This morning’s Open Coffee had some visitors from the research community asking about user generated innovations in the field of intelligent transport systems. Prof Glynn Lyonns and Dr’s Juliet Jain and Tilly Line are leading the activity to better understand this bottom up innovation driver in an industry that is dominated by top-down incrementalism.
The discussions quickly wheeled around forms of innovation, the challenges facing government in supporting innovations, and the competing interests after the funding that the Technology Strategy Board is making available. Nick Sturge (SetSquared) was on hand to provide a wider city and business perspective and the entrepreneur / innovators started coming up with both ideas and examples that I’m sure will keep Glynn, Juliet at Tilly busy for several weeks to come.
It was great to also welcome Sam Tipper from Gloucestershire who was pointed at OpenCoffee by Chris and got the details via chatting with Sam Harding via the GTalk widget on this website; and Robin from Bath who’s providing media businesses with growth and development consultancy support (and launching a business start up; website pending).
OpenCoffee will be running through the summer, every other Tues from about 8.30 in Starbucks on Park St (the next few are on 29 July, 12 & 26 Aug). Contact me at email@example.com to be added to the email reminder list and/or follow OpenCoffeeBR1 on Twitter for reminders and nudges.
Yesterday was spent in Manchester at the NESTA launch of their latest report (pdf not live yet) into innovation in the Creative Industries.
From a broad reading of the report, it seems to largely reflect last year’s report that much innovation in industry isn’t recorded in official statistics rather than not taking place. The Creative Industries face a further double whammy since very small and micro companies (under 10 employees) are excluded from the official returns, as are many of the SIC codes that cover the sector. Prof’s Ian Miles and Lawrence Green recognise that the existing surveys are a potential burden that the micro companies could probably do without, except that without the evidence base there won’t be policy and incentives from central Government.
This could be a valuable role for places like the Pervasive Media Studio and Universities? Aggregating and presenting an industry perspective on behalf of the micro business communities?
Most of the findings from the case study interviews could apply across pretty much any sector. Customers are more sophisticated, networked, discriminating and active. Not sure there are many industries where that isn’t the case. One point of note was a comment from the video games industry (one of the 4 sub-sector foci) for novel titles, sophistication and interfaces – wonder how that translates to the explosion in casual & mobile gaming, Kongregate, Gameloft, the Wii etc?
One aspect that might be unique was the reported lack of innovation management. Some of this is undoubtedly down to the speed of change and comparative size of companies, but may also be down to a culture of perpetual beta. Many of the associated issues that have been reported could be related to company size. How many firms under 10 employees have a dedicated R&D budget, or a formal knowledge management system whatever industry they’re in?
How about providing/managing a framework for Open Innovation as a role for HE in the creative sector?
On the 8th April, I blogged about an article being accepted for publication in the International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Today I received the digital object identifier (DOI) can be used to cite and link to electronic documents. The DOI never changes which makes it an ideal medium for citing articles. The DOI my article is – doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2008.04.004. Depending on your institutional or personal access you maybe able to access the whole article from this link. If not you should be able to view the abstract, although I have written it out below (with permission from the journal).
From 2001 to 2005, 66 patients referred for perioperative hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO2) for debridement of necrotic tissue or prevention of radionecrosis were assessed with quality of life measures, before and after completion of HBO2 and surgery. The Medical Outcomes Short Form 36 (SF-36) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) showed no significant changes. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core (EORTC-C30) questionnaire showed significant improvement in pain, global health, and dyspnoea (p = 0.011; p = 0.027; p = 0.008, respectively). The Head and Neck sub-module (H&N35) identified significant improvements in teeth, dry mouth and social contact (p = 0.002; p = 0.038; p = 0.029, respectively). The University of Washington Scale (UW), showed significant changes in relation to chewing and shoulders (p = 0.031; p = 0.047). When sub-group analysis using ‘osteoradionecrosis’ and ‘dental extraction or implants’ was performed on the EORTC and UW data, variations in the patterns of significance were found. Adjunctive HBO2 should be considered for the treatment and prevention of some of the long-term complications of radiotherapy.
LINQ is a self-complete questionnaire that measures the information needs of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). LINQ can also be used for patients with some other chronic lung diseases. It is not suitable for patients with asthma.
What is it used for?
LINQ is designed to help clinicians identify which patients would be helped by information and the type of information an individual patient needs. This questionnaire can also be used to evaluate the impact of intervention, including pulmonary rehabilitation, for research and audit purpose.
Why am I writing about it?
I have been involved with the development of LINQ for the last four years, and think it is a really valuable tool. Over this period we have used LINQ in a number of projects and it has be embraced by doctors working with patients suffering from chronic lung conditions.
We have had several papers published reporting patient needs and the relaibility and validity of LINQ, and have recently had another paper accepted reporting LINQs ability to measure change in information needs. The details of this publication will soon be posted on the research page, but if this is a topic you are interested in, then visit the LINQ homepage and learn a bit more about it.
One last thing is,who can use LINQ?
The LINQ is freely available for clinical use and not-for-profit research. It can be downloaded from the homepage in multiple languages. Because it is still a ‘young’ scale, it would be helpful if researchers email me or one of the members of the team listed on the LINQ website let us know if they intend to use it, so we can update them if needed. This is, however, entirely voluntary. We welcome comments about the experience of using the scale, and any data you care to share with us.
People not involved in research may consider this a silly question, as the answer is obvious: the people that did the work or at least wrote it up for publication. But what happens when lots of people did something, or there is a senior member of the department who historically gets their names on the articles because of who they are? Indeed a question more often asked within departments is, ‘what is order of authors?’. But I would argue that many of the historical practices leading to multiple authors may be inaccurate and even inappropriate. Being the ‘boss’ or part of the larger team, does not entitle you to being a named author.
The International Committee Medical Journal Editors and Blackwell-Synergy publishing, say that the authorship criteria are;
1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and
3) final approval of the version to be published.
and that to be an author you should meet conditions 1, 2 and 3.
Whilst all other contributors who do not qualify as authors should be listed and their particular contribution described in an acknowledgement section.
I think these guidelines are very clear and consequently I would like this information to be more widely disseminated. This would be of great benefit to junior researchers who may have been left off papers and also as armoury to use with those higher in their institutions who feel they have the right to be included, but have made little or no contribution to the work.
In short what is important is your contribution, not your rank!