software Sustainability: Report on Knowledge Exchange Workshop

The report introduces software sustainability, provides definitions, clearly demonstrates that software is not the same as data and illustrates aspects of sustainability in the software lifecycle. The recommendations state that improving software sustainability requires a number of changes: some technical and others societal, some small and others significant. We must start by raising awareness of researchers’ reliance on software. This goal will become easier if we recognise the valuable contribution that software makes to research – and reward those people who invest their time into developing reliable and reproducible software. The adoption of software has led to significant advances in research. But if we do not change our research practices, the continued rise in software use will be accompanied by a rise in retractions. Ultimately, anyone who is concerned about the reliability and reproducibility of research should be concerned about software sustainability. Beside highlighting the benefits of software sustainability and addressing the societal and technical barriers to software sustainability, the report provides access to expertise in software sustainability and outlines the role of funders. The report concludes with a short landscape of national activities in Europe and outside Europe. As a result of the workshop steps will be explored to establish European coordination and cooperation of national initiatives.

Knowledge Exchange Discussion paper on Open Knowledge

The development of an openly available layer of scholarly and scientific content requires access to all types of output from the scholarly and scientific process. Interoperable and sustainable infrastructure components are invaluable elements and the content should be clearly licensed for re-use. Open Knowledge will improve the discoverability and re-usability of content across the sectors, to the benefit of higher education and research and will help the (European) knowledge economy to move forward. In Autumn 2013, scoping sessions took place with experts to discuss their views around the value of making knowledge open and the steps which need to be taken to achieve this. These discussions are collected in the Knowledge Exchange discussion paper on Open Knowledge.

Knowledge Exchange RDM Training & Skills Workshop, 9-10 Feb 2016, London

In today’s changing research environment, RDM is important in all stages of research. The skills and know-how in RDM that researchers and research support staff need, should be nurtured all though their career. At the end of 2015, KE initiated a project to compare approaches in RDM training within the partnership’s five member countries. The project was structured around two strands of activity: In the last months of 2015 a survey was conducted to collect information on current practice around RDM training, in order to provide an overview of the RDM training landscape. In February 2016 a workshop was held to share successful approaches to RDM training and capacity building provided within institutions and by infrastructure. The report describes the outputs of both the analysis of the survey and the outcomes of the workshop. The document provides an evidence base and informed suggestions to help improve RDM training practices in KE partner countries and beyond.