1 '

DEVaOPING A TECHNOLOGY INTELLIGENCESTRATEGY AT KOOAK EUROPEAN

RESEARCH: SCAN & TARGETLetizia Mortara, Ruth Thomson, Chris Moore, Kalliopi Armara,

Clive Kerr, Robert Phaal, David Probert

OVERVIEW: Kodak European Research (KER) devel-oped a strategy for technology intelligence based on atheoretical model developed by Kerr et al. (2006). KERscouts designed and implemented a four-step approachto identify relevant technologies and research centersacross Europe, Africa and the Middle East. The ap-proach provides clear guidance for integrating websearches, scouting trips, networking and interactionswith intermediaries. KER s example illustrates howcompanies can organize themselves to look outside cor-porate boundaries in search of technologies relevant fortheir business. The approach may be useful to those inother companies who have been asked to start a technol-ogy intelligence activity.

KEY CONCEPTS: technology intelligence, scouting,open innovation.

Technology intelligence (TI) is the activity dedicated tocapturing important technological information and de-livering it to decision makers. Acquiring technologicalinformation early enough to make the right decisions iscritical, especially when trying to inaintain a high levelof innovation and competitive advantage. Some compa-nies have chosen to address TI needs by establishingcenters in regions where the intensity of technical infor-mation is high, typically close to universities, or in areaswhere industry is particularly active in developing in-novation (e.g., a technology cluster). Some studies have

Letizia Mortara is a Research Associate at the Centre forTechnology Management at the Institute of Manufactur-ing, University of Cambridge (UK). Her current researchinterests include Open Innovation and Technology Intel-ligence. Letizia has a first degree in Industrial Chemistryfrom the University of Bologna (Italy). She worked asa process/product manager in a chemical industry andthen she moved to the UK where she gained her PhDin processing and process scale-up of advanced ceramicmaterials at Cranfield University. Ini367@cam.ac.uk

Ruth Thomson was the Innovations Leader at Kodak Eu-ropean Research, Cambridge, UK, from 2006 to 2009. Inthis role, she established the open innovation and techni-cal intelligence strategies for the center and establishedmechanisms that helped the team to identify technologyleads from across Europe. Ruth now works as a businessdevelopment consultant at Cambridge Consultants. Shecontinues her work in open innovation through her roleas a Visiting Industrial Fellow at IfM, Cambridge Uni-versity. ruth.thom$on@cambridgeconsultants.com

Chris Moore is currently working with the U.K. Trade andInvestment Department as an R&D specialist. Formerly,he was the Director, Kodak External Alliances - Europe,

Africa and Middle East Region. Chris is focused on theidentification of opportunities from venture-backedstart-up companies, universities and research institu-tions. His career started in research and development,but moved through marketing and technology devel-opment. In 2005, Chris moved to Cambridge to set upKodak's new research center establishing the principles ofopen innovation in Kodak European Research; he trans-ferred to the External Alliances Group in 2007. Chrisholds a PhD in chemistry from the University of EastAnglia and has 20 granted U.S. patents and a number ofpublications, www.kodak.com/go/kea,chris.moore2@virgin.net

Kalliopi Armara is working as a technical specialist atAutonomy Corporation in Cambridge, UK. She gradu-ated from the National Technical University of Athens(Greece) in 2005 with a Diplotna in electrical and com-puter engineering. In 2007, she received a Master ofphilosophy in industrial systems, manufacture andmanagement from the University of Cambridge.ka311@cantab.net

Clive Kerr is a research associate at the Centre for Tech-nology Management at the University of Cambridge. His

July—August 2010(>S'I.S-6JIIS,'I()'$5.I)O «'! 201(1 Industrial Rescarcli Institulc. Inc

11 ' I

investigated the different types of such "outposts"(Gassmann and Gaso 2004, 2005), but it is still unclearhow companies initiate such an activity.

In 2005, The Eastman Kodak Company adopted an openapproach to innovation. At the start of 2006, Kodak setup a small R&D unit, Kodak European Research (KER),in Cambridge, U.K., in charge of TI. The unit was spe-cifically tasked to identify opportunities and partners ofstrategic importance within the European, African, andMiddle Eastern Region (EAMER). This paper describeshow Kodak established its KER facility and how the strat-egy for TI was developed and scouting activity begun.

Kodak European Research (KER)

Kodak is a U.S.-based multinational corporation employ-ing more than 20,000 people worldwide, approximatelyhalf of them located outside of the United States. Foundedover 120 years ago, Kodak now has a local presence inmore than 50 countries across three major business units—Consumer Digital Imaging; Graphic Communications;and Film, Photofinishing & Entertainment—covering abroad range of imaging applications for consumer, com-mercial, and industrial markets. The company is commit-ted to innovation and holds an extensive patent portfolio.Kodak has completed the implementation of a digitalstrategy for all of its businesses and remains one of theworld's most recognized and respected brands, holding aleading share in over 30 product categories. To maintainthis leading position, Kodak decided to adopt an open ap-proach to innovation and to leverage global knowledgeand expertise. KER was initiated in this spirit.

The TI strategy for KER was developed in collaborationwith the Centre for Technology Management at the Uni-versity of Cambridge. The primary strategic objectiveswere to:

• Search out excellent, differentiated, and relevant sci-ence and technology opportunities emerging from uni-versities, institutes, and early-stage companies.

• Identify and pursue regional user preferences and as-pects of consumer differentiation.

Acquiringtechueiegicai

iuf ermatien eariyeneugii te uiai(e tfierigiit decisieus is

criticai.• Identify regional strategic partners and establish rela-tionships with them.

• Participate in local, national, and regional researchfunding opportunities.

Cambridge (Herriot and Minshall 2008; Greater Cam-bridge Partnership 2007; European Union 2009) waschosen as the preferred location for KER after an ex-haustive assessment of possible locations across Europe.The selection was made based on several criteria, in-cluding networking potential; practicality; the quality ofthe higher-education infrastructure; the presence of acluster of relevant, early-stage high-tech companies; andthe entrepreneurial environment, defined by the pres-ence of venture capital "angels" and entrepreneurs. TheKER team was constructed from a diverse range of re-searchers drawn from other Kodak R&D facilities, com-plemented by new staff recruited locally. Key skills forKER team members included technical expertise in rel-evant science and technology areas, experience workingwith external groups, and an aptitude for effective net-working. Geographic reach across the region was a veryimportant part of KER's mission, reflected in the com-position of̂ staff and in the way in which the TI strategywas developed.

current research interests are visual strategy, technologyintelligence, technology insertion, and through-life capa-bility management. Prior to Joining Cambridge, he was aresearch officer in engineering design at Cranfield Uni-versity. Clive has a First Class Honours degree in elec-trical and mechanical engineering, a Diploma degree ineconomics, a Postgraduate Certificate in the social sci-ences and an engineering doctorate, civk2@cam.ac.uk

Robert Phaal is a senior research associate at the Engi-neering Department of the University of Cambridge. Hiscurrent research interests include strategic technologymanagement, innovation, and industrial emergence.

focusing on the development of practical and well-foundedmanagement tools and frameworks. He is a mechanicalengineer, with industrial experience in contract research,technical consulting and .software development. He re-ceived his PhD in computational mechanics from the Uni-versity of Cambridge in 1990. rplO8@cam.ac.uk

David Probert is a reader in technology managementand the director of the Centre for Technology Manage-ment at the Engineering Department of the University ofCambridge. His current research interests are the man-agement of technology and manufacturing make or buy.drplOO@cam.ac.uk

Research • lechnology Management

KER's portfolio of work, which consisted of projects ap-plicable across the range of the Kodak businesses, wassplit between two main groups. Intelligent imaging staffmembers had expertise and skills in software, artificial in-telligence, and human-computer interaction. They inves-tigated ways to help people interact with and usemultimedia. Printing and patterning staff members had abroad range of skills across physics, engineering, chemis-try, and polymer and material sciences. They investigatednovel materials and new ways of depositing and pattern-ing materials on a variety of surfaces. Nearly all projectshad some element of external interaction; some were pre-dominantly outsourced to an external group. All staff wereencouraged to seek out new opportunities for external in-teractions across EAMER that could either speed theprogress of existing Kodak projects or enable the explora-tion of new areas of innovation for the company.

The theoretical model

KER's strategy for TI was based on the model devel-oped by Kerr et al. (2006); this model encompasses aprocess and a system architecture. The process cycle ofthe model occurs in six phases leading to the capture anddelivery of the information (Figure 1 ). TI interfaces withdecision makers in two ways. On one side, decisionmakers input guidance on how to direct the search, iden-tifying information needs; on the other side, informationis disseminated back to them through the intelligencecycle. Hence, in the coordination phase, tasks are as-signed, ideas for sources are generated, and search goalsare refined in cooperation with decision makers. Thesearch, filter, and analyze phases form a subordinatecycle within the process that is repeated until a satisfac-tory level of information is acquired. Then investigators

document their findings and disseminate the collectedintelligence.

The process cycle helps participants to review each ac-tivity and break down complex tasks.

Another tier of the model demonstrates that TI systemscan operate in four modes depending on what knowl-edge is being sought. Two modes (Mine and Trawl) aredirected internally within the organization, while theother two (Target and Scan) are used to source informa-tion outside of the organization. The modes can be brief-ly described as:

• Mine: The searcher is aware that the information hasbeen gathered and knows where it is.

• Trawl: The searcher does not know where the infor-mation is kept or if it has been acquired at all.

• Target: The searcher knows what to look for outsidecompany boundaries.

• Scan: The searcher is not seeking specific informa-tion, but has an open brief to look for new technologiesoutside company boundaries.

A complete TI system should encompass all four modes,with the balance of activity among the modes dependingon the company's needs (Mortara et al. 2009a). TI is op-erationalized through activities; each one can be de-scribed using the six phases of the process model. To-gether, 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 pro-cess model.

Intelligence Process

Refine

Act

intelligence informationfor decision mai<ers

Figure 1.—The generic technology intelligence process cycle, adapted fromKerr et al. (2006).

July—August 2010

The process from Scan to Target at KER

How could important technological information be cap-tured from across the whole of EAMER? The KER teamrecognized from the start the complexity of its missionand that Kerr et al.'s model (2006) could provide guid-ance to structure their activities. The design tnethodolo-gy (Figure 2) allowed moving in four steps from scanning(looking for any technology or partner potentially rele-vant to Kodak in any country in EAMER) to targeting(deepening the knowledge of identified technologies andexploring 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 UnitedKingdom, and the team soon realized the advantage ofthis deep background understanding. However, at thestart, they had limited knowledge about the rest of EAM-ER. It was evident that each country in the region had tobe approached independently in order to build an under-standing of its infrastructure and context for science andtechnology. The context would allow the strengths,weaknesses, and opportunities within that country to beappreciated fially.

Using Kerr et al.'s (2006) process model (Figure 3) theKER team worked to:

1. Identify geographic areas of interest (typically singlecountries or regions within a country) by estimating thedensity of technological centers of excellence.

2. Coordinate the participation of KER staff membersand other individuals in gathering information.

3. Search for and compile detailed information, using astandardized template.

4. Filter gathered information for relevance andtrustworthiness of its source. For acquiring a genericoverview of a country's background, infonnation gatheredfi'om in-country sources was validated with informationfrom international institutions such as the World EconotnicForum, the OECD, and the European Union.

5. Analyze information to ensure that it provided a goodidea of the strengths and weaknesses, the main researchgroups, and the organization of research in the country.

6. Document the information gathered, using a stan-dardized tetnplate.

7. Disseminate the information via electronically storedand searchable systems available to anyone in KERpreparing for a trip in the area.

8. Decide whether the country or technology identifiedwas worth deeper investigation, leading to the pursuit oflocal connections and on-site visits.

Looking for relevant technologiesacross the reqion

Scan

feedback

Collection ofcountry's

technology ~~\context L^

Identifyintermediariesnd 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

Targeting identifiedrelevant technologies

Visit thetargeted

country to3 establish

networks• What technologies are

relevant?• What is their readiness

level?• Views on cotlahoration

opportunities withresearch cental^?

Collaborations

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

Research •Technology Management

Search for information about tfie countryCriteria: Use webxoMä/rces to find general countryand economic /fiformi^fcn, overview of the country

Wsystem, mairi^^uers of exceiience. Hat of

Profile: For those aware of cofnßany 's requirenwnts

Coordinate: Organization and sharingof the countries among n operatives.

Profile: For those aware of thegênerai technology inteHigence

process

identify geographic areas of $interest (e.g.. slngie countriesi :

Criteria: Concentration oftechnological centers ofexceiience. and reievant

opportunities Disseminate informationCriteria: Distribute the information to

those interested (e.g.. other Tiopeintives)

Fiiter information for relevanceCriteria: information coming fromtrusted web sources (e.g.. OECD,

World Economic Forum)Profiie: For those aware of company's

requirements and those withexperience of the country

Anaiyze information for relevance to give anoveiaii generic impression of a country's

economic/ technologicai profile (strengths/weakness)

Profiie: For those aware of company'srequirements and experience of tfie country

Document informationCtiteria: Foitovt guidelines forsttucture. length, templates.

storage.

Decide whether country is worthdeeper investigation/set-up of

Figure 3.—The first step ofKER 's technology intelligence activity: Establishingthe country context, seen through the technology intelligence process model.

KER developed contextual understanding by creating aseries of documents to act as "country guides" to tech-nology and innovation; these documents were producedin collaboration with international interns primarily re-cruited through IAESTE (http://www.iaeste.org/), anassociation that supports students in gaining interna-tional professional technical training by placing themin companies outside of their home country. Internsgathered and documented background informationabout their own countries' lifestyle, welfare, education,politics, business environment, and research infrastruc-ture. The students' personal knowledge of their homecountries allowed for the rapid identification of rele-vant sources of information; with their close knowl-edge of their home countries' organization, the internswere able to trace ministries, useful institutions, andresearch centers, gather information from websites inthe original language, and act as native guides. How-ever, their personal experiences and subjective judg-ments could also be a source of bias. For example, they

could be tempted to offer information on institutionsthey knew better, rather than presenting those thatare objeetively aecredited. To avoid this, the guideswere collated in interaction with an experienced KERstaff member who ensured objectivity and provideddirection.

The guides were assembled with a Scan perspective—that is, the objeet was to search beyond already identi-fied technologies and interests—through Internetsearches only, following a clearly defined set of aimsand objectives (Table 1 ) and structured by standardizedtemplates (Table 2).

The guides were made available via a searchable elec-tronic archive. A staff member interested in finding acenter of excellence in a particular technology area couldsearch the system using this technology term. This is aclear example where attention to the Mine mode of TI atKER allowed Kodak to benefit fully from the informa-tion 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.

July—August 2010 Q

Table 2.—KER developed a template to guide in the creation of country guides that summarize the key facts relative toscience and technology innovation for each country of interest

Main heading Subheading suggestions Guiding Questions/tips

General eountry andeconomic information

Main economic sectors and their strengths andweaknesses

Administrative information—regional vs. national

Historical technological context

Overview of innovation policy

Financial infonnation—taxation system, labor costs,incentives to entrepreneurship

Other, e.g., IP regulation

On what sectors is the economy of the countrybased?

• Are there areas with strong regionalidentity?

• Is the country centrally regulated or is therea devolution policy?

• Are there important clusters?

• Are there areas of teehnologieal knowledgefor which the country has been/is famous?

• Is the govemment promoting particularteehnologieal areas?

• How is the country innovation policyperceived abroad?

Statistics > Population• Literacy> Median age. Total GDP and GDP per capita (PPP)> R&D investmentsI Telephones—main lines in use and mobile cellularI Internet hosts, internet users, broadband coverage> Industrial production growth rate

The statistical data acquired should beconsistent across all eountry guides. Manyorganizations publish statistics that areupdated regularly. However, to maintain anobjective perspective and to be able tocompare the data, use of the same sourceand data referring to the same year for eaeheountry is highly recommended.

Overview of the country'sresearch system

Organization of research and infrastrueture

List of research eenters and technology elusters inrelevant technological fields (e.g., universities,research institutes, technology poles)

• How is the research organized in thiscountry?

• Is it mainly dependent on the governmentand govemment funding or is it privatized?

• Are there technology networks and clusters?

This type of information is usually obtained byscanning local, country-based sources

Which university department/ researeh groupis the most renowned or productive inphysical science?

Intermediaries who can helpaccess the country resources

I Technology transfer servicesI Investment agencies1 Internationalization agenciesI Conferences and events on innovation• Venture capital funds. Others

. Are these intennediaries national or regional?• Do they have a particular technology bias?

Step 2: Identify intermediaries and organize country visits

It is clearly not feasible to establish direct contact withevery relevant university department, start-up company,or technology center across an entire country or region.Intermediaries can help companies to access and acquireinfonnation on new technologies (Mortara et al. 2009b).As an example, in their ethnographic study, Hargadonand Sutton (1997) highlight the technological brokeragerole of the design consultancy IDEO in developing in-novative products. Seaton and Cordey-Hayes (1993)suggest that intermediaries can help to "scan for and rec-ognize the value of ideas, knowledge, devices and arte-facts which are new to the organization," the first step in

the technology transfer process. Intermediaries may alsohave a knowledge-brokering function, in which theyhelp people build relationships, uncover needs, and shareideas and evidence that will let thetn do their jobs better(Verona, Prandelli, and Sawhney 2006). With this poten-tial in mind, KER decided to work with intermediariessuch as regional developrnent agencies, technologytransfer organizations, consultants, and venture capital-ists in order to expand the number of contacts.

As Howells (2006) notes, there are many intermediaryoptions available to accommodate different businesstnodels and a variety of different players. Hence, the de-velopment and use of networks through intermediaries

Research • Technology IVIanagement

requires close attention, an observation that has beenconfirmed by KER's experience. For example, in somecountries, such as the Netheriands, a centralized infra-structure and intermediaries (the Netherlands ForeignInvestment Agency working in tandem with Senter-novcm') exist to facilitate interactions between multina-tionals, local small and medium-sized enterprises(SMEs), and universities. In contrast, in some instances,a regional infrastructure and intermediaries exist. Forexample, in Germany, Berlin Partners- provides supportand an introduction service solely focused on the Great-er Berlin connurbation; Interface-̂ in the U.K., supportedby Scottish Enterprise,"* provides a portal to all of theuniversities in Scotland, and the London TechnologyNetwork'' acts similarly for universities in Greater Lon-don and the southeast of England. These agencies are wellconnected to university technology transfer offices (TTOs)in their regions, and they represent a more efficient way ofreaching a broader spread of institutions. Other importantintemiediaries for KER were venture capital networks re-gionally aligned with the local infrastructure, for instance,the London Technology Fund,̂ ' which supports early-stagecompanies in the London area. Other venture-capital ñindshave instead a more national or international focus.

The scouts solicited in parallel the services of severaltypes of intemiediaries to triangulate information. Thisapproach helped to reduce bias and ensured that the infor-mation coming from all the intermediaries was guidingKER toward the most relevant contacts.

The cycle of Kerr et al.'s model (2006) also providedguidance for this step of KER's TI activity:

• Identify: Likely intermediaries were identified, tak-ing into account a number of issues:

° Identification of areas of interest to KER andthe broader Kodak community through internalworkshops, resulting in an informationalbrochure to disseminate to intermediaries andother contacts.

' SenterNovem is an agency of the Dutch Ministry of EconomicAtTairs that promotes sustainable development and innovation, bothwithin the Netherlands and abroad, http://www.sentemovem.nl/english/ (accessed June 19, 2009).- Berlin Partner-supporting members and licensees are granted specialaccess to the Berlin business community as well as to important politicalcontacts. http://www.berlin-partner.de/exklusiv/?L=l (accessed June19,2009).' 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 developmentagency, http://www.scottish-enterprise.com/ (accessed June 19, 2009).^ London Technology Networks promotes innovative collaborationsand helps to stimulate technology-intensive innovation relationshipsbetween universities and business in London and the east and southeastof England, http://www.ltnetwork.org/ (accessed June 19, 2009).''London Technology Fund is London's specialist investor in newtechnology companies, http://www.londontechnologyfund.com/(accessed June 19,2009).

July—August 2010

° Identification of the strengths of the country orregion that match Kodak's interests and that shouldbe investigated as a matter of priority.

° Identification of intennediarics that could supportKER by introducing KER staff to the mostappropriate centers of excellence for science andtechnology, relevant early-stage businesses, andcenters that could help in better understanding thecontext of the country or region, using an establishedset of criteria (Table 3).

° Identification of staff who had already visited thearea and could act as liaison or provide information.

• Coordinate: A KER staff member was appointed toorganize each countiy visit, beginning with contactingintemiediaries to define the itinerary and the logisticaldetails. A checklist (Table 4) guided them in this task.The visit coordinator also disseminated information toall the parties involved, in particular to the other KERstaff members taking part.

• Search: Different itineraries and options were scru-tinized in collaboration with identified intennediaries.

• Filter: Potential groups to meet were shortlisted incollaboration with intennediaries (where possible).

• Analyze: Information gathered fi'om different interme-diaries was reviewed to achieve the best possible itinerary.Centers of excellence to be visited were prioritized accord-ing to internal criteria, existing knowledge, and intcmiedi-ary recommendations. Preference was given to clusters oftechnological centers of excellence, such as technopoles.

• Document: A visit plan was prepared.

• Disseminate: Material (including the detailed visitplan) was sent to those participating in the visit.

Step 3: Scouting visits

The third step of the TI process (see Figure 2), the scoutingtrip, had the dual purpose of capturing information and

' I TT' 'r"T

Table 3.—Intermediaries help KER to identify relevant contacts in EAMER. KER has devised criteria for theassessment and selection of intermediaries ' services.

Criteria Guiding questions

Geographical coverage

Technical coverage

Network span

Network density

Intermediary capability

Reputation

Motivation

Working style

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 oftechnologies?

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 tofind? Have they got a good understanding of the company, its needs, how it works? Are they activeor passive in their way of providing information? Are they able to provide technical information ina business-oriented context?

Are they known among the company's contacts (internal and external)? What comments andrecommendations 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 foradvertising purposes? Do they provide only relevant information? What are the costs of theirservices? Is there a good level of trust and confidence? What are the ternis of confidentiality?

setting up social networks and links. As with the othersteps, scouting visits were guided by a process cycle de-rived from Kerr et al. (Figure 4). Participants and KERstaff engaged in the following phases, during and afterthe visit:

• Identify: Identify criteria of evaluation relevant to theresearch groups visited.

• Coordinate: Coordinate those with different re-sponsibilities on the visit to ensure full benefit fromthe double-act approach. This includes making surethat everyone participating takes notes and givesfeedback according to their role in the double-act andprompting the hosts with questions if informationprovided 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 reportsabout 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 begiven to those with time and skills to follow up after the visit. Adopt a "double-act" approach ': for every meeting, there should beone person who asks the technical questions, and another who asks about ways to proceed and collaborate. KER has found thisapproach to be very successful. Non-KER people in the meetings responded veiy positively to this clear distinction of roles, resultingin significant improvement in meeting dynamics and, as a result, in efficiency in information gathering. This approach is particularlveffective 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 andthe desired knowledge. Provide them with an up-to-date version of the technology needs brochure. It is very important to crosscheckinformation 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

Coordinate: Make sure that everyone intarestedhas been properly informed about tin vtsíí deiaiis

Select tasks for the trip participant'^ jsKtrig them totake notes and gives feedba« '• jmpt the hosi

with questions if informatui;. , ovfdi-Cl f, notsufficient Coordinate the ̂ ub ie act

identify centers of interest (e.g.. iuniversities, companies)

Criteria: Relevant technoiogies,relevant opportunities

Disseminate informationCriteria: Distribute the iatoHnalion to

those interested (e.g.,VNrTIoperatives, decision maker^esst of

organization)

id the visit

Filter information for relevanceCriteria. Foiiow company strategy

Analyze & evaluate whichtechnologies could be interesting to

follow upCriteria. Technology relevance,

technology readiness, competence ofthe researchers, equipment andcollaboration potential {e.g., IPmanagement, timescaies, and

exampies of success)

Document informationCriteria: Follow guidelines of travel

report

Decide how to follow up withcontacts

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

• Filter: Select information of relevance during thevisit, using a visit checklist to keep track of information(Table 5).

• Analyze: Evaluate which technologies could beinteresting. Criteria for evaluation include technologyrelevance, technology readiness, competence of theresearchers, equipment available, and collaborationpotential (considering issues such as IP management,timescaies, and examples of previous successful collab-orations with other parties).

• Document: Use travel report prompts to documentthe visit (Table 5).

• Disseminate: Share with others (see Step 4).

Step 4: Post-visit

KER organized documentation and dissemination offindings after the visit in three steps:

• Collect all information about the visit and composereport or complete the visit template (Table 5).

• Scan contacts' business cards for inclusion in the gen-eral database.

• Report to KER general weekly meeting. This enabledthe Trawl mode and helped keep everyone at KER in-formed about new findings.

At this point, follow-up actions with contacts were de-cided by those who participated in the scouting visit, inconjunction with KER's director, leading to potentialcollaborations. In order to establish trust and good part-ner relationships, it was important to keep the intermedi-ary and visited organizations informed of the status and

final outcome of the discussions. If kept up to date, inter-mediaries could learn better about KER's evolving needsand become more efficient in identifying the tnost rele-vant information for KER. Even if the group or interme-diary did not tneet KER's current needs and criteria, thatgroup, kept informed and offered feedback on KER'sneeds, might become a partner on another occasion.

Successes and lessons learned

Several unexpected technology opportunities were iden-tified as a consequence of KER's TI approach. Informa-tion found through the TI process tended to fall into oneof three categories:

1. Vital for today's business,2. Of interest to tomorrow's business, or3. 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 groupsrequired a much longer strategic view that may be diffi-cult to maintain in challenging economic times. It wasnot untypical for a technology opportunity presented toa business unit to be ignored initially, only to be raisedas a priority some 9-12 months later.

Consequently, measures to illustrate how technologyleads could fit into Kodak's innovation process were im-portant to justify further senior management commitment,but difficult to quantify. Recent work within the Connect-2-Ideas^ consortium developed tnetrics that could be usedto address this issue. These metrics focused on:

^Connect-2-ldeas is a program sponsored by the European Unionunder its EU FP6 Enterprise program, http://www,connect2ideas.com (accessed June 19, 2009),

I July—Au'^ust 2010

Table 5.—Quick data-capture sheets, provided for each country/region visit, prompt scouts to capture theright information and help them to capture h quici<ly.

Date: Primary reason for travel: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 ñiture?

Feedback on the efficacy of the intermediaries

- Which intennediaries did you work with?

- How helpñil 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

• Number of opportunities identified, number progressedto next stage, and number of resulting engagements.

• Value of the partnerships emerging from TI, althoughthis is more difficult to measure quantitatively, as manyof the results cannot be fially appreciated before the col-laboration has matured.

• Speed to market. Typically, KER achieved productdevelopment two to four times faster than the estimatedtime for internal product development processes.

Although technology scanning is an intrinsic part ofmost researchers' daily work, traditional methods areunlikely to reveal many unexpected but valuable teeh-nology leads. In 18 months of operation, KER reviewed

more than 200 opportunities that arose through this sys-tematic search. Of these, about one-third were very rel-evant, one-third were somewhat relevant, and one-thirdwere less relevant (although even those that were notdirectly strategically aligned were perhaps useful to beaware of)- Of the most relevant opportunities, about 30%were developed, resulting in a small but significant num-ber of relationships (investments, joint ventures, and re-seareh or development contracts).

Lessons Learned

KER's scouts learned a number of "soft" lessons whileoperationalizing their TI strategy. Each step offered itsown realizations.

Research • Technology Management

Step I: Development of the country documents. Thecreation of the background country documents is agradual task. It is very important to record the sourceof all infonnation found, as this will help with updat-ing them later. The interns were invaluable because oftheir local knowledge, but objective, non-countrysources are very important to facilitate a more unbi-ased comparison of strengths and weaknesses acrossregions.

If they are to be useful, these documents must be kept"live" and regularly publicized so that staff members re-tnain aware of this growing resource. KER staff routine-ly discovered new information about expertise or trendsor organizations within a particular country or region;this new information was captured within the countrydocuments so that the value of the documents continuedto grow. Discipline was needed to manage continual ad-ditions of relevant information, and KER found it bene-ficial to have a single person responsible for building,maintaining, and publicizing the documents.

The searchability of the reports is crucial to maximizetheir use; attention should be paid to this support for theMine part of the TI strategy. Some KER staff memberstook the time to read the complete documents when pre-paring to visit a country or region, but in other scenariosit was likely that staff members searched for particularpieces of infonnation. Search navigation that allows fortechnology-specific queries across a range of documentsas well as country-specific queries is important.

Step 2: Identification of intermediaries. The impor-tance of working with intennediaries over time cannotbe overemphasized. KER found that using appropriateintermediaries and maintaining contact with them im-proves the process and helps in identifying key infor-tnation. For example, a weekly keyword search set upfor KER by the local office of the Innovation RelayCentre (IRC)*̂ identified an early-stage printing com-pany based in Eastern Europe that had developed tech-nology potentially relevant to Kodak's businesses. Thatinfonnation led to a joint developtnent relationship.This opportunity would have been missed without theinvolvetnent of the IRC. The key lessons from KER'sexperience with intermediaries are:

• Spending titne finding the right intennediary and cul-tivating relationships within intermediary organizationsis worth the effort; often an intennediary's efficacy isdependent on the relationship with the particular indi-vidual within the intennediary organization designatedto tnanage the relationship.

* Innovation Relay Centre, now called the Enterprise Europe Network,is a European Union-funded network comprising more than 500organizations across 40 countries; IRC offers innovation andtechnological cooperation services and assists in finding businesspartners and developing researeh capacities. http://www.enterprise-europe-network.ee.europa.eu/index en.htm (aeeessed May 24,2010).

July—August 2010

• Information from one intermediary should be cross-checked with other intermediaries to ensure that the in-formation is reliable and cotnplete. Intermediaries tnaybe biased; checking them against each other helps en-sure a complete picture.

• The decision regarding whether a country is to be ap-proached nationally or regionally should be based on thecountry's context. There is a huge difference in how sci-ence and technology is organized, what kind of intenne-diaries are available, and how the organization of a visitshould be approached when a country is organized on aregional rather than national basis.

• It is easy for those unfatniliar with TI work to assumethat intennediaries are all the satne and that selecting andworking with thetn is an obvious and sitnple part of theprocess. There are important differences between typesof intermediaries and the importance of working with theright groups cannot be overemphasized.

Step 3: Scouting visits. Key elements for the success ofthe approach included:

• The commitment and time required for thorough post-visit follow-up should not be underestimated. This shouldbe considered when deciding who should go on the visit;those who are likely to be too busy to follow up shouldnot be sent.

• The "double-act" approach might sound obvious, butwhen followed in a disciplined way, it was surprisinglyeffective. When constructing the teatn, it is itnportant tocreate the right balance between technical experts andproficient networkers. Effective scouting requires tnultipleskill sets; this is best accommodated by assigning dis-tinct roles within the team.

1 1 I I

• It was easier to start by organizing a trip around a focusarea, targeting a specific research contact, and then consid-er what else could be seen by scanning the surroundinggeographical area. This initial focus made it easier to getinterest and buy-in from the rest of the Kodak community.

Adopting the TI Model. Being able to distinguish be-tween the different modes of TI (Scan, Target, Trawl,Mine) and the cycle phases (Identify, Coordinate, Search,Filter, Analyze, Document, and Disseminate) was ex-tremely helpful; the generalized theoretical model helpedin applying and developing appropriate TI skills as wellas in thinking about how to articulate the tasks that need-ed to be done. It also provided a common languageamong the KER team to review and explain their activi-ties. For example, a clearly expressed technology needrequired a Target approach; in this situation, KER staffknew which intermediaries to turn to and which ap-proach to take. On the other hand, a less-defined needsuch as that of understanding the state of the art in aparticular technology area required a Scan approach.Using Kerr et al.'s model, KER knew to go to differentintermediaries and develop the work program to maxi-mize the usage of scanning techniques.

Conclusion

Three years since the opening of KER, the develop-rnent and application of their TI strategy has greatlyenhanced the ability of the center to achieve its aims.The TI strategy has allowed Kodak to follow itsopen innovation model and make the most of the op-portunities available in the greater European region.Unfortunately, in spite of KER's successes, financialconditions 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 ongoingat the Centre for Technology Management (Universityof Cambridge) to better understand the role of interme-diaries in assisting companies to set up technology in-telligence 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 withlistening posts in decentralised firms. Creativity á InnovationManagement 13(1): 3-14.

Gassmann, O., and Gaso, B. 2005. Organizational fraineworks forlistening post activities. International Journal of TechnologyIntelligence and Planning 1(3): 241-265.

The Greater Cambridge Partnership. 2007. The Greater CambridgeAnnual 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 andinnovation in a product development firm. Administrative ScienceQuarterly 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 ininnovation. Re.search Policv 35(5): 715-728.

Kerr, C. I. V., Mortara,'L., Phaal, R., and Probert, D. R. 2006. Aconceptual model for technology intelligence. International .Journalof 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. Atoolbox 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 developmentand application of interactive models of industrial technologytransfer. Technovation 13(1): 45-53.

Verona, G., Prandelli, E., and Sawhney, M. 2006. Innovation andvirtual environments: Towards virtual knowledge brokers. OrganizationStudies 27: 765-788.

CALL FOR PAPERS

Research-Technology Management Seeks Submissions

Research-Technology Management seeks articles that connect theory to practice in the management ofinnovation.

We are actively seeking articles that map the cutting edge in R&D management, illustrate how managementtheory can be applied to real situations, and give R&D managers the tools to promote innovation throughouttheir organizational cultures. We are interested in case studies, practical models, frameworks, and toolscovering a wide range of innovation and technology management. We are particularly interested in articlesabout open innovation, design-driven innovation, user-centered innovation, and other trends in innovationstrategy and R&D management.

RTM articles are concise and practice centered. We prefer submissions at around 3,500 words, although wewill 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.