Organizational Unit:
School of Public Policy

Permanent Link
https://hdl.handle.net/1853/70716
Research Organization Registry ID
Description
Previous Names
Parent Organization
Parent Organization
Includes Organization(s)
ArchiveSpace Name Record
https://finding-aids.library.gatech.edu/agents/corporate_entities/1033

Filters

1 1
2011 2
2
2
2
2
Reset filters

Settings
search.filters.applied.f.advisor: Shapira, Philip × End date: 2011 × Start date: 2010 × search.filters.applied.f.isOrgUnitOfPublicationTitle: Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts ×

Publication Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Thumbnail Image
Item

How do prizes induce innovation? learning from the Google Lunar X-prize

2011-07-07 , Kay, Luciano

Inducement prizes-where cash rewards are given to motivate the attainment of targets--have been long used to encourage scientific research, develop technological innovations, or stimulate individuals, groups, and communities to accomplish diverse goals. Lately, prizes have increasingly attracted the attention of policy-makers, among others, due to their potential to induce path-breaking innovations and accomplish related goals. Academic research, however, has barely investigated these prizes in spite of their long history, recent popularity, and notable potential. This research investigates prizes and the means by which they induce innovation. It uses an empirical, multiple case-study methodology, a new model of innovation applied to prizes, and multiple data sources to investigate three cases of recent aerospace technology prizes: a main case study, the Google Lunar X Prize (GLXP) for robotic Moon exploration; and two pilot cases, the Ansari X Prize (AXP) for the first private reusable manned spacecraft and the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge (NGLLC) for flights of reusable rocket-powered vehicles. The investigation unveils the dynamics of prizes and contributes a better understanding of their potential and disadvantages in a context in which more traditional mechanisms are used to induce innovation. This research shows that prizes are a more complex mechanism and their investigation requires analyzing entrant- and context-level factors generally not considered by the literature. Prizes complement and not replace patents and other incentive mechanisms. The incentives offered by prizes attract entrants with diverse characteristics, including unconventional entrants--individuals and organizations generally not involved with the prize technologies. Entrants are generally attracted by the non-monetary benefits of participation and the potential market value of the technologies involved in competitions. Many more volunteers, collaborators, and partners also participate indirectly and support official entries as they also perceive opportunities to accomplish their personal and organizational goals. The monetary reward is important to position the competition in the media and disseminate the idea of the prize. Prizes can induce increasing R&D activities and re-direct industry projects to target diverse technological goals, yet the evolution of prize competitions and quality of the technological outputs is generally difficult to anticipate. The overall organization of prize R&D activities and their outputs depend on entrant-level factors and can only be indirectly influenced by setting specific competition rules. The most remarkable characteristic of prize R&D activities is their interaction with fundraising efforts which, in some circumstances, may constrain the activities of entrants. Prizes can also induce innovation over and above what would have occurred anyway, yet their overall effect depends significantly on the characteristics of the prize entrants and the evolution of the context of the competition. The ability of prizes to induce innovation is larger when there are larger prize incentives, more significant technology gaps implicit in the prize challenge, and open-ended challenge definitions. To successfully induce technological breakthroughs, prizes may require complementary incentives (e.g. commitments to purchase technology) or support (e.g. seed funding.) Prizes are particularly appropriate to, for example, explore new, experimental methods and technologies that imply high-risk R&D; induce technological development to break critical technological barriers; accelerate technological development to achieve higher performance standards; and, accelerate diffusion, adoption, and/or commercialization of technologies. They involve, however, higher programmatic risks than other more traditional mechanisms and their routine use, and/or challenge definitions that overlap, can weaken the incentive power of the mechanism. Successful implementation of competitions requires many parameters to be properly set.

View
Thumbnail Image
Item

The US - China scientific collaboration, knowledge moderation, and China's rise in nanotechnology

2011-05-18 , Tang, Li

In the emerging knowledge economy, scientific pursuit in the form of international collaboration has escalated. Studies consistently report that such collaboration, which has been intensifying in the last several decades, is common among not only advanced economies but also in emerging scientific nations such as China, India, and Brazil. The emergence of a "new invisible college" of international knowledge exchange has aroused interest from social scientists and captured the attention of policymakers. Indeed, recognizing its importance as a means of monitoring and exploiting other countries' R&D investment, more and more countries champion and participate in international joint research. International collaboration between the United States (US) and China is particularly interesting. The US has been and will continue to be the leader in scientific development for the foreseeable future. However, as a rising scientific power, China is changing the global landscape of ideas and innovation along with other emerging countries. The growing significance of the US-China relationship and worldwide interest in China's development suggest that the characteristics of the scientific collaboration of these two countries and its associated knowledge dissemination across national borders are timely topics to study. Surprisingly, few studies have examined research collaboration between a scientific superpower and an emerging scientific power, particularly in the context of emerging state-of-the-art technology. This dissertation seeks to address this research gap by examining patterns of collaboration in the US-China scientific community and its impact on China's rapid knowledge accumulation in nanotechnology, if any, through Chinese knowledge moderators (CKMs)--Chinese scholars who bridge two otherwise distant scientific communities through intensive collaboration with both sides. The research focuses on the following three aspects: firstly, built upon the notions of the boundary spanner and the structural hole, the study develops the concept of Chinese knowledge moderators and uses it as an instrument to examine the relationship between international collaboration and knowledge spillover across national boundaries. Secondly, it operationalizes and tests the impact of US-China collaboration using multiple methods. In addition to citation-based indicators, based on the turnover of nanotechnology keywords, the study investigates the impact of collaborating with US scholars on CKMs' research trajectory and the international knowledge spillover facilitated by CKMs. Thirdly, utilizing a longitudinal publication dataset of 77 CKMs and their CV data, this study is able to quantify the dynamic impact of US collaboration on the quality of CKMs' research over time. The combination of bibliometric analyses, empirical testing, and case studies allows for the development of a comprehensive blueprint of US-China scientific collaboration in the field of nanotechnology. This research yields several significant findings. First, the evolution of US-China collaboration in nanotechnology has gone beyond quantitative growth, as qualitative and structural changes have begun to take place. Secondly, CKMs play a critical role in fostering China's nanotechnology development, manifested in both knowledge creation and knowledge diffusion. The present study also reveals that US-China collaboration has a diminishing effect over time on the research quality of CKMs at level of individual papers, but as pertaining to entire journals. Thirdly, the case studies on the evolution of research streams suggest that US-China collaboration influences the research trajectory of CKMs, who, as the conduits of knowledge, further disseminate it within the national boundaries of China. The research also has policy implications for both sides. Chinese policy makers need to strengthen the mechanisms that encourage CKMs collaborating with the US, and, in order to amplify international knowledge spillover, these mechanisms should further encourage more interactions between CKMs and their Chinese domestic colleagues. From the US American perspective, given China's scientific emergence in nanotechnology, the US should direct its efforts to ensuring its ample access to exploiting the heavy R&D investment of this emerging scientific powerhouse by collaborating with top Chinese scientists.

View