Today's Technology in the City symposium offered a fascinating glimpse into some of the projects being done by our Technology students. Projects included a remote controlled lawn mower, a robot climber, a biodiesel project that was part of the World House project, an assistive mobility device, a drain water heat exchanger, and the dual-stage rain water purifier, among many others. This last project purifies rain water without any electricity, instead using solar power and UV radiation and pasteurization to achieve purification. Amazing.
Some of these projects will likely be pursued further, as they offer innovative solutions to industrial problems, and have definite market potential. The event, and these projects, all showcase the talent of our faculty and students in applied research and excellene in teaching and learning. What's really great about these projects is that they were done by students as part of course work. This is what College applied research is all about.
Keynote presenters included Mark Wilson, Chair of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation and Anthony Williams, co-author of Wikinomics. Their addresses reinforced the fact that the skills and innovation being produced by our faculty, staff and students will have a significant impact on the economic prosperity of Ontario, and the world of technology.
17 May 2007
16 May 2007
Community of practice, scholars
Yesterday's Applied Research 101 workshop was a success, as about 70 faculty and staff members came to discuss applied research at George Brown. We had five poster presentations from active research projects currently underway at the College; these are just a few of the many projects underway.
Roger Fisher's talk gave us a good overview of faculty attitudes towards applied research in Canada, Ontario and at GBC. We also had a good discussion about the relative merits of applied research, the challenges and the opportunities.
Above all, we have the start of a community of practice around scholarly activity across the many faculties at George Brown. There was a lot of interest in sharing ideas and resources, and I was buoyed by the response to the suggestion that we convene groups to help build capacity.
Watch this space for more updates. The faculty posters and the presentations are available on our website.
Roger Fisher's talk gave us a good overview of faculty attitudes towards applied research in Canada, Ontario and at GBC. We also had a good discussion about the relative merits of applied research, the challenges and the opportunities.
Above all, we have the start of a community of practice around scholarly activity across the many faculties at George Brown. There was a lot of interest in sharing ideas and resources, and I was buoyed by the response to the suggestion that we convene groups to help build capacity.
Watch this space for more updates. The faculty posters and the presentations are available on our website.
11 May 2007
Open source learning
Are open source and open access commensurate with the protection of intellectual property?
The previous post on the memetics of innovation alludes to the cross-pollination of ideas that can come with the conflation of ideas that cross boundaries. Collaborating to compete picks up on recent press on transparency and access to corporate trade secrets. The current running through both these issues is this: the creative tension arising from making ideas freely available and protecting intellectual property is useful for understanding and promoting applied research.
Open source learning, which I have elsewhere described as “the theory of knowledge sharing and production in both formal and informal settings . . . typifies how the free availability of information and the sharing of knowledge can benefit communities that cooperate towards common goals.” Innovation and invention do not occur in a vacuum, but rather happen in fits and starts, with each idea building on the one preceding. The principles of open source and open access offer us a way to release information (products, services) into public discussion in order to advance our collective understanding, and so development (be this technical or social). Memes and viral advertising are examples of how things get picked up; mashups using the Google maps API are one example of how the release of proprietary systems (with “some rights reserved”) can spur innovation while retaining some rights to intellectual property.
The lone inventor working in his basement, waiting to reveal his precious invention to the world, will emerge to find that this world has passed him by. Putting ideas into circulation gives them currency. We can retain rights to our intellectual property and build systems (in this sense technical) that offer alternative business models for the commercialization of applied research. And releasing our ideas lets us ensure that others don’t take credit for them; we’ve all heard of cases where ideas are stolen or grafted onto someone else’s project. This form of extreme plagiarism is rampant (perhaps nowhere more so than in academe).
In the headlong rush to the next big idea, the propensity to wall off ideas to protect their proprietary value stifles innovation. This is not to say that there should be no intellectual property protection; far from it. We publish results of our studies and protect trade secrets in order to ensure that our intellectual property accrues to us. This is as it should be. The trick is in finding a balance between the advance of knowledge and our right to protect our intellectual property from misuse and misappropriation.
The previous post on the memetics of innovation alludes to the cross-pollination of ideas that can come with the conflation of ideas that cross boundaries. Collaborating to compete picks up on recent press on transparency and access to corporate trade secrets. The current running through both these issues is this: the creative tension arising from making ideas freely available and protecting intellectual property is useful for understanding and promoting applied research.
Open source learning, which I have elsewhere described as “the theory of knowledge sharing and production in both formal and informal settings . . . typifies how the free availability of information and the sharing of knowledge can benefit communities that cooperate towards common goals.” Innovation and invention do not occur in a vacuum, but rather happen in fits and starts, with each idea building on the one preceding. The principles of open source and open access offer us a way to release information (products, services) into public discussion in order to advance our collective understanding, and so development (be this technical or social). Memes and viral advertising are examples of how things get picked up; mashups using the Google maps API are one example of how the release of proprietary systems (with “some rights reserved”) can spur innovation while retaining some rights to intellectual property.
The lone inventor working in his basement, waiting to reveal his precious invention to the world, will emerge to find that this world has passed him by. Putting ideas into circulation gives them currency. We can retain rights to our intellectual property and build systems (in this sense technical) that offer alternative business models for the commercialization of applied research. And releasing our ideas lets us ensure that others don’t take credit for them; we’ve all heard of cases where ideas are stolen or grafted onto someone else’s project. This form of extreme plagiarism is rampant (perhaps nowhere more so than in academe).
In the headlong rush to the next big idea, the propensity to wall off ideas to protect their proprietary value stifles innovation. This is not to say that there should be no intellectual property protection; far from it. We publish results of our studies and protect trade secrets in order to ensure that our intellectual property accrues to us. This is as it should be. The trick is in finding a balance between the advance of knowledge and our right to protect our intellectual property from misuse and misappropriation.
08 May 2007
The memetics of innovation
A book review published today under the byline “Innovation” offers some good insights on collaboration. The review cites Richard Dawkins’s theory of memes – ideas that propagate themselves like genes – as a metaphor for understanding the intersection of professional boundaries as the nexus of innovation. Interdisciplinary, interprofessional, multidisciplinary – all of these words are used to describe the collision of ideas and professional boundaries.
Invention is accidental; putting disparate elements together fosters instances of understanding and connection. This is the goal of innovation.
Invention is accidental; putting disparate elements together fosters instances of understanding and connection. This is the goal of innovation.
07 May 2007
Collaborate to Compete
Also the title of a recent book, the phrase Collaborate to Compete aptly describes the philosophy of CONII, and the move of Ontario Colleges to work together to provide a virtual research cluster or network model to facilitate application of applied research into industrial contexts. I heard about this book from a former colleague, and the core idea is a good one. The basic idea is that we can be stronger if we work together.
I thought of this book and the concept this morning while at the CONII Industry Strategy Board. This was my first attendance at this meeting, and I was impressed by the commitment of representatives from industry to the College applied research agenda. The discussion about collaboration was predicated on the application of the CONII model into industrial contexts. That is, CONII is a consortium of colleges that are collaborating on applied research. Each college either leads or is a part of a particular node on the network. If a potential industrial research partner contacts a college, and that college does not have the expertise in that area, the idea is that this college would forward the potential partner to one of the CONII member colleges that specialize in the area of concern. This is an ideal application of the virtual research cluster: an emergent phenomenon that is gaining traction with the spread of ubiquitous broadband and the ancillary network effects.
This model of collaboration and conspicuous contribution is counter to the historical competitive model that all colleges have grown in to (indeed, it is the hallmark of business in general). The idea that we can collaborate to compete has its roots in the strengths of network thinking and the kind of transparency encouraged by open source, and perhaps even the credo of hiding in plain site.
It was pointed out at the meeting that to make CONII work will require a lot of trust. The first steps have already been taken.
I thought of this book and the concept this morning while at the CONII Industry Strategy Board. This was my first attendance at this meeting, and I was impressed by the commitment of representatives from industry to the College applied research agenda. The discussion about collaboration was predicated on the application of the CONII model into industrial contexts. That is, CONII is a consortium of colleges that are collaborating on applied research. Each college either leads or is a part of a particular node on the network. If a potential industrial research partner contacts a college, and that college does not have the expertise in that area, the idea is that this college would forward the potential partner to one of the CONII member colleges that specialize in the area of concern. This is an ideal application of the virtual research cluster: an emergent phenomenon that is gaining traction with the spread of ubiquitous broadband and the ancillary network effects.
This model of collaboration and conspicuous contribution is counter to the historical competitive model that all colleges have grown in to (indeed, it is the hallmark of business in general). The idea that we can collaborate to compete has its roots in the strengths of network thinking and the kind of transparency encouraged by open source, and perhaps even the credo of hiding in plain site.
It was pointed out at the meeting that to make CONII work will require a lot of trust. The first steps have already been taken.
03 May 2007
Journal of Applied Research on Learning
Recently launched (April 2007) publication sponsored by the Canadian Council on Learning (CCL), the Journal of Applied Research on Learning offers an avenue for public discussion and dissemination of applied research focusing on learning. The CCL funds applied research projects in various sectors, and has an open Request for Proposals under the Theme of Work and Learning.
I've had two of my projects funded by CCL, one of which had GBC as a research partner prior to my coming here. The Survivorship Transition to Employment Project (STEP) is investigating how best to provide educational supports for breast cancer survivors who are reintegrating into the workforce during and after their cancer journey. This is a training program that will guide the development of patient competencies and necessary skills to refocus energies for returning to work after long treatment regimens. George Brown's Learning Innovations and Academic Development department is providing digital literacy modules for the project.
I've had two of my projects funded by CCL, one of which had GBC as a research partner prior to my coming here. The Survivorship Transition to Employment Project (STEP) is investigating how best to provide educational supports for breast cancer survivors who are reintegrating into the workforce during and after their cancer journey. This is a training program that will guide the development of patient competencies and necessary skills to refocus energies for returning to work after long treatment regimens. George Brown's Learning Innovations and Academic Development department is providing digital literacy modules for the project.
01 May 2007
ROI2: Return on Investment; Return on Innovation
The Ontario Centres of Excellence Discovery 07 conference today presented the results of research and innovation conducted in the Ontario R&D sectors. CONII had a presence with the Colleges Ontario booth, promoting Ontario Colleges as open for applied research business.
Ray Kurzweil gave the morning keynote speech, appearing via 3D holographic representation, and even signing copies of his book remotely using a haptic robotic arm developed in Canada.
Speaking about the exponential expansion of computational capability, Kurzweil said “Explosive growth is seductive,” as doubling small numbers leads to doubling large numbers which takes us from the trivial to the profound very quickly. Kurzweil’s prognostications provide fodder for our creative future mediated by technology. While some may take issue with Kurzweil’s idea that we will by 2029 upload our consciousness into a computer (healthy skepticism), there can be no denying that there are many social and technologic consequences to innovation.
Innovation was the theme of the day, as was going from mind to market. The commercialization of science and its outputs is a key driver of Ontario’s economy, a point made during the lunch address by Sandra Pupatello, Ontario’s Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Our knowledge based society is predicated on our ability to imagine the future and to apply this to design and development, while concurrently studying the implications of the pace of innovation.
Applied research taps innovation, and promotes industrial research partnerships that give us a return on our investment (time, money). We would do well to remember that there is also a return on innovation. This is perhaps more difficult to measure. But in the realm of ideas and innovation we create a gravitational pull with predictions projected on the blank slate of a future state. This gravitational pull shows us the realm of the possible, and draws ideas in its general direction as a path of discovery. “Software is always on the edge of what’s capable” said Kurzweil today. This edge is the purview of applied research: taking ideas to innovation and beyond.
Ray Kurzweil gave the morning keynote speech, appearing via 3D holographic representation, and even signing copies of his book remotely using a haptic robotic arm developed in Canada.
Speaking about the exponential expansion of computational capability, Kurzweil said “Explosive growth is seductive,” as doubling small numbers leads to doubling large numbers which takes us from the trivial to the profound very quickly. Kurzweil’s prognostications provide fodder for our creative future mediated by technology. While some may take issue with Kurzweil’s idea that we will by 2029 upload our consciousness into a computer (healthy skepticism), there can be no denying that there are many social and technologic consequences to innovation.
Innovation was the theme of the day, as was going from mind to market. The commercialization of science and its outputs is a key driver of Ontario’s economy, a point made during the lunch address by Sandra Pupatello, Ontario’s Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Our knowledge based society is predicated on our ability to imagine the future and to apply this to design and development, while concurrently studying the implications of the pace of innovation.
Applied research taps innovation, and promotes industrial research partnerships that give us a return on our investment (time, money). We would do well to remember that there is also a return on innovation. This is perhaps more difficult to measure. But in the realm of ideas and innovation we create a gravitational pull with predictions projected on the blank slate of a future state. This gravitational pull shows us the realm of the possible, and draws ideas in its general direction as a path of discovery. “Software is always on the edge of what’s capable” said Kurzweil today. This edge is the purview of applied research: taking ideas to innovation and beyond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)