0711-A1

A Knowledge Exchange System: Putting Innovation to Work

David DeYoe^[1] and Chris Hollstedt

Abstract

Effective and efficient application of new knowledge/technology in government and industry continues to be a challenge in the forestry sector in Canada. This impedes both policy development in government, and advancement in private sector diversification and production growth. Here we present a knowledge exchange system that focuses on how researchers and customers in government and industry can optimize the development and application of innovative approaches to achieve desired business outcomes. The system integrates three major functions - knowledge generation, knowledge exchange, knowledge application - and stresses the importance of extension professionals as the critical link in helping to ensure that new knowledge and innovative technologies are put into practice.

Introduction

Sustaining the world's renewable forest resources while accommodating the increasing social and economic demands from those resources requires an innovative, knowledge-based sector. The increase in global interests in forest sustainability over the last decade have increased pressure on the forestry sector to demonstrate that the best available information is used to make forest production and land management decisions. The drivers stimulating investment in sound, scientific information include concerns about the adequacy of environmental policies; market uncertainties and globalization; movement towards results-based policy regulation; technological advances to ensure effective, efficient use of resources; and increasing awareness of diverse ecological conditions and climate change. The key to application of advancements (innovations) is adoption and use of the knowledge arising from investments in science.

This paper introduces a knowledge exchange system that will help ensure the development and application of innovative solutions for advancing Canada's forest sector in light of social, economic and environmental values.

Background

Universities, government, industry and private sector research institutes in Canada are recognized for their capacity to develop and contribute science and technology (S&T) development information relevant to sustainable resource management. However, the information in this knowledge capital does not return a benefit to society unless those that need the knowledge (the customer) can acquire and use it to improve their decisions. It is the extension of knowledge that enables clients of forest S&T to be innovative and achieve a knowledge-based, sustainable forest sector.

A knowledge exchange system empowers individuals and corporations to access, understand and use knowledge capital to make more informed decisions. While the concept seems simple, connecting these entities is not. The knowledge generation and applications communities typically work in silos that are disconnected. Cultural, institutional and capacity barriers exist that preempt the use of innovations (Anderson 1997, Hollstedt and Swift 1999, NRCan 2002). These barriers are exacerbated by a rewards system that values peer-reviewed publications over extension products or services (DeYoe 1998, Graves 2000). A knowledge exchange system, which integrates knowledge generation with its application, would optimize the return on research investment by helping put new knowledge into practice.

Knowledge Exchange System

Putting knowledge to work is more easily said than done. Critical functions must be considered in the journey from basic research to adoption and use of new knowledge or technology (Figure 1). Nine knowledge system elements are identified and discussed below.

Understanding Extension

Extension is represented by a group of "knowledge exchange" activities that reside along the research to operations continuum between research; i.e., "knowledge generation", and operations; i.e., "knowledge application" (Figure 2). The term knowledge exchange reflects sharing of information and ideas within and between project participants representing different science disciplines and institutional sectors (Miller and Morris 1999). Knowledge exchange starts at the problem definition phase and continues through to the adoption and use phase. Although any new idea will likely involve only a few key innovators, it is important that the project team include all the individuals who will be responsible for key functions along the continuum. This ensures that desired customer outcomes are incorporated into the experimental design, analysis, and extension plan.

Figure 1. The research to operations continuum.

Figure 2. Key activities of the knowledge exchange system.

Respect Different "Real Worlds"!

The comment "you need to understand the real world" is often put to researchers by their customers. This comment could just as easily originate from the researcher. The world within which different institutional sectors reside is very different (Figure 3)! As the attributes of a good researcher and a good resource professional become evident, it is not surprising that a communications gap could exist between what is important and of value to individuals from these different, real worlds. Attempting to "push" these worlds together, although possible, can be fraught with pitfalls. Since it is critical that the researcher's plan aligns with the resource professional's needs, the challenge is building a bridge instead of a fence.

Figure 3. The different real worlds of research and operations professionals (from DeYoe 1998).

Build Extension Culture and Capacity

The attributes of the extension professional who fills the gap(s) between research and operations reflect a strong customer service ethic (Figure 4). The scope of their work is diverse, transcends multiple scales in space and time, and organizational sectors. Extension professionals are generalists with one foot in science, the other in education, policy, planning or operations, with experience in government, university, industry or community groups.

Figure 4. The role of extension specialists in filling the knowledge gap.

Filling the gap(s) in the research to operations continuum with one or more extension professionals is an efficient, effective approach. It requires resource allocation decisions designed to create an organization that is more strongly customer driven by ensuring science activities are aligned with corporate direction and business objectives (Roussel et al. 1991). This model is not characteristic of universities; however, current funding institutions that require federal research dollars to be matched by client organizations, obligate university-based programs to provide products and services beyond traditional peer-reviewed journal articles. Some institutions and programs are creating extension models to meet the growing demand for relevant extension products and services (DeYoe 1998,USDA Coop Extension, Forrex). These models are adapting to address the institutional, financial and inter-organizational barriers in the innovation community and focus on collaboration among players in the knowledge exchange system.

Building Relationships and Trust

Effective knowledge exchange is based on relationships and trust. Extension professionals are selected based, in part, on their proven abilities to develop and maintain strong relationships with their clientele and colleagues. Developing trust is a key focus for the extension professional, who serves as facilitator, synthesizer, translator, problem-solver, mediator and/or liaison to bring individuals together (Figure 4). Whether direct or facilitated, best practice would ensure a good relationship between the researcher and the customer, and an institutional environment that provides leadership, resources and management to develop and maintain that relationship.

Capturing Innovation - Engaging the Players

Discontinuous innovation, which can achieve significant advances, arises most often through the interaction of individuals from different science disciplines and institutional sectors (Miller and Morris 1999). This reflects convergent and collaborative thinking and discussion about desired outcomes and how the associated products and/or services can best be addressed by research. This contributes to "developmental" innovation. "Application" innovation describes secondary improvements that reflect client-driven alternatives for using the innovation.

Both types of innovations arise through engaging a diversity of people in the process of planning, and delivering the research to achieve the desired outcome(s) and are a primary focus for the extension professional.

Know Your Customer!

Understanding your customer, why they need information and how they would use it is critical to effective knowledge exchange (Hollstedt et al. in press).

Customers are frequently segmented into several groups - innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards (Rogers 1995). Innovators and early adopters are the adventurers and opinion leaders, respectively, and represent the small percentage of individuals (or organizations) that are critical in helping move new ideas and/or technologies into the marketplace. The early and late majority and laggards reflect individuals (organizations) that, respectively, procrastinate/deliberate, are skeptical or risk averse, or simply will not change until the world has passed them by. Focusing knowledge exchange efforts on the innovators and early adopters can help build advocacy and facilitate flow of information, triggering action by the early and late majority.

Due to the diversity of customer groups, it is important to identify and cater to the primary customer - the person (or organization) who pays the bill for the product or service you are providing, for whom the information or tool is specifically targeted, or who represents a "go-between" responsible for helping facilitate the transfer process. In the latter, for example, the basic researcher often relies on the applied researcher to transform a theoretical principal into a more practical tool, and the applied researcher relies on an extension professional to understand, translate and deliver the tool to the customer receptor team, the members of which represent the hub for communication flow within the organization. Failing to recognize the "client continuum" can derail the information flow.

Asking the Right Question

Historically the research community has asked customers what information they want or what questions they have rather than where they hope to be and what is preventing them from getting there. A better approach is to ask the customer what they want a new product or service to do for them, which provides an open invitation to seek innovative solutions. The best opportunities spring from those desired outcomes that are important to customers but are not yet satisfied by existing products or services. This opportunities-based approach improves upon gap analysis, which considers only the difference between importance and satisfaction (Ulwick 2002). The process for soliciting desired outcomes requires a facilitated approach in which the facilitator has the skills and insight to translate ambiguous dialogue into desired outcomes.

Preparing Participants to Excel

Critical players in the knowledge exchange process are the researcher and the customer. However, rarely have researchers or graduate students been exposed to the principles and practice of knowledge exchange. Further, most customers have limited "current" understanding of how or why a given piece of new knowledge/technology will simplify, add value to, or improve their job. Although these are pretty basic deficiencies, they are critical to success.

Researchers and graduate students have been trained to produce technical publications and follow rigid journal protocols that focus on scientific rigour, not communication to a non-technical audience. This is important, but does not help the researcher understand the format required by a customer to facilitate adoption and use of new information or technology. Thus, lack of understanding of what is needed and how to provide it becomes an obstacle to transfer. This coupled with a rewards and incentive system that discourages serving non-technical customers, particularly in academia, exacerbates the problem. The problem can be resolved by instituting undergraduate or graduate course work and/or professional development workshops that teach best practices for knowledge exchange activities (Figure 2), and by modifying reward programs for researchers.

Customers also need continuous education and/or training, particularly as it relates to the knowledge advances that set new theoretical precedents, which call for a change in policy, practice or way of doing business. When people do not understand why they should change, putting new principles to practice becomes very difficult. One solution is mid-career education that focuses on rejuvenating the theoretical foundations of ecological, economic and social sciences for these resource professionals (e.g., Forest Management Institute of BC; Gauthier et al. 2002).

Breakdown Intra-organizational Barriers

Breaking down the array of intra-organizational barriers to adopting new knowledge or technology involves developing an organizational learning culture, and actively identifying and eliminating barriers to change. Corporate learning is a function of corporate philosophy and culture, which enables the organization to anticipate, react and respond to change, complexity and uncertainty.

Successful companies find ways to preserve knowledge for the future and leverage that knowledge into practice. A learning organization incorporates knowledge management into business processes, and creates processes, technologies, and collaboration opportunities to enable learning from published and unpublished materials and the experience of individuals.

To embrace the principles of corporate learning and put them into practice requires a substantive investment in human resources - an investment that is not among the first items cut during expenditure reduction.

If this commitment to learning is achieved, barriers to adopting new technology can be minimized. If not, these barriers become a substantive impediment to innovation and production growth (Millar and Morris 1999, Szulanski and Winter 2002). An examination of the common barriers to transfer (Table 1) reveal that they are largely a function of four critical factors: personal relationships and trust, education, motivation and organizational culture. These can be assessed to determine which present intra-organizational issues that require corrective action at one or more specific steps in the corporate transfer process.

Benefits Gained from Investing in Extension

Extension professionals who engage in knowledge exchange activities rarely promote themselves, or the institution of knowledge exchange. Consequently, extension often finds itself playing second fiddle to research and development when in fact it is the array of knowledge exchange, or product-to-market, activities that are responsible for profiling research and development (R&D) in the eye of the customer in the first place. The downside of this invisibility is the lack of the organizational support necessary to adequately enable the extension function to ensure advances in R&D translate into organizational benefits.

Benefits arising from knowledge exchange activities include:

• Science activities are better aligned with corporate strategic goals and business objectives

• Resources can be allocated to support new knowledge/innovations that enhance production growth and competitive advantage for the business

• Policy and practices keep pace with the demands of the public and stakeholders for efficient, effective and equitable management systems

• Researchers (and/or institutions) receive positive feedback for their contributions and are more likely to receive additional funding

• Resources are used more efficiently by identifying where technology transfer will suffice, conserving research dollars for higher priority needs

• Researchers and resource managers can focus on their primary function when extension professionals are engaged to fill the research to operations gap

• Innovation results are more likely to be adopted and commercialized

• Return on research investments are maximized either through updated policies, improved practices or product development and market expansion

• Trust in information and information sources increases

• Resistance to adaptation through innovation is minimized

Benefits provided by knowledge exchange activities serve as strong justification for investment in extension. A number of effective extension models exist; however, whether elaborate or bare bones, the key to success is adequate investment to develop and maintain the necessary infrastructure to effectively deliver the full array of knowledge exchange activities to the target audience (Figure 2). The lack of adequate investment enables competitors to capitalize on R&D innovations to their benefit - a scenario experienced in the US during the early stages of the information technology revolution, and now being witnessed in Canada with the advent of a new bio-economy (Oliver 2000).

Summary

Information is not knowledge until it is known, and knowledge is not innovation until it is used. An adequately resourced innovation system of knowledge generation, knowledge exchange and knowledge application for the forest sector will ensure that Canada remains a world leader in forest products and forest sustainability.

Table 1. Common barriers to transfer (adapted from Szulanski 2000).

Literature Cited

Anderson, J. 1997. The potential influence of land tenure regimes on forestry extension strategies (approaches). P. 151 in Proceedings of Forestry Extension: Science and Practice in the 21^st Century. September 7-9, 1997. Nairobi, Kenya

DeYoe, D. 1998. Respecting and linking different real worlds. Pp. 35-47 in Extension Forestry: Bridging the Gap between Research and Application. Blacksburg, VA, 19-24 July 1998. Third IUFRO Extension Working Party Symp.

Gauthier, J., C. Parsons and R. Comeau. 2002. Are forest practitioners in Canada keeping up-to-date with Continuing Forestry Education? For. Chron. 78(2): 226-230.

Graves, W.H. 2000. Learning-centric virtual education: An extended conversation with William Graves. http://www.cisp.org/imp/july_2000/07_00graves.htm. 8 pp.

Hollstedt, C. and K. Swift. 1999.Barriers to integrating science into policy and practice. Pp. 33-24 in From Science to Management and Back: A Science Forum for Southern Interior Ecosystems of British Columbia. Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership. SIFERP Series 1. 146 pp.

Hollstedt, C., K. Swift, T. Innes and M. Hadley. (in press). Corporate learning and knowledge management: A British Columbia forest industry case study. BC J. Ecosystems Manage.

Malhotra, Y. 1996. Organizational learning and learning organizations: An overview.[web-based document]. URL http://www.brint.com/papers/orglrng.htm

Miller, W.L. and L. Morris. 1999. Fourth Generation R&D: Managing Knowledge, Technology and Innovation. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY. 347 pp.

Natural Resources Canada. 2000. Innovation and skills in Canada's natural resources sector. Discussion Paper. www.nrcan.gc.ca. 9 pp.

Oliver, R.W. 1999. The Coming Biotech Age: The Business of Bio-materials. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 266 pp.

Roussel, P., K.N. Saad, L.D. Tamara. 1991. Third Generation R&D: Managing
the Link to Corporate Strategy. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

Szulanski, G. 2000. The process of knowledge transfer: A Diachronic analysis of stickiness. Org. Behavior Human Dec. Proc. 82(1): 9-27.

Szulanski, G. and S. Winter. 2002. Getting it right the second time. Harv. Bus. Rev. 80(1): 62-69.

Ulwick, A.W. 2002. Turn customer input into innovation. Harv. Bus. Rev. 80(1): 91-97.