Why are discoveries different from inventions

We all have the opportunity now, to take our experience and knowledge and invest that in the organization. We can take a break from our traditional leadership roles of meetings and schedules and take the time to step back, and give back, and be the leader that supports the innovation lying dormant within our own businesses.

Bill Walker is an IT guy, globalization driver, door opener, and super-dad traveling the globe to solve the sticky problems.

Skip Article Header. Skip to: Start of Article. Originally posted by:. Bill Walker. View original post. Skip Social. Skip to: Latest News. Share Share Tweet Comment Email. Skip Comments. Skip to: Footer. View comments. Submit Thank You. Invalid Email. Follow Us On Facebook Don't miss our latest news, features and videos. Production methods ensure that the innovations final form is designed to meet constraints of functionality, physical dimensions, and cost. Accomplishing production activity requires a precise understanding of the intended market and the requirements of the customers for that device or service.

The final form must be specified in exacting detail, as the raw materials and components must be ordered in economically advantageous quantities, while the tooling and assembly work must be planned to operate efficiently.

Only then will the device or service be competitive in the commercial marketplace. The high level of specification and planning locks the innovation in a final form that can no longer be modified without substantial cost in materials and tooling. The innovation state of knowledge is equivalent to the solid state of matter.

An innovation remains in the marketplace until replaced by another innovation offering greater utility. Such a replacement will have recapitulated the same sequential transformation of technology-related knowledge from research discovery, through development invention, and on out to production innovation. Differentiating between research-based discoveries, development-based inventions, and production-based innovations is a critical first step to generating operational versions of the KTA model pertaining to the context of technology transfer and commercialization.

In fact, a study describing an operational version of the KTA model [ 16 ] gave rise to the idea of modifying the KTA model to accommodate the development and production phases of commercialization see Figures 1 , 2 , and 3. Specifically, the KTA's knowledge creation funnel representing research activity can be replicated to incorporate the development and production activities necessary to achieve invention and innovation outputs.

Similarly, the KTA model's action cycle can be replicated to represent the different approaches necessary to effectively communicate the unique nature of discoveries, inventions, and innovations. Adapting models is one thing. Ensuring fidelity to the concepts underlying the model is something else.

The extant literature coupled with new research activity form the foundation for KT. These primary and secondary resources fuel the KT processes of quality assessment rigor , synthesis evidence , and tailored communication relevance.

What are the corollary concepts for technology-related projects? Rigorous quality assessments rely on the three methodologies research, development, and production , each applied within their own context. Given the narrow focus of the eventual goal, decision making relies on the synthesis of primary evidence collected from the full range of stakeholders. Relevance is paramount for knowledge input and output, again focused on the eventual goal of a device or service in the marketplace.

The implementation of scientific findings requires additional efforts. Traditionally passive dissemination and utilization strategies are used for scholarship, with the primary audience being others academics who read the journals and who attend the conferences for their own professional advancement.

The shared culture and language that facilitates communication within this relatively closed system acts as a barrier for communication to other stakeholders. KT ensures that the knowledge producer works with the knowledge consumers. With input from knowledge consumers, the knowledge producers appraise the quality of research outputs, synthesize the work with other relevant sources, and translate the source format and language describing the conceptual discovery into formats and language most appropriate for effective communication to the outside stakeholders [ 17 , 7 ].

Both techniques are expected to lead to the direct application of discoveries by stakeholders. For technology-related discoveries, stakeholder use may require further research activity to expand the discovery or development activity to generate inventions. Stakeholder use may even continue through production activity to generate innovations. These downstream outcomes create opportunities for knowledge in the innovation state to have beneficial impacts on the quality of life for end users.

The KT approach has both costs and benefits to the investigator. It can increase the likelihood of achieving the intended outcomes and impacts, and accelerate the timeframes involved in doing so. It also exacts significant additional costs, including the commitment of additional time, effort, and resources on the part of the knowledge producer.

This is not a role for which academics are traditionally trained or rewarded, but these costs are no more discretionary than those required to ensure rigor in the research process itself. Federal agencies allocate funds to university-based scholars for the purpose of generating discoveries through research methods. However, many federal agencies also allocate funds to university and corporate laboratories to generate development-based inventions, and to manufacturers for production-based innovations relevant to the federal agency's mission.

All parties recognize the value of transforming technology-related knowledge into devices and services. For applied research fields, such as such as technology-based devices and services, it is important to look beyond the first state of knowledge—discovery. The subsequent states of invention and innovation help frame how knowledge can be applied to solve problems related to quality of life.

Given their contributions to the desired impact, the downstream roles of development and production activity should be considered from the inception point of any technology-related project. Recall that the KTA model assumes on-going or completed research activity as the starting point.

Even this point is fairly far along in the process. Before one can initiate research an agency identified a priority, wrote and circulated a request for proposals, applicants wrote and submitted proposals, a peer-review process occurred, and funding was awarded and disbursed according to some timeframe. Only then does research activity commence via project implementation. The stakeholders involved in these prior actions have done much to pre-ordain the problem as amenable to research-based knowledge applied by stakeholders.

By suspending the inherent assumption that the discovery outputs of research activity are the only outputs in need of translation, stakeholders are freed to consider how to solve problems with technology-related knowledge in the form of invention or innovation outputs. Six approaches to solving problems have been developed using various combinations of research, development, and production activities.

It is important to note that quality appraisal and synthesis activities, which are key components of many KT models, are not described in these approaches. As portrayed in the discussion section of this paper, comparable activities are performed before research activity begins. These steps obviate the need for additional quality appraisal and synthesis at the completion of research. Further, quality appraisal and synthesis activities occur throughout the NTK model using techniques appropriate for invention and innovation outputs.

Need to research to KT—Identify needs problems and potential solutions. Generate a new discovery solution and communicate its value to target stakeholders. Need to research and development to KT—A new discovery, based on unmet needs, transformed into an invention, then offered to stakeholders for future innovation. Need to research, development, and production to KT—A new discovery, based on unmet needs, transformed into an invention, and then specified as a device or service innovation, with its utility communicated to stakeholders.

Need to development and production to KT—An invention based on unmet needs and prior discoveries, transformed into an innovative device or service, with its utility communicated to stakeholders.

Need to production to KT—An innovation in the form of a device or service, based on unmet needs and prior research and development activity, distributed to stakeholders. Need to KT—All the necessary research, development, and production work has already been done based on defined unmet needs.

This option revisits the communication of the completed work to ensure it is offered in the appropriate forms and methods to the pertinent stakeholders for their future implementation.

Regardless of the chosen approach, all projects should integrate KT activities into their processes from their inception—a 'prior to grant' approach, rather than an end of grant or integrated approach to KT.

As demonstrated in the preceding approaches, a 'prior to grant' approach starts with a defined need, such as a societal problem deemed worthy of government intervention. Appropriate due diligence then verifies that technology-related knowledge could solve the problem.

Integration of stakeholders into the definition of problems and solutions ensures that future outputs in the form of discoveries, inventions, or innovations would have receptive stakeholders who are aware and ready for implementation. Using predefined needs to determine what knowledge to produce is the foundation of and reason for the title of the Need to Knowledge NTK model. This model does not assume that knowledge exists and must be put into action, but rather that needs exist, and knowledge may contribute to a solution.

If a funding agency requires projects to achieve fairly specific deliverables, a principal investigator could propose a scope that is bounded at the front end by any preceding activity as foundational knowledge, and bounded at the back end by ensuing activity to complete the continuum from problem input to solution impact.

Any ongoing research discoveries could be applied to the specific problem under study, while still being incorporated as contributions to the global knowledge base. The authors generated an operational KT model by expanding the KTA model's framework to integrate the three states of knowledge and the methods used to transform knowledge from one state to another.

Each state of knowledge involves its own unique set of adaptations to the KTA model, both down through the 'knowledge creation funnel,' and out around the 'action cycle.

The following section describes the key elements of the NTK model's structure in terms of stages, gates and steps. A 'prior to grant' perspective does not presume a requirement for research activity. Instead, it presumes that the application of technology-related knowledge in some state and through some activity may be a valid solution to a social problem.

Thus, the definition of the need precedes the validation of a knowledge-based solution. The solution is expected to take the form of a technology-based device or service available to stakeholders in the marketplace. The solution follows from the problem definition. The NTK model expands the application of the KTA model from an exclusive focus on research methods to considering the methods most appropriate to solving the problem. For technology-related knowledge these include the methods applied in device or service development and those of industrial or commercial production.

The methods for knowledge application and knowledge implementation deserve parity with the empirical methods for knowledge generation - at least within the applied contexts referenced here.

The NTK model represents the entire continuum of required activities, from problem statement through solution delivery. These activities are expected to be accomplished by some combination of stakeholders over time. Although presented here as a linear model, the collective activities may be recursive, iterative, or even disjointed.

In this example, the model is applied to assistive technology for persons with disabilities. It may be equally applicable to all forms of technology-related innovations in fields such as medical, consumer products, housing, transportation, and alternative energy.

As previously described, the NTK model contains three phases, each named for the state of knowledge generated by the primary activity in that phase: discovery, invention, and innovation. The three phases are cumulative in that successive knowledge states arise out of the preceding states. Iterations are possible.

Invention state knowledge may reveal a need for additional discovery state knowledge. The project's knowledge must progress to the innovations state to achieve the intended beneficial impact on a target audience. Each phase contains three activity stages and three associated decision gates. The activity stages specify what the project needs to accomplish at that point. Some of the activities help the project progress sequentially. Other activities help the project prepare to address barriers encountered later in the process, or to obviate those downstream barriers entirely.

KT recognizes the importance of tailoring the knowledge message to the language, culture, and values of each stakeholder group. The KT process itself can be tailored to the current knowledge state. In the NTK model, each phase of activity ends with the subject knowledge in a different state than when the phase began. At the end of each phase, the project conducts KT activities tailored to that state of knowledge. The project should ensure that any knowledge is disclosed properly and with forethought for the subsequent consequences.

KT is an opportunity to initiate active communication with the appropriate stakeholders regarding discoveries, inventions, or innovations, even while project work continues.

In cases where the project terminates at the earlier knowledge states of discovery or invention, the KT process is a means for engaging stakeholders. This can be done by identifying lessons learned, sharing results from preliminary assessments and other forms of synthesis, such as a business case or technical report, and recommending opportunities for future endeavors.

The stakeholders' experience may be more appropriate to continue the project through related methods to achieve the intended beneficial impact. Offering the aforementioned information in formats readily absorbed by the stakeholder group helps to ensure that the project will indeed move forward. The NTK model is predicated on the three different states of knowledge involved in a technology-related project. An operational-level model needs to explicitly address these differences to ensure that the subject knowledge is effectively communicated to the relevant stakeholder groups, as it is successively transformed into different states.

Phase I conducts research activity to achieve the discovery state of knowledge. It involves three stages and three decision gates. It shows stages one, two, and three in the discovery creation funnel, and shows the appropriate activities to communicate a research-based discovery in the action cycle:.

Justification to generate a business case? The KTA model may proceed from knowledge creation to problem application, or proceed from problem identification to knowledge creation. This is entirely appropriate for a model accommodating both inquiry- and need-driven research. The KTA model accommodates unanticipated or serendipitous opportunities to create and apply research.

In contrast, the NTK model contends that when both the sponsor and the investigator intend to solve a problem with a technology-related solution, the process should begin with the definition of the problem and the solution in stage one, and the identification of the appropriate method for effective intervention in stage two.

In these instances, stages one and two are critical to ensure that government agencies are funding technology-related projects with actual relevance to society, and to ensure that an investigator's efforts are focused to generate beneficial impacts downstream.

The NTK model's discovery phase starts with stage one. The problem is defined before any research is initiated or even considered as a viable solution. Stage one defines a problem, articulates solutions, and establishes the overall goal. Stage two defines the project's potential contribution to the overall goal.

Neither is sufficient to justify the investment of public funds in a protracted process of knowledge creation and application. Both funders and grantees should be confident that the due diligence was performed in stage two to ensure that the project is novel, can be accomplished, fits within prior and ensuing work, and has a high likelihood of generating beneficial impacts through technology-related devices or services.

If stages one and two define and justify a requirement to generate new knowledge through research, stage three commences to do so. This is a key point of intersection between the NTK model's discovery phase and the KTA model's knowledge creation process.

At that point, both models are engaged in the creation of new knowledge discovery while considering its subsequent application. As both of these models transition from the knowledge creation process to the action cycle, and from the discovery phase to invention phase, they both address a problem with conceptual knowledge.

The critical difference between the KTA and NTK models is that the preliminary work performed in the NTK model's stages one and two provide a validated context for the application of the knowledge.

These stages obviate the search for a problem context by starting with a problem and then designing a project to generate or apply knowledge as a solution. The NTK discovery phase adapts the descriptions in KTA action cycle blocks to fit this focused context by revising the text to fit the discovery state of knowledge.

As the NTK discovery phase action cycle moves in a clockwise direction, the stage one and stage two work provides invaluable information for communicating the discovery to the target audience, as well as to the other stakeholders who have potential uses for the discovery. Customizing the form and content of a vehicle for communicating a discovery to each stakeholder group is central to the KT process.

The customizing includes the language, culture, and value systems of each group, as well as the organizational level targeted e. The customizing should also consider the three types of knowledge use that may be pursued by individual stakeholders e. Creating a framework at this level of detail is very important for projects expected to result in technology-related devices or services.

To achieve success, most if not all of the various stakeholder groups must recognize the value in the underlying knowledge. Various groups may have more or less appreciation for each of the three states of knowledge, but in the end they all must demonstrate support for the project's goal. The level of support among the stakeholders is an important input for the decision-makers involved in the decision gates that follow each stage of activity.

If they determine that one or more stakeholder groups will either ignore or actively oppose the new device or service, internal decision-makers may terminate the project, or external decision-makers may withhold additional support.

Getting a new device or service introduced into the marketplace requires that all nine decision gates result in a decision to proceed.

Each decision to proceed only leads to the next decision gate, while decisions to terminate a project or simply cease involvement stop progress toward the goal, but still call for KT activity. The NTK discovery phase is foundational work. This foundation may be built from the identification of previous knowledge discoveries, or it may require the creation of new knowledge. Nevertheless, the foundation alone is not sufficient to achieve the goal.

The NTK discovery phase only encompasses one-third of the total number of stages. Decision gate three following stage three is a very important decision to move from discovery to invention. This decision has tremendous implications for time, effort, and resources. The decision-makers in the sponsor and project organizations should also be mindful of the importance of shifting the project's primary methodology from research to development. As stated earlier, the conduct of research activity is optional within the NTK model.

Decision gate two determines if the project initiates stage three research activity. The analyses conducted in stages one and two may determine that a technology-related solution does not require the discovery of new knowledge. The knowledge may already reside in the published literature, in which case the project moves directly to knowledge application under development methods. Or, the knowledge may reside in application in another field of use. In that case, the tools of technology transfer may be appropriate to apply as part of the development process.

In either case, if the solution to the problem does not require research activity, the project could move directly from decision gate two to stage four within the invention phase. Phase II conducts development activity to achieve the invention state of knowledge.

Figure 2 shows stages four, five, and six in the invention creation funnel, and shows the appropriate activities to communicate a development-based invention in the action cycle:.

The conceptual technology-related discovery generated or identified in phase I can now be transformed into knowledge in the invention state. The invention phase represents knowledge as a tangible asset with value. The phrase 'intellectual property' recognizes knowledge as such an asset. The patent and trademark system exists to identify and protect ownership of any intellectual property.

The patent review considers both novelty and feasibility—the two attributes we define here as representing the invention state of knowledge. Novelty was established during the discovery phase, and now the project demonstrates its feasibility by designing and testing the knowledge in a prototype form.

A patent provides the invention owner with the legal rights to practice its use in applications yet to be determined. Beyond the patent reviewer's subjective decision that the invention is useful, the patent review process does not consider the objective market utility of the invention.

This limitation supports this paper's distinction between an invention that must have a 'useful purpose' and be operational [ 20 ], and an innovation that must have commercial viability. For this reason, projects intended to result in an innovation must conduct preliminary work to verify not only the eventual utility of the intended device or service, but also its marketability.

Stages four through six, described in the following paragraphs, ensure that these conditions are met. Stage four, build business case and scope development plan, is a check to ensure that the next block of effort will likely meet the requirements of external partners—particularly the manufacturers and service deliverers.

Researchers are not trained to consider the economic consequences of their actions, but the business case requirement ensures that the appropriate knowledge is gathered, synthesized, and analyzed in consideration of the external stakeholder partners. With this analysis in place, the investigator and their funding source can make an informed decision to implement the development plan or pursue another line of activity decision gate four.

Stage five, implement development plan, follows from a decision to proceed. Development implementation involves building models or components that perform in practice the function envisioned in concept. These early stage models are called 'alpha' prototypes, as they are the preliminary versions.

The alpha prototypes or their components are subjected to trial and measurement for the purpose of further refinement. User input is gained through focus groups to identify both essential and optional features and functions.

A discovery As a result of the discovery, nothing has changed apart from an associated increase in knowledge. Discoveries are therefore the first description of a natural law or a law derived from natural laws. An invention However, a correlation exists with already known items, to which changes are made, meaning that the effect is improved in terms of quantity or quality.