Here is a first bunch of ideas, which might be useful for the planing of this project.
That is something that we could discuss within the coming weeks.
Bank of Living Knowledge[1]: possible strategies to be considered during the designing process of the EKC.
a. Knowledge Translation: Facilitate the exchange of experiences between well-known experts and relevant reference in the field of knowledge and innovation. Workshops to empower face-to-face networks, learning communities and knowledge-exchange (ie.: TED).
b. The Triple Helix: Highly qualified human resources: Human Capital and University-Industry Linkages' Role in Innovation.
c. Quality Information (based on semantic structures):
· Creation of a bank of experience in e-government which enables to learn from others (Knowledge and Information Management);
· Assistance for public funds, grants & funding opportunities, EU subsidies in innovation and ICT initiatives.
d. Include prospective and future design:
· Tools and methodology to study the future and trends analysis.
· Training to adopt Delphi & Normative forecasting.
Highly recommended post about "Guidelines for Group Collaboration and Emergence".
Four types of teams and the environment in which they work best:
• Traditional hierarchical: territory is familiar & predictable, requirements well-known.
• Breakthrough: project must develop major new innovation. Environment chaotic & random, project structures become very unstable as they grow larger.
• Synchronized: project success dependent on shared vision and common values. Effectiveness requires full commitment by all members to a sufficiently complex vision of mission and methods of group.
• Open: territory is turbulent & fluid, success requires an open-ended, flexible apporach. “Adaptive collaboration is tailored for technical problem-solving… What is important in this view of projects and progress is the adaptive fit between how the team is working and what it is they are working on” (op.cit. p.72)
[continue...]
This is a 'work in progress structure' to explore some of the structures, relations and functionalities of the networks.
This information is shared as a beta version in order to facilitate the open exchange of ideas.
It’s all about the Views. There are more ways to present information than in a simple list. “View Selection Engine” helps connect with just the right Views and useful information online. Clicking the image you will visit other possible "View", but in this case searching & matching the words: innovation, network, technology, europe, cooperation, web. Browse it, to make the best of it.
Excerpts taken from the book: Knowledge Translation in Health Care: Moving from Evidence to Practice. (Straus, Sharon E., y Ian D. Graham. 2009. Ed. John Wiley and Sons). In the United Kingdom and Europe, the terms implementation science and research utilization are commonly used in this context. In the United States, the terms dissemination and diffusion, research use, knowledge transfer, and uptake are often used. Canada commonly uses the terms knowledge transfer and exchange. [p.19]
The knowledge-to-action cycle prescribes the need to identify studies, research, synthesis, and knowledge tools comprising the knowledge creation funnel, as well as the need to identify literature on the KT process [p.60]
Key ideas about Knowledge Translation [KT]:
- Improving the link between research and decision making
[p.12]
- It is clear that knowledge creation, distillation, and dissemination are not sufficient on their own to ensure implementation in decision-making. [p.20 ]
- Failure to use research evidence to inform decision-making is apparent across all key decision-maker groups [p.20]
- Global evidence should be considered the basic unit of knowledge translation [p.30]
- The process by which knowledge is implemented. [p.71]
- Knowledge management is necessary, but is insufficient to ensure effective KT [p.21]
Current concern with evidence-based decision making (EBDM) is about improving the quantity, quality, and breadth of evidence used by all participants in the health care system: legislators, administrators, practitioners, industry, and, increasingly, the public.
[p.12]
IV elements in a campaign to achieve this improvement:
- An umbrella message from a national level that communicates a cultural change toward more conduct of relevant, good quality research and greater attention to the application of findings from such research to decision making.
- New structures to improve the opportunities for ongoing fruitful communication between researchers and decision makers, and to concentrate both applied research production and research receptor skills as a critical mass in universities and decision-making organizations, respectively.
- New activities and processes:
- i. By researchers to synthesize and disseminate their work in a way that is more sensitive to the needs of their target audiences,
- ii. By decision makers to both receive and apply research findings, as well as to communicate audience-specific priorities,
- iii. By universities to reward instead of penalize employees interested in applied research, and
- iv. By research sponsors to both encourage greater relevance in funded research and to recognize issue-specific bodies of knowledge as an important unit of research production and transfer.
The knowledge-to-action cycle prescribes the need to identify studies, research, synthesis, and knowledge tools comprising the knowledge creation funnel, as well as the need to identify literature on the KT process [p.60]
In this model, the knowledge-to-action process is iterative, dynamic, and complex, concerning both knowledge creation and application (action cycle) with fluid boundaries between creation and action components.
[p.22]
First-generation knowledge is derived from primary studies such as randomized trials and interrupted time series. Knowledge synthesis is second-generation knowledge. Third-generation knowledge includes tools and products such as decision aids and educational modules. Their purpose is to present knowledge in user-friendly, implementable formats,
[p.27]
Ensuring that the appropriate stakeholders are involved is a key strategy to facilitate successful guideline development and implementation.
[p.50]
1. INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND
The European Parliament has provided under the European Union budget 2011 - budget line 15 07 79 - specific funds for a pilot project “Knowledge Partnerships".
The integrated approach advocated in the Europe 2020 Strategy involves the development of
synergies and combined actions between research, innovation and education policies (so-called "knowledge triangle"). In the Innovation Union" Communication, a flagship of the EU2020 Strategy, the Commission has committed itself to "support business-academia collaborations through the creation of "Knowledge Alliances" between education and business to develop new curricula addressing innovation skills gaps".
The EU has devoted many efforts to strengthening the relations between research and
innovation and between research and education. The EU has also showed political
determination to enhance relations between business and academia, e.g. as one of the core
elements of the modernisation agenda for universities and in the context of the European Higher Education Area. But the concrete implementation so far has been less structured and systematic leaving the relation between education and innovation somehow as the neglected link of the knowledge triangle.
The University-Business Forum has opened a dialogue between the two worlds about how they can work more closely together. It has demonstrated that there is an appetite on both sides for working in partnership focused on education, with the common goal to ensuring that education delivers high-level and highly valued skills, underpinned at all times by high levels of adaptability, entrepreneurship and creative and innovative capacities.
More information: http://ec.europa.eu/education/calls/1911/call_en.pdf
18. – 20. April 2012
Palais Niederösterreich
Vienna – Austria
More information
