Transcript Universities Innovating for Sustainable Development

Universities Innovating for Sustainable Development:
Commercialization or Free/Open Source Licensing?
World Innovation Forum: Innovating Through
Sustainability
Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre, Malaysia
Plenary 4, 2:00 p.m., August 11, 2007
Roger Petry
Luther College at the University of Regina
Regina, SK Canada S4S 0A2
Co-coordinator, Regional Centre of Expertise on Education
for Sustainable Development Saskatchewan
(RCE Saskatchewan)
Phone: 306-585-5295, FAX: 306-585-5267
E-Mail: [email protected], Web: www.saskrce.ca
Presentation Overview

Description of research project
Research methodology

Description of case studies examined

Discussion of findings

Concluding reflections

1. Description of Research
Project: Background


Research undertaken through the
Canadian Plains Studies Doctoral
Program, University of Regina,
Regina, SK, Canada
Research supported by the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada (SSHRC) Doctoral
Fellowships Program
Context of Research

Merging of two policy directions within the
Government of Canada:
• formal commitments to Sustainable
Development (SD) since early 1990s
• formal commitments to technological
innovation:
 2001 Innovation Agenda
 2007: Mobilizing Science and Technology
to Canada's Advantage
• formally linking concept of innovation with
commercialization
Example of Convergence of
Initiatives in Policy Documents

“In support of a growing, competitive
and innovative economy, Canada is a
leader in the development,
commercialization and adoption of
innovative sustainable development
tools, practices and technologies
throughout the economy”
• Vision Statement of Industry Canada's 3rd
Sustainable Development Strategy, 2003 to 2006
Further Technology Option:
Free/Open Source Licensing




distinct alternative to the commercialization
model
allows for a broad-based sharing of
intellectual property
origin in software development: e.g.
GNU/Linux computer operating system
a new model of development: volunteerism
applied to goods production
Role of Universities in Innovation
in Canada



Canada with $12 billion in public R&D
(i.e., expenditure by governments and
higher-education institutions) in 2005,
highest % of G-7 countries (0.9% of
GDP)
6.5% of industry-funded R&D in Canada
performed by universities; highest %
among G-7 (2002)
Canadian universities produce
approximately 1/3 of all Canadian R&D
Formal Commitments for Commercialization
of Canadian University Research


Government of Canada and the Association of
Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC):
Framework of Agreed Principles on Federally Funded
University Research (2002)
AUCC committed Canadian universities to:
• double their research performance by 2010
• triple their levels of commercialization by 2010


from $23.4 million income in 1999 to $70.2
million in 2010
Government of Canada agreed to increase its funding
of university research:
• $5.0 Billion in sponsored research in 2004 (a 51.5%
increase from 2001)
University Commitments to Sustainable
Development Research (SD)

The Global Higher Education for Sustainability Partnership
(GHESP) unites four higher education initiatives for SD
• International Association of Universities (IAU): Kyoto
Declaration (as of 2004 had over 650 member
universities)
• University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF):
secretariat for the Talloires Declaration on SD (over
280 signatories)
• Copernicus Campus managing the University Charter
for Sustainable Development (over 300 signatories),
• UNESCO: UN agency responsible for managing Chapter
36 of Agenda 21 (chapter for universities from Rio
Summit 1992)
Why are universities central to SD Research?
University Institutional Capacity for SD




knowledge production central to
university mandate
established networks for knowledge
sharing (university and nonuniversity networks)
holding breadth of knowledge
(social, economic, and ecological)
needed for SD
often holder of unique knowledge
Further Advantages of
Universities in SD Research



knowledge over varying spatial scales
(local, regional, global) & temporal scales
(e.g. short and lengthy time horizons)
ability to integrate knowledge holdings
(e.g. interdisciplinarity) within a single
institution
Institutional autonomy and ability to apply
SD technology to own organization (e.g.
greening the campus)
Power of Academic Decision-Makers in
Canadian Universities To Choose
Commercialization or Free Licensing

Institutional policies in universities and research
hospitals generally determining who owns intellectual
property (IP):
• 84.5% policy-determined for inventions, 81.5% for
copyrighted materials, 75.9% for educational materials in
2004 (see Read:2006)

Researchers frequently sole owners of IP (or joint
owners--in parenthesis):
• 46.0% of policies with researchers as sole owners of
inventions (21.3% joint), 51.1% for software or
databases (18.5% joint), and 69.3% for educational
materials (8.6% joint)

90.3% of IP policies grant researchers the right
not to commercialize
2. Research Methodology


General Research Question: Is the trend toward
commercialization of university research appropriate
for universities with a commitment to knowledge
production for sustainable development (SD)?
Secondary Questions:
• What is the understanding of academic faculty (as
key organizational decision makers) of the relative
merits of commercialization and Free/Open Source
licensing models in achieving the sustainability
goals of their specific SD research projects?
• How does this understanding influence their own
intellectual property decisions?
Operationalization of Key Terms

Sustainable Development: simultaneously
sustaining:
• (1) natural capital: maintaining minimal stocks
of natural capital (i.e., strong sustainability)
• (2) human capital: meeting basic needs
(including health and security), sustaining
capabilities/freedoms, and improving quality of
life (i.e., human well-being; see MEA:2003)

Involves: (1) sustaining capital stocks,
relationships, and processes; (2) managing
acceptable risks; & (3) ongoing improvements in
each form of capital (i.e. “development”)
Knowledge Commercialization

Knowledge commercialization: the commercial
exploitation of intellectual property (IP) to generate
revenues through the production of distinctive
marketable products and services made possible by
the exercise of the exclusive uses associated with
the IP prevented to market rivals. For example:
• revenues from the sale and formal transfer of IP
• obtaining royalties from licensing IP (either
exclusively to a single firm or non-exclusively to
several firms)
• ownership of a spin-off company created to
produce the particular good or service exploiting
the IP
Free/Open Source Licensing


Note: distinguished from material in
the public domain (due to expiration
of the term of the IP right or formal
consignment to the public domain)
Free/Open Source Licensing: an
owner’s licensing of intellectual
property to allow others the ability to
exercise the exclusive rights granted
to the owner of the IP
Free Licenses Designed to Leverage the
Production of more Free Licensed Material

Legal requirement that those who
incorporate Free Licensed software into
their work and distribute the new software
to license the new software under the same
terms as the original Free Software License
• no further restrictions can be placed on
users
• “copyleft” provisions or “share-andshare-alike”
• E.g., the popular GNU General Public
License (the GPL)
Case Studies Approach



use of qualitative method (grounded
theory) & case studies approach
five SD research case studies from
the University of Regina in
Saskatchewan, Canada
in-depth interviews with researchers
associated with SD research projects
involving software development
and/or computer science
3. Description of Case Studies
Examined



University of Regina located in prairie region of
Canada and capital city of the Province of
Saskatchewan
a smaller research university yet with
substantial research growth (research income
of $9.93 million in 2000 to $23.94 million in
2005; 19.2% annual growth rate)
Extensive interdisciplinary and SD Research
University of Regina Communities of
Tomorrow SD Partnership

launched in 2003

Includes:
• the University of Regina
• City of Regina
• Saskatchewan Industry and Resources
• Western Economic Diversification Canada
• National Research Council (NRC) of the Government of
Canada


$30 million in funding commitments, (including inkind) over the first five years of operations
includes specific commitments to
commercialization of SD technology
SD Research Case Studies

5 Research Case Studies funded by U of R:
• “Interactive Learning about Sustainable Resource
Usage”
• “Objective and Subjective Assessment of Traffic
Noise Impact To Residential Areas and Traffic
Noise Control in Regina”
• “Total Product Assessment for Sustainable
Consumption”
• “Web-based Intelligent Systems for Sustainable
Communities”
• “Effects of Pavement Types and Conditions to the
Environmental Noise of Urban Areas”
4. Discussion of Findings
• Minority with direct prior experiences with
commercialization or F/OS licensing of own
work
• Awareness of both options in academic work:

“Well, I have two computers here. One is Unix. One
is Windows. In the world of Unix almost everything
is Open Source. In the world of Windows almost
nothing is Open Source…. So one was primarily
created by academics with some research
laboratories, corporate laboratories involved, that's
Unix. One was created primarily by a company with
a number of other companies involved all looking for
profit… I work in both worlds everyday.”
IP Decisions Regarding SD
Projects


Most (4 projects) not having made specific
decision regarding commercialization of
SD project at time of interview
Most viewing commercialization as a
possible option
• e.g. development of software programs

Articulated awareness of university desire
to commercialize of SD projects
Factors In the Development of SD
Technologies: What made SD
technologies possible?
1. Motivations of researchers
• Seeking to achieve multiple objectives
• Includes scholarly dimensions and
personal concerns
2. Situated opportunities
3. Contributions of diversity of
organizational and individual actors
1. Cluster of Factors Motivating
Researchers: Advancing Own
Research Area


Interest in applying research area to
SD problem
SD research providing capacity for
advancing own research area (and
those of others)
• Multi-dimensional aspects of SD
problem enabling and requiring
interdisciplinary collaboration
Motivations of Researchers:
Educational Goals

Creating informed decision-making
at both the:
• Organizational level: e.g. policy making,
organizational purchasing
• Individual level:


Allowing autonomous reflection and
evaluation for SD (e.g. transit decisions)
Motivating individuals to act on SD issue
• Including use/take-up of technology
Education and Focusing on
User/Learner Needs

Developing technology for suitability
to user needs
• Allowing user experimentation with
technology
• Allowing adaptation of technology

Ensuring accessibility of technology
• Availability of technology
• Ease of use and intelligibility
Motivations of Researchers:
Public Service

Acting to serve public as part of job
description
• Serving citizens (if state university)


Seeking to improve quality of life
Focusing on publicly identified issues
of concern
Motivations of Researchers:
Personal Convictions



Impact of SD issue on individual
researcher (e.g. researcher’s own
personal quality of life adversely
impacted, e.g. sickness from air
pollution)
Ethical concerns (e.g, responsibilities
towards future generations)
Sense of political duty (e.g. “being a
good citizen”)
2. Factors in Development SD
Projects: Situated Opportunity

Identification of problem from local
observations
• E.g. personal experiences in own household
• E.g. Discussions with others living in
community/neighbourhood

University providing supportive role for
collaboration
• e.g. formal U of R commitment to
interdisciplinarity and SD
3. Factors in Development of
Technology: Contributions of
Diversity of Actors

Wide collaboration in research projects
around shared interest in SD issue
• Academic community: own research
expertise, academic researchers in other
(sub)-disciplines, graduate students,
university administration
• Collaboration with other organizations
with an interest in SD: business,
government, NGO’s
Nature of Contributions
Observed in SD Projects

Relying on local knowledge
• e.g. local transportation networks and
usage, local use and pricing of resources
• Reliance on outside organizations for
data contributions (e.g. local/municipal
government)

Relying on general domain expertise
• Involving theoretical contributions from
multiple disciplines
Further Contributions


Relying on support for scholarly work
• Targeted funding by university for SD research
(e.g. hiring graduate students)
• Funding for research equipment
• Use of Open Source tools and other freely
available materials (e.g. data made available in
open sources)
Relying on places for situated testing
• E.g. Highway department and testing of road
surfacing materials; Science Centre and
observing children experimenting with game
for SD
Challenges in Commercialization:
Impact on Contributions

Potential loss of contributions of others if
turned into a commercial product
• Dependence on user input and possible
demand for return if commercialized
• Some contributions potentially central to
technology viability others merely desirable

Challenge finding other contributors
• Challenge finding investors
• Challenge finding industry partners in right line
of business to commercialize product
Challenges in Commercialization:
Small Market Size


Limited size of market
• Distinctiveness of users for which technology
designed (e.g. small city with distinct challenges)
• Requiring customization for usability/optimal use
 e.g. social factors: language, local travel
patterns, types of infrastructure/building
materials
 e.g. natural factors: geography, local weather
conditions
Lacking ability and resources to customize technology
• Potentially lacking knowledge of relevant conditions
elsewhere
• Requiring ongoing updating of data as human and
natural systems evolve
Challenges of Commercialization:
Lack of Strong Market Demand

Potential users having a low willingness or
ability to pay:
• Lack of direct immediate benefit (e.g. SD
concern with future or collective benefits)
• Low priority relative to other purchasing
priorities (e.g. state budgeting)
• Potential users lacking financial resources if
commercialized (e.g. those in poverty;
financially constrained public institutions)
Commercialization and
Scholarly Identity

Financial gain not identified as primary
motive (despite university
encouragement)
• Though willingness to help economic
sustainability goals as form of public service

Commercialization requiring skills and
resources beyond those of the researcher
• Lack of funding to develop and test prototype
• Challenge determining contractual balance
(given uncertainty of benefits and variety of
contributors)
Commercialization and
Scholarly Risks




Concerns regarding publication delays (and
possible pressure not to publicize results)
Risk of technology not being applied if start-up
company fails
Risk of foreclosing opportunity to further develop
technology if sold to private firm
Risk regarding integrity of work if perceived as
undermining commercial interests
• E.g. technology being bought out by dominant
firms in marketplace
Potential For Related Commercial
Benefits with Uptake of Technology



Market value of data gathered from
technology usage
Service provision in customizing
technology to specialized needs
Value of demand for downstream or
related products
• e.g. increased demand for materials such as
scrap tires
• e.g. developing market for ecologically friendly
products and transportation types
Potential for Related Commercial
Benefits (continued)

Reduced costs for businesses and
government through improvements in
production methods
• Potential for research funding through savings

Increased regional competitiveness
through Quality of Life
• attracting human capital to region
• improving efficiency of labour

E.g. labour efficiency impaired by noise pollution
Free/Open Source Licensing
and SD Projects

Viewing F/OS licensing as compatible with
academic culture:
• Openness and academic publishing
• Openness required for peer review/verifying
findings
• State university funding and duty for public
availability and availability to all market firms
(vs. specific ones)
• Reducing barriers for other academics to
participate in scholarly endeavors
Risks with F/OS Licensing

Requiring ongoing maintenance of
projects
• Though this kind of project maintenance
viewed as easier with academic skill-set
than commercial product development


Lack of University support for F/OS
tools
Lack of reliability of F/OS software
Scholarly Risks and F/OS


Fear of others preempting results if
openly released
Concern that others need not abide
by Free Licensing terms
• Lack of financial resources to enforce
licenses
F/OS Business Model


challenging making money through OSS if
given freely away
However:
• businesses developing business models around
OS


e.g. open source and advertising
offering related services for OSS
• actual business interest and support for
university OS development

interest linked to solving an industry-wide problem
Non-Market F/OS Strategies



potential government, community and individual
support for F/OSS development linked to
technology goals
Open Source potentially increasing exposure,
experimentation, and take-up
• Though still other barriers: e.g. hardware,
expertise needed to use technology, labour to
support technology within organization
Potential for others to distribute technology
through non-market means
• e.g. Science Centre distributing software
program to school children
5. Concluding Reflections

Need to consider goals of academy
and individual researchers engaged
in SD research in harnessing
University capacity to innovate for
SD:
• Faculty researchers choosing
technology direction based on
curiosity/scholarly interest
• Often not a financial motive
Significant Challenges to
Commercialize SD Technology



Some related to tensions between
conditions needed to generate SD
technology in universities and conditions
needed for their commercialization
Some challenges due to regional
challenges in New Economy (see
appendix); implies possible divergence of
IP strategies between regions
Some challenges linked to tensions
between academic goals of researchers
and risks with commercialization
Free/Open Source Licensing and SD Projects




Free/Open Source licensing potentially supportive of
researcher goals for SD research
• some F/OSS risks needing to be mitigated
Licensing of technologies should build on how SD
technologies are being developed in academic settings
in the first place
• E.g. continue to build on voluntary contributions if
possible
Potential for downstream significant business and
livelihood opportunities (including commercialization)
with broad take-up of some SD technologies
New Economy strategies need to factor in potentially
disruptive market technologies developed by the
academic community (given IP control of faculty)
Appendix: Regina, SK,
Geographic Challenges in the
New Economy

Average growth in Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) paid
employment in Canada between 1990 and
2000 was 72.6% (Beckstead et al.: 2003)
• vs. Saskatchewan ICT workers declined by
8.9%

Average growth of ICT paid workers in (defined
as Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) with
populations over 100,000) was 79%
• vs. Regina declined by 17%
Further SK Challenges in New Economy

Nearest Global City Region (GCR) outside
of province
• E.g. Calgary, Alberta


Dominated by SMEs, Co-operatives, State
Enterprises, Government important
employer, and strong Voluntary Sector
Lacking industrial base, large private
enterprises, and venture capital