Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 13


Letizia Mortara, Ruth Thomson, Chris Moore, Kalliopi Armara, Clive Kerr, Robert Phaal, David Probert
OVERVIEW: Kodak European Research (KER) developed a strategy for technology intelligence based on a theoretical model developed by Kerr et al. (2006). KER scouts designed and implemented a four-step approach to identify relevant technologies and research centers across Europe, Africa and the Middle East. The approach provides clear guidance for integrating web searches, scouting trips, networking and interactions with intermediaries. KER s example illustrates how companies can organize themselves to look outside corporate boundaries in search of technologies relevant for their business. The approach may be useful to those in other companies who have been asked to start a technology intelligence activity. Letizia Mortara is a Research Associate at the Centre for Technology Management at the Institute of Manufacturing, University of Cambridge (UK). Her current research interests include Open Innovation and Technology Intelligence. Letizia has a first degree in Industrial Chemistry from the University of Bologna (Italy). She worked as a process/product manager in a chemical industry and then she moved to the UK where she gained her PhD in processing and process scale-up of advanced ceramic materials at Cranfield University. Ini367@cam.ac.uk Ruth Thomson was the Innovations Leader at Kodak European Research, Cambridge, UK, from 2006 to 2009. In this role, she established the open innovation and technical intelligence strategies for the center and established mechanisms that helped the team to identify technology leads from across Europe. Ruth now works as a business development consultant at Cambridge Consultants. She continues her work in open innovation through her role as a Visiting Industrial Fellow at IfM, Cambridge University. ruth.thom$on@cambridgeconsultants.com Chris Moore is currently working with the U.K. Trade and Investment Department as an R&D specialist. Formerly, he was the Director, Kodak External Alliances - Europe,
JulyAugust 2010
(>S'I.S-6JIIS,'I()'$5.I)O '! 201(1 Industrial Rescarcli Institulc. Inc

KEY CONCEPTS: technology intelligence, scouting, open innovation. Technology intelligence (TI) is the activity dedicated to capturing important technological information and delivering it to decision makers. Acquiring technological information early enough to make the right decisions is critical, especially when trying to inaintain a high level of innovation and competitive advantage. Some companies have chosen to address TI needs by establishing centers in regions where the intensity of technical information is high, typically close to universities, or in areas where industry is particularly active in developing innovation (e.g., a technology cluster). Some studies have Africa and Middle East Region. Chris is focused on the identification of opportunities from venture-backed start-up companies, universities and research institutions. His career started in research and development, but moved through marketing and technology development. In 2005, Chris moved to Cambridge to set up Kodak's new research center establishing the principles of open innovation in Kodak European Research; he transferred to the External Alliances Group in 2007. Chris holds a PhD in chemistry from the University of East Anglia and has 20 granted U.S. patents and a number of publications, www.kodak.com/go/kea, chris.moore2@virgin.net Kalliopi Armara is working as a technical specialist at Autonomy Corporation in Cambridge, UK. She graduated from the National Technical University of Athens (Greece) in 2005 with a Diplotna in electrical and computer engineering. In 2007, she received a Master of philosophy in industrial systems, manufacture and management from the University of Cambridge. ka311@cantab.net Clive Kerr is a research associate at the Centre for Technology Management at the University of Cambridge. His



investigated the different types of such "outposts" (Gassmann and Gaso 2004, 2005), but it is still unclear how companies initiate such an activity. In 2005, The Eastman Kodak Company adopted an open approach to innovation. At the start of 2006, Kodak set up a small R&D unit, Kodak European Research (KER), in Cambridge, U.K., in charge of TI. The unit was specifically tasked to identify opportunities and partners of strategic importance within the European, African, and Middle Eastern Region (EAMER). This paper describes how Kodak established its KER facility and how the strategy for TI was developed and scouting activity begun. Kodak European Research (KER) Kodak is a U.S.-based multinational corporation employing more than 20,000 people worldwide, approximately half of them located outside of the United States. Founded over 120 years ago, Kodak now has a local presence in more than 50 countries across three major business units Consumer Digital Imaging; Graphic Communications; and Film, Photofinishing & Entertainmentcovering a broad range of imaging applications for consumer, commercial, and industrial markets. The company is committed to innovation and holds an extensive patent portfolio. Kodak has completed the implementation of a digital strategy for all of its businesses and remains one of the world's most recognized and respected brands, holding a leading share in over 30 product categories. To maintain this leading position, Kodak decided to adopt an open approach to innovation and to leverage global knowledge and expertise. KER was initiated in this spirit. The TI strategy for KER was developed in collaboration with the Centre for Technology Management at the University of Cambridge. The primary strategic objectives were to: Search out excellent, differentiated, and relevant science and technology opportunities emerging from universities, institutes, and early-stage companies. Identify and pursue regional user preferences and aspects of consumer differentiation. current research interests are visual strategy, technology intelligence, technology insertion, and through-life capability management. Prior to Joining Cambridge, he was a research officer in engineering design at Cranfield University. Clive has a First Class Honours degree in electrical and mechanical engineering, a Diploma degree in economics, a Postgraduate Certificate in the social sciences and an engineering doctorate, civk2@cam.ac.uk Robert Phaal is a senior research associate at the Engineering Department of the University of Cambridge. His current research interests include strategic technology management, innovation, and industrial emergence.

Acquiring techueiegicai iufermatien eariy eneugii te uiai(e tfie rigiit decisieus is criticai.
Identify regional strategic partners and establish relationships with them. Participate in local, national, and regional research funding opportunities. Cambridge (Herriot and Minshall 2008; Greater Cambridge Partnership 2007; European Union 2009) was chosen as the preferred location for KER after an exhaustive assessment of possible locations across Europe. The selection was made based on several criteria, including networking potential; practicality; the quality of the higher-education infrastructure; the presence of a cluster of relevant, early-stage high-tech companies; and the entrepreneurial environment, defined by the presence of venture capital "angels" and entrepreneurs. The KER team was constructed from a diverse range of researchers drawn from other Kodak R&D facilities, complemented by new staff recruited locally. Key skills for KER team members included technical expertise in relevant science and technology areas, experience working with external groups, and an aptitude for effective networking. Geographic reach across the region was a very important part of KER's mission, reflected in the composition of^ staff and in the way in which the TI strategy was developed. focusing on the development of practical and well-founded management tools and frameworks. He is a mechanical engineer, with industrial experience in contract research, technical consulting and .software development. He received his PhD in computational mechanics from the University of Cambridge in 1990. rplO8@cam.ac.uk David Probert is a reader in technology management and the director of the Centre for Technology Management at the Engineering Department of the University of Cambridge. His current research interests are the management of technology and manufacturing make or buy. drplOO@cam.ac.uk
Research lechnology Management

KER's portfolio of work, which consisted of projects applicable across the range of the Kodak businesses, was split between two main groups. Intelligent imaging staff members had expertise and skills in software, artificial intelligence, and human-computer interaction. They investigated ways to help people interact with and use multimedia. Printing and patterning staff members had a broad range of skills across physics, engineering, chemistry, and polymer and material sciences. They investigated novel materials and new ways of depositing and patterning materials on a variety of surfaces. Nearly all projects had some element of external interaction; some were predominantly outsourced to an external group. All staff were encouraged to seek out new opportunities for external interactions across EAMER that could either speed the progress of existing Kodak projects or enable the exploration of new areas of innovation for the company. The theoretical model KER's strategy for TI was based on the model developed by Kerr et al. (2006); this model encompasses a process and a system architecture. The process cycle of the model occurs in six phases leading to the capture and delivery of the information (Figure 1 ). TI interfaces with decision makers in two ways. On one side, decision makers input guidance on how to direct the search, identifying information needs; on the other side, information is disseminated back to them through the intelligence cycle. Hence, in the coordination phase, tasks are assigned, ideas for sources are generated, and search goals are refined in cooperation with decision makers. The search, filter, and analyze phases form a subordinate cycle within the process that is repeated until a satisfactory level of information is acquired. Then investigators

document their findings and disseminate the collected intelligence. The process cycle helps participants to review each activity and break down complex tasks. Another tier of the model demonstrates that TI systems can operate in four modes depending on what knowledge is being sought. Two modes (Mine and Trawl) are directed internally within the organization, while the other two (Target and Scan) are used to source information outside of the organization. The modes can be briefly described as: Mine: The searcher is aware that the information has been gathered and knows where it is. Trawl: The searcher does not know where the information is kept or if it has been acquired at all. Target: The searcher knows what to look for outside company boundaries. Scan: The searcher is not seeking specific information, but has an open brief to look for new technologies outside company boundaries. A complete TI system should encompass all four modes, with the balance of activity among the modes depending on the company's needs (Mortara et al. 2009a). TI is operationalized through activities; each one can be described using the six phases of the process model. Together, the activities enable the four TI modes. The following seetions describe KER's TI activities, which implement all four modes of information search. Each activity is illustrated through the lens of the process model.

Intelligence Process



intelligence information for decision mai<ers

Figure 1.The generic technology intelligence process cycle, adapted from Kerr et al. (2006). JulyAugust 2010

The process from Scan to Target at KER How could important technological information be captured from across the whole of EAMER? The KER team recognized from the start the complexity of its mission and that Kerr et al.'s model (2006) could provide guidance to structure their activities. The design tnethodology (Figure 2) allowed moving in four steps from scanning (looking for any technology or partner potentially relevant to Kodak in any country in EAMER) to targeting (deepening the knowledge of identified technologies and exploring specific partnering opportunities). Step 1: Understanding the country context KER's staff had familiarity with the science, technology, and innovation infrastructures in France and the United Kingdom, and the team soon realized the advantage of this deep background understanding. However, at the start, they had limited knowledge about the rest of EAMER. It was evident that each country in the region had to be approached independently in order to build an understanding of its infrastructure and context for science and technology. The context would allow the strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities within that country to be appreciated fially. Using Kerr et al.'s (2006) process model (Figure 3) the KER team worked to:

1. Identify geographic areas of interest (typically single countries or regions within a country) by estimating the density of technological centers of excellence. 2. Coordinate the participation of KER staff members and other individuals in gathering information. 3. Search for and compile detailed information, using a standardized template. 4. Filter gathered information for relevance and trustworthiness of its source. For acquiring a generic overview of a country's background, infonnation gathered fi'om in-country sources was validated with information from international institutions such as the World Econotnic Forum, the OECD, and the European Union. 5. Analyze information to ensure that it provided a good idea of the strengths and weaknesses, the main research groups, and the organization of research in the country. 6. Document the information gathered, using a standardized tetnplate. 7. Disseminate the information via electronically stored and searchable systems available to anyone in KER preparing for a trip in the area. 8. Decide whether the country or technology identified was worth deeper investigation, leading to the pursuit of local connections and on-site visits.

Looking for relevant technologies across the reqion

Targeting identified relevant technologies

feedback Collection of country's Identify technology ~~\ context L^ intermediaries nd set up visits
Country strengths/ weaitnesses Main technology groups Governmental / educational / structurai / financial / social contexts of region Select intermediaries: National level Regional level Research center level

Visit the targeted country to establish networks

What technologies are relevant? What is their readiness level? Views on cotlahoration opportunities with research cental^?


Figure 2.Technology intelligence at KER, moving from Scan to Target.

Research Technology Management

Search for information about tfie country Criteria: Use webxoM/rces to find general country and economic /fiformi^fcn, overview of the country Wsystem, mairi^^uers of exceiience. Hat of Profile: For those aware of cofnany 's requirenwnts Coordinate: Organization and sharing of the countries among n operatives. Profile: For those aware of the gnerai technology inteHigence

identify geographic areas of $ interest (e.g.. slngie countriesi : Criteria: Concentration of technological centers of exceiience. and reievant opportunities Disseminate information Criteria: Distribute the information to those interested (e.g.. other Ti

Fiiter information for relevance Criteria: information coming from trusted web sources (e.g.. OECD, World Economic Forum) Profiie: For those aware of company's requirements and those with experience of the country


Anaiyze information for relevance to give an oveiaii generic impression of a country's economic/ technologicai profile (strengths/ weakness) Profiie: For those aware of company's requirements and experience of tfie country

Document information Ctiteria: Foitovt guidelines for sttucture. length, templates. storage. Decide whether country is worth deeper investigation/set-up of

Figure 3.Thefirststep ofKER 's technology intelligence activity: Establishing the country context, seen through the technology intelligence process model.

KER developed contextual understanding by creating a series of documents to act as "country guides" to technology and innovation; these documents were produced in collaboration with international interns primarily recruited through IAESTE (http://www.iaeste.org/), an association that supports students in gaining international professional technical training by placing them in companies outside of their home country. Interns gathered and documented background information about their own countries' lifestyle, welfare, education, politics, business environment, and research infrastructure. The students' personal knowledge of their home countries allowed for the rapid identification of relevant sources of information; with their close knowledge of their home countries' organization, the interns were able to trace ministries, useful institutions, and research centers, gather information from websites in the original language, and act as native guides. However, their personal experiences and subjective judgments could also be a source of bias. For example, they

could be tempted to offer information on institutions they knew better, rather than presenting those that are objeetively aecredited. To avoid this, the guides were collated in interaction with an experienced KER staff member who ensured objectivity and provided direction. The guides were assembled with a Scan perspective that is, the objeet was to search beyond already identified technologies and intereststhrough Internet searches only, following a clearly defined set of aims and objectives (Table 1 ) and structured by standardized templates (Table 2). The guides were made available via a searchable electronic archive. A staff member interested in finding a center of excellence in a particular technology area could search the system using this technology term. This is a clear example where attention to the Mine mode of TI at KER allowed Kodak to benefit fully from the information gathered.

Table I.KER started its exploration of EAMER by producing summary documents to capture key facts related to the technical and innovation background of each country. Country Guide Aims - To collect from unbiased, objective sources information on the country's technological situation, including strengths and weaknesses. - To provide a clear overview of the major research groups and potential innovation clusters and the organization of the national research system. - To serve as a starting point for users who want a quick overview of the country. - To be an easily updatable and accessible repository of information and information sources.

JulyAugust 2010

Table 2.KER developed a template to guide in the creation of country guides that summarize the key facts relative to science and technology innovation for each country of interest Main heading General eountry and economic information Subheading suggestions Main economic sectors and their strengths and weaknesses Administrative informationregional vs. national Guiding Questions/tips On what sectors is the economy of the country based? Are there areas with strong regional identity? Is the country centrally regulated or is there a devolution policy? Are there important clusters? Are there areas of teehnologieal knowledge for which the country has been/is famous? Is the govemment promoting particular teehnologieal areas? How is the country innovation policy perceived abroad?

Historical technological context Overview of innovation policy

Financial infonnationtaxation system, labor costs, incentives to entrepreneurship Other, e.g., IP regulation Statistics > Population Literacy > Median age . Total GDP and GDP per capita (PPP) > R&D investments I Telephonesmain lines in use and mobile cellular I Internet hosts, internet users, broadband coverage > Industrial production growth rate Organization of research and infrastrueture The statistical data acquired should be consistent across all eountry guides. Many organizations publish statistics that are updated regularly. However, to maintain an objective perspective and to be able to compare the data, use of the same source and data referring to the same year for eaeh eountry is highly recommended. How is the research organized in this country? Is it mainly dependent on the government and govemment funding or is it privatized? Are there technology networks and clusters? This type of information is usually obtained by scanning local, country-based sources List of research eenters and technology elusters in relevant technological fields (e.g., universities, research institutes, technology poles) Intermediaries who can help I Technology transfer services access the country resources I Investment agencies 1 Internationalization agencies I Conferences and events on innovation Venture capital funds . Others Which university department/ researeh group is the most renowned or productive in physical science? . Are these intennediaries national or regional? Do they have a particular technology bias?

Overview of the country's research system

Step 2: Identify intermediaries and organize country visits It is clearly not feasible to establish direct contact with every relevant university department, start-up company, or technology center across an entire country or region. Intermediaries can help companies to access and acquire infonnation on new technologies (Mortara et al. 2009b). As an example, in their ethnographic study, Hargadon and Sutton (1997) highlight the technological brokerage role of the design consultancy IDEO in developing innovative products. Seaton and Cordey-Hayes (1993) suggest that intermediaries can help to "scan for and recognize the value of ideas, knowledge, devices and artefacts which are new to the organization," the first step in

the technology transfer process. Intermediaries may also have a knowledge-brokering function, in which they help people build relationships, uncover needs, and share ideas and evidence that will let thetn do their jobs better (Verona, Prandelli, and Sawhney 2006). With this potential in mind, KER decided to work with intermediaries such as regional developrnent agencies, technology transfer organizations, consultants, and venture capitalists in order to expand the number of contacts. As Howells (2006) notes, there are many intermediary options available to accommodate different business tnodels and a variety of different players. Hence, the development and use of networks through intermediaries Research Technology IVIanagement

requires close attention, an observation that has been confirmed by KER's experience. For example, in some countries, such as the Netheriands, a centralized infrastructure and intermediaries (the Netherlands Foreign Investment Agency working in tandem with Senternovcm') exist to facilitate interactions between multinationals, local small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and universities. In contrast, in some instances, a regional infrastructure and intermediaries exist. For example, in Germany, Berlin Partners- provides support and an introduction service solely focused on the Greater Berlin connurbation; Interface-^ in the U.K., supported by Scottish Enterprise,"* provides a portal to all of the universities in Scotland, and the London Technology Network'' acts similarly for universities in Greater London and the southeast of England. These agencies are well connected to university technology transfer offices (TTOs) in their regions, and they represent a more efficient way of reaching a broader spread of institutions. Other important intemiediaries for KER were venture capital networks regionally aligned with the local infrastructure, for instance, the London Technology Fund,^' which supports early-stage companies in the London area. Other venture-capital inds have instead a more national or international focus. The scouts solicited in parallel the services of several types of intemiediaries to triangulate information. This approach helped to reduce bias and ensured that the information coming from all the intermediaries was guiding KER toward the most relevant contacts. The cycle of Kerr et al.'s model (2006) also provided guidance for this step of KER's TI activity: Identify: Likely intermediaries were identified, taking into account a number of issues: Identification of areas of interest to KER and the broader Kodak community through internal workshops, resulting in an informational brochure to disseminate to intermediaries and other contacts.
' SenterNovem is an agency of the Dutch Ministry of Economic AtTairs that promotes sustainable development and innovation, both within the Netherlands and abroad, http://www.sentemovem.nl/ english/ (accessed June 19, 2009). - Berlin Partner-supporting members and licensees are granted special access to the Berlin business community as well as to important political contacts. http://www.berlin-partner.de/exklusiv/?L=l (accessed June 19,2009). ' Interface offers a central point of access to Scotland's research base, providing services to businesses wanting to engage with academia. http://www.interface-online.org.uk/ (accessed June 19, 2009). Scottish Enterprise is Scotland's main economic development agency, http://www.scottish-enterprise.com/ (accessed June 19, 2009). ^ London Technology Networks promotes innovative collaborations and helps to stimulate technology-intensive innovation relationships between universities and business in London and the east and southeast of England, http://www.ltnetwork.org/ (accessed June 19, 2009). ''London Technology Fund is London's specialist investor in new technology companies, http://www.londontechnologyfund.com/ (accessed June 19,2009).

Identification of the strengths of the country or region that match Kodak's interests and that should be investigated as a matter of priority. Identification of intennediarics that could support KER by introducing KER staff to the most appropriate centers of excellence for science and technology, relevant early-stage businesses, and centers that could help in better understanding the context of the country or region, using an established set of criteria (Table 3). Identification of staff who had already visited the area and could act as liaison or provide information. Coordinate: A KER staff member was appointed to organize each countiy visit, beginning with contacting intemiediaries to define the itinerary and the logistical details. A checklist (Table 4) guided them in this task. The visit coordinator also disseminated information to all the parties involved, in particular to the other KER staff members taking part. Search: Different itineraries and options were scrutinized in collaboration with identified intennediaries. Filter: Potential groups to meet were shortlisted in collaboration with intennediaries (where possible). Analyze: Information gathered fi'om different intermediaries was reviewed to achieve the best possible itinerary. Centers of excellence to be visited were prioritized according to internal criteria, existing knowledge, and intcmiediary recommendations. Preference was given to clusters of technological centers of excellence, such as technopoles. Document: A visit plan was prepared. Disseminate: Material (including the detailed visit plan) was sent to those participating in the visit. Step 3: Scouting visits The third step of the TI process (see Figure 2), the scouting trip, had the dual purpose of capturing information and

JulyAugust 2010




Table 3.Intermediaries help KER to identify relevant contacts in EAMER. KER has devised criteria for the assessment and selection of intermediaries ' services. Criteria Geographical coverage Technical coverage Network span Network density Intermediary capability Guiding questions What is the geographical extension of the intermediary network? (e.g., European, worldwide, national, regional) What technologies are covered by the intermediary activity? Are they focusing on a particular set of technologies? What types of organizations can they provide a link for? (e.g., universities, research centers, SMEs) Does the network cover the topic/geographic area exhaustively? How many contacts can they provide? Where are the gaps? Do they have the required expertise? Are they able to find information that the company is unable to find? Have they got a good understanding of the company, its needs, how it works? Are they active or passive in their way of providing information? Are they able to provide technical information in a business-oriented context? Are they known among the company's contacts (internal and external)? What comments and recommendations about their services have been collected from others? Are the intermediaries providing their services for profit? Whose interests do they represent (e.g., government)? Who is fijnding them? Do they provide good quality and up-to-date information? Do they avoid sending information just for advertising purposes? Do they provide only relevant information? What are the costs of their services? Is there a good level of trust and confidence? What are the ternis of confidentiality?

Reputation Motivation Working style

setting up social networks and links. As with the other steps, scouting visits were guided by a process cycle derived from Kerr et al. (Figure 4). Participants and KER staff engaged in the following phases, during and after the visit: Identify: Identify criteria of evaluation relevant to the research groups visited.

Coordinate: Coordinate those with different responsibilities on the visit to ensure full benefit from the double-act approach. This includes making sure that everyone participating takes notes and gives feedback according to their role in the double-act and prompting the hosts with questions if information provided is not sufficient. Search: Collect information during the center visits.

Table 4.For each visit to a country or region, a KER scout is appointed to coordinate the visit. Checklist for coordinating step 2: . Determine the objectives of the journey. 1 Are the technology needs of colleagues clear? Is there anyone else who should participate? Is anyone interested in receiving reports about specific topics? I Who should go on the trip? Attendees should be KER staff with relevant scientific competencies to assess the proposed centers; consideration should also be given to those with time and skills to follow up after the visit. Adopt a "double-act" approach ': for every meeting, there should be one person who asks the technical questions, and another who asks about ways to proceed and collaborate. KER has found this approach to be very successful. Non-KER people in the meetings responded veiy positively to this clear distinction of roles, resulting in significant improvement in meeting dynamics and, as a result, in efficiency in information gathering. This approach is particularlv effective in cross-cultural meetings where it is likely that there are fewer cultural cues for people to follow. Work with previously identified intermediaries to define itinerary. . Provide intermediaries with a detailed list of requirements (DOs and DON'Ts) and especially communicate the scope of the visit and the desired knowledge. Provide them with an up-to-date version of the technology needs brochure. It is very important to crosscheck information with all intermediaries to ensure a full picture and get the most out of the trip. . Prepare a presentation about Kodak and the visit, addressing the aims of the visit, the ways in which KER collaborates with others, how it is possible to work with KER. . Keep every interested colleague in the loop and provide everyone information about logistics.

Research Technology Management

id the visit

Coordinate: Make sure that everyone intarested has been properly informed about tin vts deiaiis Select tasks for the trip participant'^ jsKtrig them to take notes and gives feedba ' jmpt the hosi with questions if informatui;. , ovfdi-Cl f, not sufficient Coordinate the ^ u b i e act identify centers of interest (e.g.. universities, companies) Criteria: Relevant technoiogies, relevant opportunities i

Filter information for relevance Criteria. Foiiow company strategy

Disseminate information Criteria: Distribute the iatoHnalion to those interested (e.g.,VNrTI operatives, decision maker^esst of organization)

Analyze & evaluate which technologies could be interesting to follow up Criteria. Technology relevance, technology readiness, competence of the researchers, equipment and collaboration potential {e.g., IP management, timescaies, and exampies of success) Document information Criteria: Follow guidelines of travel report

Decide how to follow up with contacts

Figure 4.A process from Kerr et al. (2006) helped KER scouts to lead a country visit.

Filter: Select information of relevance during the visit, using a visit checklist to keep track of information (Table 5). Analyze: Evaluate which technologies could be interesting. Criteria for evaluation include technology relevance, technology readiness, competence of the researchers, equipment available, and collaboration potential (considering issues such as IP management, timescaies, and examples of previous successful collaborations with other parties). Document: Use travel report prompts to document the visit (Table 5). Disseminate: Share with others (see Step 4). Step 4: Post-visit KER organized documentation and dissemination of findings after the visit in three steps: Collect all information about the visit and compose report or complete the visit template (Table 5). Scan contacts' business cards for inclusion in the general database. Report to KER general weekly meeting. This enabled the Trawl mode and helped keep everyone at KER informed about new findings. At this point, follow-up actions with contacts were decided by those who participated in the scouting visit, in conjunction with KER's director, leading to potential collaborations. In order to establish trust and good partner relationships, it was important to keep the intermediary and visited organizations informed of the status and
I JulyAu'^ust 2010

final outcome of the discussions. If kept up to date, intermediaries could learn better about KER's evolving needs and become more efficient in identifying the tnost relevant information for KER. Even if the group or intermediary did not tneet KER's current needs and criteria, that group, kept informed and offered feedback on KER's needs, might become a partner on another occasion. Successes and lessons learned Several unexpected technology opportunities were identified as a consequence of KER's TI approach. Information found through the TI process tended to fall into one of three categories: 1. Vital for today's business, 2. Of interest to tomorrow's business, or 3. Maybe of interest to a future business. The technologies in the first group tended to be fewer, but easily "sold" to the business; the other two groups required a much longer strategic view that may be difficult to maintain in challenging economic times. It was not untypical for a technology opportunity presented to a business unit to be ignored initially, only to be raised as a priority some 9-12 months later. Consequently, measures to illustrate how technology leads could fit into Kodak's innovation process were important to justify further senior management commitment, but difficult to quantify. Recent work within the Connect2-Ideas^ consortium developed tnetrics that could be used to address this issue. These metrics focused on:
^Connect-2-ldeas is a program sponsored by the European Union under its EU FP6 Enterprise program, http://www,connect2ideas. com (accessed June 19, 2009),

Table 5.Quick data-capture sheets, provided for each country/region visit, prompt scouts to capture the right information and help them to capture h quici<ly. Travelers: Places / groups visited: About the Country / Region visited Does this country have a national or regional infrastructure? - How does this country organize science and technology? - Tell us about the higher education system. - What funding mechanisms does the country / region have? - Typical national participation in EU programs and other international collaborations? - Perceived centers of excellence (university, science park, start-up incubators, research institutes, etc.) - Are there places / centers (other than above) that should be visited in the iture? Feedback on the efficacy of the intermediaries - Which intennediaries did you work with? - How helpil were they? - Recommendations for the future? - Are there other intermediaries that could be useful for future visits? About the centers visited / groups met For each group tell us about - Type (university, science park, early-stage company, research institute, etc.)? - Funding? - Types of collaborations (international, European, national, regional or local)? - Who else are they working with/have they worked with? - Facilities (age of labs/equipment, size, experience of management team, number of students/staff, etc.)? - Technology (Is it unique/distinctive/breakthrough/disruptive?) - Unique selling point? - IP (Standard agreement? Is it acceptable to Kodak?) - Willingness to collaborate with Kodak? - Overall impression of people: Could you work with them? - Cost of collaboration? Other Date: Primary reason for travel:

Number of opportunities identified, number progressed to next stage, and number of resulting engagements. Value of the partnerships emerging from TI, although this is more difficult to measure quantitatively, as many of the results cannot befiallyappreciated before the collaboration has matured. Speed to market. Typically, KER achieved product development two to four times faster than the estimated time for internal product development processes. Although technology scanning is an intrinsic part of most researchers' daily work, traditional methods are unlikely to reveal many unexpected but valuable teehnology leads. In 18 months of operation, KER reviewed

more than 200 opportunities that arose through this systematic search. Of these, about one-third were very relevant, one-third were somewhat relevant, and one-third were less relevant (although even those that were not directly strategically aligned were perhaps useful to be aware of)- Of the most relevant opportunities, about 30% were developed, resulting in a small but significant number of relationships (investments, joint ventures, and researeh or development contracts). Lessons Learned KER's scouts learned a number of "soft" lessons while operationalizing their TI strategy. Each step offered its own realizations. Research Technology Management

Step I: Development of the country documents. The creation of the background country documents is a gradual task. It is very important to record the source of all infonnation found, as this will help with updating them later. The interns were invaluable because of their local knowledge, but objective, non-country sources are very important to facilitate a more unbiased comparison of strengths and weaknesses across regions. If they are to be useful, these documents must be kept "live" and regularly publicized so that staff members retnain aware of this growing resource. KER staff routinely discovered new information about expertise or trends or organizations within a particular country or region; this new information was captured within the country documents so that the value of the documents continued to grow. Discipline was needed to manage continual additions of relevant information, and KER found it beneficial to have a single person responsible for building, maintaining, and publicizing the documents. The searchability of the reports is crucial to maximize their use; attention should be paid to this support for the Mine part of the TI strategy. Some KER staff members took the time to read the complete documents when preparing to visit a country or region, but in other scenarios it was likely that staff members searched for particular pieces of infonnation. Search navigation that allows for technology-specific queries across a range of documents as well as country-specific queries is important. Step 2: Identification of intermediaries. The importance of working with intennediaries over time cannot be overemphasized. KER found that using appropriate intermediaries and maintaining contact with them improves the process and helps in identifying key infortnation. For example, a weekly keyword search set up for KER by the local office of the Innovation Relay Centre (IRC)*^ identified an early-stage printing company based in Eastern Europe that had developed technology potentially relevant to Kodak's businesses. That infonnation led to a joint developtnent relationship. This opportunity would have been missed without the involvetnent of the IRC. The key lessons from KER's experience with intermediaries are: Spending titne finding the right intennediary and cultivating relationships within intermediary organizations is worth the effort; often an intennediary's efficacy is dependent on the relationship with the particular individual within the intennediary organization designated to tnanage the relationship.
* Innovation Relay Centre, now called the Enterprise Europe Network, is a European Union-funded network comprising more than 500 organizations across 40 countries; IRC offers innovation and technological cooperation services and assists in finding business partners and developing researeh capacities. http://www.enterpriseeurope-network.ee.europa.eu/index en.htm (aeeessed May 24,2010).

Information from one intermediary should be crosschecked with other intermediaries to ensure that the information is reliable and cotnplete. Intermediaries tnay be biased; checking them against each other helps ensure a complete picture. The decision regarding whether a country is to be approached nationally or regionally should be based on the country's context. There is a huge difference in how science and technology is organized, what kind of intennediaries are available, and how the organization of a visit should be approached when a country is organized on a regional rather than national basis. It is easy for those unfatniliar with TI work to assume that intennediaries are all the satne and that selecting and working with thetn is an obvious and sitnple part of the process. There are important differences between types of intermediaries and the importance of working with the right groups cannot be overemphasized. Step 3: Scouting visits. Key elements for the success of the approach included: The commitment and time required for thorough postvisit follow-up should not be underestimated. This should be considered when deciding who should go on the visit; those who are likely to be too busy to follow up should not be sent. The "double-act" approach might sound obvious, but when followed in a disciplined way, it was surprisingly effective. When constructing the teatn, it is itnportant to create the right balance between technical experts and proficient networkers. Effective scouting requires tnultiple skill sets; this is best accommodated by assigning distinct roles within the team.

JulyAugust 2010


It was easier to start by organizing a trip around a focus area, targeting a specific research contact, and then consider what else could be seen by scanning the surrounding geographical area. This initial focus made it easier to get interest and buy-in from the rest of the Kodak community. Adopting the TI Model. Being able to distinguish between the different modes of TI (Scan, Target, Trawl, Mine) and the cycle phases (Identify, Coordinate, Search, Filter, Analyze, Document, and Disseminate) was extremely helpful; the generalized theoretical model helped in applying and developing appropriate TI skills as well as in thinking about how to articulate the tasks that needed to be done. It also provided a common language among the KER team to review and explain their activities. For example, a clearly expressed technology need required a Target approach; in this situation, KER staff knew which intermediaries to turn to and which approach to take. On the other hand, a less-defined need such as that of understanding the state of the art in a particular technology area required a Scan approach. Using Kerr et al.'s model, KER knew to go to different intermediaries and develop the work program to maximize the usage of scanning techniques. Conclusion Three years since the opening of KER, the developrnent and application of their TI strategy has greatly enhanced the ability of the center to achieve its aims. The TI strategy has allowed Kodak to follow its open innovation model and make the most of the opportunities available in the greater European region. Unfortunately, in spite of KER's successes, financial conditions led to the closure of the center in 2009. However, the model has proved effective and has since

been adopted elsewhere in Kodak. Research is ongoing at the Centre for Technology Management (University of Cambridge) to better understand the role of intermediaries in assisting companies to set up technology intelligence systems and networks.

References European Union. Paxis website, http://cordis.europa.eu/paxis/src/ cambridge.htm (accessed June 19, 2009). Gassmann, O., and Gaso, B. 2004. Insourcing creativity with listening posts in decentralised firms. Creativity Innovation Management 13(1): 3-14. Gassmann, O., and Gaso, B. 2005. Organizational fraineworks for listening post activities. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning 1(3): 241-265. The Greater Cambridge Partnership. 2007. The Greater Cambridge Annual Profile, http://www.gcp.uk.net/downloads/G_C_Profile_07. pdf (aecessed June 19, 2009). Hargadon, A., and Sutton, R. L 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly 42(4): 716-749. Herriot, W., and Minshall, T. 2008. Cambridge technopole report: An overview of the UK's leading high-technology business cluster. St. John's Innovation Centre, Ltd. http://www.itm.eng.cam.ac.uk/ ctm/teg/cambridgetechnopole.html (accessed June 19, 2009). Howells, J. 2006. Intermediation and the role of intemiediaries in innovation. Re.search Policv 35(5): 715-728. Kerr, C. I. V., Mortara,'L., Phaal, R., and Probert, D. R. 2006. A conceptual model for technology intelligence. International .Journal of Technolog)' Intelligence and Planning 1(2): 73-93. Mortara, L., Kerr, C. I. V, Phaal, R., and Probcrt, D. R. 2009a. Technology intelligence practice in UK technology-based eonipanies. International Journal of Technology Management 48( 1 ): 115-135. Mortara, L., Kerr, C. I. V, Phaal, R., and Probert, D. R. 2009b. A toolbox of elements to build technology intelligence systems. International Journal of Technology Management 47(4): 322-345. Seaton, R. A. F., and Cordey-Hayes, M. 1993. The development and application of interactive models of industrial technology transfer. Technovation 13(1): 45-53. Verona, G., Prandelli, E., and Sawhney, M. 2006. Innovation and virtual environments: Towards virtual knowledge brokers. Organization Studies 27: 765-788.

CALL FOR PAPERS Research-Technology Management Seeks Submissions

Research-Technology Management seeks articles that connect theory to practice in the management of innovation. We are actively seeking articles that map the cutting edge in R&D management, illustrate how management theory can be applied to real situations, and give R&D managers the tools to promote innovation throughout their organizational cultures. We are interested in case studies, practical models, frameworks, and tools covering a wide range of innovation and technology management. We are particularly interested in articles about open innovation, design-driven innovation, user-centered innovation, and other trends in innovation strategy and R&D management. RTM articles are concise and practice centered. We prefer submissions at around 3,500 words, although we will occasionally publish truly groundbreaking pieces as long as 5,000 words. For more information, including author's guidelines and submission requirements, please visit us at http://www.iriweb.org/ Public Site/Navigation/Publications/Research-Technology Management/index.aspx. Keep an eye out for forthcoming special issue announcements!
Research * Technology Management

Copyright of Research Technology Management is the property of Industrial Research Institute, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.