Emerson’s non-quote does raise a question, however. How do we identify technology which is better? With mouse-traps there are some fairly obvious metrics relating to mouse mortality and cheese preservation, but not all inventions are as easy to benchmark. The last few weeks have seen anouncements of upgrades to the world’s two most commonly used smartphone operating systems: Apple’s iOS (version 5) and Google’s Android (version 4). Each brings a raft of new features, although in both cases it has to be said that these new features are no longer as core to the operation of the device as innovations in earlier versions. Voice-operated search and facial recognition are nice, but hardly essential elements of a mobile computer, at least for now. Perhaps lost in the combative comparisons deployed by proponents of each OS is the fact that a genuinely key ability – web browsing – is implemented on both platforms using essentially the same code: the Web Kit open source project. While newer functionality is added by Google and Apple to differentiate the competing products, it pays them to cooperate on key, unavoidable elements of their offerings. Given this, it’s fair to repeat the question – how do we identify real innovation? The newer differentiating features appear to be the cutting edge of endeavour, but their very newness is a demonstration that – up to now at least – they have not been essential elements of the technology in question. Some of them will die away despite their novelty, having never truly improved the invention that they embellish. Like a cheese grater on your mouse trap, it’s possibly a nice idea and undoubtedly novel, but how useful is it really? Only time will tell, and in the meantime better springs, and better browsers, are being developed.

So perhaps the question needs to be: “looking back at innovations that have proved to be key, how do they tend to develop?” Using the answer to this, we might be able to form some techniques for looking at our cutting-edge-but-possibly-pointless innovations and making guesses about their eventual utility. We might even be able to identify over-arching strategies for conducting and rewarding innovation…

Here we get into an argument that flared up earlier this month, when a video of Francis Gurry, the Director General of the UN’s World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) back in June was discovered by the internet commentating community. Gurry was speaking to sum up his views on a debate which had just taken place on ‘Accelerating Growth and Development’ in relation to invention and intellectual property. Gurry’s argument was seemingly  summed up by the headline on the BoingBoing article which drew it to the internet’s attention: “WIPO boss: the Web would have been better if it was patented and its users had to pay license fees”. Reading the article, though, even the quote that BoingBoing had pulled failed to use that emotive word ‘better’:

Intellectual property is a very flexible instrument. So, for example, had the world wide web been able to be patented, and I think that is a question in itself, perhaps the amount of investment that has gone into or would be able to go into basic science would be different. If you had found a very flexible licensing model, in which the burden for the innovation of the world wide web had been shared across the whole user community in a very fair and reasonable manner, with a modest contribution for everyone for this wonderful innovation, it would have enabled enormous investment in turn in further basic research. And that is the sort of flexibility that is built into the intellectual property system. It is not a rigid system.

Reaction to the video from proponents of open content and open source across the internet was voluble and aggravated. Gurry was accused of being ideologically indoctrinated and blinkered, tied to anachronistic models of IP registration and exploitation even in the face of the incredible growth and success of the web largely without the intervention of these models. In fact though, the most that Gurry says is that the web would have been ‘different’. Taken in the context of the statements which preceded it (and which you can hear by downloading the video), in which the value of the traditional IP systems had been questioned repeatedly, Gurry’s statements do not really support the distillation they were given, and which caused so much anger. He is trying to argue that the web could have grown within more traditional licensing structures. Whether he is right about this or not, he is not claiming here that it would have been ‘better’ under those circumstances.

The anger and confusion here are natural, though. The battle lines between proponents of the traditional and the more ‘open’ approaches to innovation (and here we should note that the buzz phrase ‘open innovation’ often itself refers to deeply traditional IP exploitation patterns) have long been drawn, and the forces on both sides are keen to tackle and destroy the arguments of their opponents wherever they see them. The web is often perceived  - with much justification – as a triumph of innovation outside the traditional IP exploitation framework. To hear someone perceived as being part of the old-guard even discussing it can seem presumptuous to some ears. Yet in reality the implied dichotomy here is simplistic. The open licensing movements themselves are underpinned by the arcane operations of traditional licensing and exploitation. While they may give these operations an innovative twist, they could not be enforced or defended without them. Conversely, Gurry’s example of why  the patent regime is beneficial fails to address the criticisms of openness proponents. He points to the publication framework implicit in the current patent system, and makes the comparison between the saxophone – which has fully documented design documents available thanks to its having been patented – and the violin – where many secrets of producing the greatest instruments have been lost through secrecy and the passage of time. This critique – while interesting – is almost wholly inappropriate as a defence of the current system in opposition to more open models. In the modern case, both models involve complete publication – the distinction lies in how benefits are reaped from exploitation and by whom.

Given the frequent failures of either side in this debate to engage with what the other is actually saying – illustrated by this sad tale –  it’s not surprising that telling which innovations are better remains hard. While ideology is important, it can often obscure our view of what actually matters to most people: how many mice are killed (or indeed captured).

The UK has been described as “a world leader in ineffective IT schemes for government“. There have been a number of high cost IT initiatives which have run late, under-performed or failed over the last 20 years including: the Child Support Agency’s IT system, the IT system that would have underpinned the National ID Card scheme, the Defence Information Infrastructure Programme, the implementation of the Single Payments Scheme by the Rural Payments Agency, and the National Offender Management System (C-Nomis).

The main problem, the report says, is that the Government does not have the internal skills to specify and procure IT systems. As a result they tend to rely on large external contractors to manage the process of developing IT systems (and to subcontract to smaller businesses where necessary) . Naturally this involves handing over very large amounts of both cash and power to the ‘head’ contractors, and it is this complete externalisation of the ‘IT customer’ function that the report points to as the key failing in previous large government IT procurements. The answer, therefore, is to get better IT management skills within departments and take on the management of the smaller subcontractors themselves.

This is not the only failing identified. It seems that Government also tends to ‘gold-plate’ (over-specify) security requirements even on systems that do not require it. The report also criticises the tendency to see IT projects as a distinct kind of problem rather than an exercise in change management like any other. Nevertheless, it is the ‘externalisation’ problem which looms largest in the report’s somewhat gloomy findings, and it is in this context that the issue of open source arises.

Early on the report identifies the creation of ‘a level playing field for open source software’ as one of the approaches to solving the problem of Government IT that had already been suggested. In the recommendations, we find that open source is mentioned in the context of providing an open data platform for Government-held data which could be developed upon by third parties to provide analysis and manipulation applications. While both of these suggestions are sound in themselves, I think it is in the core recommendation that we can see the best opportunity to realise value for the UK taxpayer from open source software and development.

While there are very large scale corporations offering open source solutions, the majority of bidders for Government IT contracts offer closed source solutions, often with the bidder themselves retaining ownership of the IPR in the resultant code and licensing it under very restrictive terms. If the current reforms succeed in getting departments to break down IT procurements into smaller interoperating sections and invite bids for these from smaller, more agile developers, the opportunity for existing successful open source projects to be the bases for Government IT solutions expands. Assuming that the newly-acquired IT experts within departments are able to meaningfully engage with the communities around these projects – both through their hired developers and as users themselves – then huge amounts of value in terms of code, user requirements and expertise which are currently locked into closed, non-functioning projects will be available for the good of the community at large. The projects themselves will learn how to interact with Government clients, and software components of general application will find their way back into the public space to benefit other large-scale users.

All of these benefits, though, depend both on an openness to the use of open source software but also on expertise in managing the relationship with that software’s community. So while I welcome heartily the proposal that Government acquire the IT skills to take a hands-on role in managing their IT procurements, I hope that those IT skills will include expertise in exploiting the unique benefits of joining an open source community.

It gives me great pleasure that one of my own hires, Sander van der Waal, has agreed to be my successor. Sander has been a key part of the team for some time and is well equipped to take over from me as manager. I have no doubt that Sander will continue to deliver, through the brilliant OSS Watch team, an advisory service designed to ensure our sector benefits from, and contributes to, open source.

Before explaining what I’ll be doing next I want to explain why I’m leaving.

Difficult Times

The academic sector is changing. It’s changing in fundamentally important ways. Most importantly, for OSS Watch, the funding models for services like ours is changing. For some time I, as manager, have been seeking to ensure all staff within the OSS Watch team have a level of job security that our current funding model is unable to provide as we move forwards.

As background consider that OSS Watch staff, including myself, have been on rolling three month contracts for nearly a year. Naturally, under these circumstances it has been very difficult to provide a valuable service to the sector. I’m extremely proud of the OSS Watch team and what we have achieved under these circumstances.

I’m not interested in complaining about the lack of security for our staff. The reality is that the economic and political environment of the last couple of years is the root cause of these difficulties and it’s pointless to suggest that the problems could/should have been avoided. The fact is OSS Watch is a minuscule part of this whole sector and nobody is to blame for how things have affected us. In fact, rather than complain I would rather state, loud and clear, I have nothing but praise for those with a direct influence on our work.

The JISC, through our programme director Matthew Dovey, have done everything in their power to ensure OSS Watch remains viable. Similarly our host, Oxford Universities Computing Services, have been faultless in their handling of staff contracts. There were a number of times that OUCS could have legitimately cancelled our employment contracts, but this was never seriously considered. On behalf of the OSS Watch team I want to thank the JISC and OUCS for taking responsibility and not sweeping important services like OSS Watch under the carpet.

Similarly, I want to thank the OSS Watch team. Despite extremely difficult circumstances the team have stuck by me and my plans for the future of OSS Watch. This is a testament to both the value they place in OUCS as an employer and to their commitment and contributions to open source advice in the academic sector.

So, if I am so happy with our funders, employers and team why am I leaving?

An OSS Watch Spin-Out

During the last year I and the team have been working to secure additional funding streams for OSS Watch. We’ve had plenty of success in attracting funding for specific support activities in key projects, this has enabled us to significantly reduce our demands on the JISC. In addition, I’ve had success in generating interest in an OSS Watch like service for the private sector.

As a result of this interest from the private sector I’m leaving OSS Watch in order to start a new company, OpenDirective, with Steve Lee as a partner. Our goal is to connect the smart folk in the UK research domain to the people who can take their software developments to market.

Both Steve and I will remain engaged with the OSS Watch team to ensure our services are complementary.  Through our collaboration we will seek to identify opportunities for technology transfer and, in so doing, generate alternative streams of revenue for open source activities within the academic sector.

What Does This Mean to You?

First and foremost, OSS Watch continues to provide free, at the point of use, advisory services to the UK Higher and Further Education Sector. OSS Watch remains fully independent of commercial interests and as such continues to provide unbiased, non-advocacy advice. However, these services will remain advisory only. That is OSS Watch will not tell you the best course of action, nor will they actively engage with the implementation of your chosen route. OSS Watch seek to enable you to choose and act upon the right option.

OpenDirective, on the other hand, are able to provide more proactive and engaged services. We won’t just advise you of your options, we’ll be willing to tell you what you should do. We’ll even help you do it. Naturally we’ll explain our reasoning, but we’ll be spending more time on making your project succeed than deliberating over all possible alternative actions. OpenDirective will not be free at the point of use, but our contracts are performance based, that is we’re happy to put our time and money where our mouths are.

Interestingly, one of OpenDirectives first clients is OSS Watch. For the foreseeable future, Steve and I will remain a part of the OSS Watch project support team. So, if you are part of a project that has Steve or I are assigned to then things will not change a great deal for you. At the same time, a couple of our initial contracts are injecting funding and community development work back into OSS Watch projects.

Taken together we believe that the combination of OSS Watch and OpenDirective give you a new range of options that should enable you to reach your goal state in the most appropriate way possible for your unique position.

Government must be better connected to the people it serves and partners who can work with it – especially small businesses, voluntary and community organisations. Government ICT must play a fundamental role in making life easier and I want to ensure that it does.

One of our first goals is to organise Government data and systems using an agreed set of standards that make our ICT more open, cheaper and better connected.

If you’re a business or community organisation, helping us choose the right standards will make it easier for you to do business with Government.  It will also help us open up data, better informing your decisions, and hopefully prompting innovation.

There’s a lot of detail in the very long list of obtuse standard numbers, but fortunately a mechanism is provided to skip sections you aren’t interested in. Otherwise you can vote on each standard on a scale between mandatory and don’t use. Refreshingly for a survey, there are spaces for you to add your own thoughts (though you can’t add each on a new line as requested).

I spotted couple of typos and more seriously, the Microsoft originated ISO/IEC 29500 Office Open XML is incorrectly called ‘Open Office XML. This is bound to lead to confusion as the alternatively listed ISO/IEC 26300:2006 Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) standard was originally implemented in OpenOffice (and is now implemented by LibreOffice).

Open standards play well with open source software developement and we encourage you to take the survey. However do bear in mind the government’s past record in implementing open technology policies. You might also want to look at Glyn Moody’s related post about the Government’s definition of open standards provided in the procurement policy note.

In previous years this survey has been sent out to ICT directors across FE and HE institutions in the UK. This year, however, we have decided to expand the survey, in order to gain a broader view of the state of open and closed source software in FE and HE. Therefore, if you work in the UK HE/FE sector, we encourage you to contribute. Your data will provide invaluable background on the status of open source use as depicted by ICT directors, and will make an important contribution to the future planning of ICT procurement and support by FE/HE institutions and the JISC.

Please access this year’s survey here.

We appreciate that you may not know the answers to all of the questions as you may not be dealing with all aspects of policy planning and implementation. We would, however, appreciate any information you can provide, so please don’t hesitate to give this survey a go.

The previous survey, conducted in 2008, found that there awareness and usage of open source software has increased significantly, although closed source software remained more popular than open source in both HE and FE institutions. The survey pinpointed the main obstacles to engaging with open source software as being a perception of difficulty and a need for more resources and highly skilled staff, as well as a perception that open source software is not supported.

On the OSS Watch website you can read the detailed findings from the 2008 report (pdf) and the 2006 report.

1. Share both Risks and Rewards

When participating in an open source project you are largely in the same boat as all the other contributors to the project, therefore sharing the risks among each other. If a release is delayed or major bugs are introduced in the software, everybody suffers. However, some open source licences allow you to add your own private rewards by building your own customization of the software without contributing it back to the project. It is a bad idea to do so because when you let your code deviate from the project’s code you always end up with more complex migration paths which makes it harder to keep profiting from the efforts of the community.

2. Tap into Intrinsic Incentives

Intrinsic incentives are extremely important for open source software projects. There is still a widespread misconception that open source software is being developed by hobbyists where there is no money involved. This is not the case, because a large majority of the code in open source software projects is being developed by people who are paid by their employers to do so. This is also true in the educational sector in the UK, where software projects are being fund by the likes of JISC and the research councils. Nevertheless, for any sustainable open source community intrinsic incentives are very important. For example in the Apache Software Foundation, when a contributor becomes a committer to an ASF project they personally become one and never as an employee of some company X. Being part of a community that builds cool software is just great and having a culture within the project that feeds into that is therefore extremely important. A nice illustration of this Dan Plink’s TED talk on motivation. He shows in a very powerful way that highly skilled people are not mainly motivated by money, but by being challenged and by the opportunity to develop a mastery.

3. Don’t Expect Something for Nothing

For an open source software project to be truely sustainable, external contributions and engagement from new participants are extremely important. Usually, a public mailing list or forum is the first entry point for potential contributors. Although it is likely that people first ask questions on these lists rather than answering them, in a healthy project all participants help out each other. This makes the project scalable and is one of the reasons why it does not necessarily takes a lot of time to open up a software projects to the outside: if you manage to engage new people they will help out others and that way a truly sustainable community can develop.

4. Ask Engaging Questions

People or companies that are involved in open source projects never have completely overlapping problems and therefore it is not always clear which solution is the most appropriate for all of them. Moreover, if you encounter a project that provides a lot of the functionality you need but not all of it, there are very effective mechanisms to discuss the features of the project. Mailing lists and forums are used widely to engage in discussion and find ways of merging features different people need. Of course, if you require a specific piece of functionality, it is up to you to build it and contribute it to the project. But discussing the requirements and problems of different people can lead to interesting insights that can be valuable to the whole project. Due to the distributed nature of open source software projects people with very different backgrounds will bring their own viewpoints, which can lead to more creative solutions and spark new ideas.

5. Build Business Empathy

Open source projects can thrive or be damaged by reputation just like businesses. The plea in the original post for an honest and human approach is very well applicable to open source projects. But in many cases it comes more natural to open source projects to have that approach because, as mentioned earlier, there is already a focus on individual contributions incorporated in the dna of many projects. For new projects or projects that are working towards sustainability it is important to define processes that support this approach and to fix it in a governance model document, so it is clear to everybody what they can expect from the project, thereby providing a more level playing field.

6. Target Quantity before Quality

This tactic is well-known in software where it is more commonly known as the ‘Release early, release often’ mantra. If you are active in a young open source software project that is still in its infancy, getting a release out is a very effective way of engaging new contributors and is therefore a huge opportunity to let your project grow to become sustainable. Releasing early makes the barrier to entry lower for new users, albeit that the first few releases will be of lower quality and contain less features. As long as this is clearly communicated to the (prospective) this need not be a problem but can help the project as a whole move forward more quickly.

7. Find Your Top 1%

In the original post the 100% open team explains that out of 100 users, there are usually only 10 who are really engaged and just 1 who will provide a substantial contribution. Although the percentages may vary, also in open source software projects it is very important to identify the users of today that are most likely to become the contributors of tomorrow. It is essential for any open source project to engage those users and try to have them contribute to the project and perhaps even become a committer to help achieving sustainability in the long run.

OSS Watch community development manager Gabriel Hanganu published an excellent briefing note recently, in which he explains how the sustainability lessons can be appied to research infrastructure. Gabriel’s analyis shows that a lot of the tactics and incentives for open innovation are also important in that space.

How they achieved this? Their overall project, although being a bit specific, implemented the emerging W3C widget standard which is relevant to a wider community. They managed to attract some interest from outside the initial project group. OSS Watch helped them with community development and identifying potential sources of value and funding. A good home for the project was found at the Incubator of the Apache Software Foundation, thereby attracting much more interest and contributions from parties inside and outside the academic sector.

Currently, Apache Wookie (Incubating) is a thriving project and has seen many bugfixes and new features contributed by the community. It resulted in a lot of visibility for the University of Bolton outside the regular channels, leading to new partnerships with the commercial sector and universities inside and outside of the UK. Last but not least they managed to secure a lot of new project funding from European sources.

Sustaining your software project beyond funding is not just morally right or something that should be done so your money is not spent wastefully. Scott’s example shows that it is very much in the interest of the institutions and the project team to sustain the project. So think about how your software development project can be sustained after the funding has run out or which part of it is most potential to generate a viable community. And get in touch with OSS Watch; we are here to help.

Click here to view the embedded video.

In this video, she reflects on times when open source was not considered in public organisations, because of issues that were perceived such as lacking technical support and worry about IP infringement issues. The consequence was that officials were discouraged from selecting software on merit. There may have been open source products out there sufficiently fulfilling the requirements, but this was not enough to be considered by public organisations.

But times are changing and it’s meaningful that Kroes, who is also the Vice-President of the European Commission, acknowledges this. She mentions a few developments to illustrate this point. For example, OSOR provides unbiased advice and guidance on the use, development, and licensing of free and open source software (sounds familiar?). It also contains a ‘forge’ providing a home to open source software projects.

Kroes also mentions the European Interoperability Framework (EIF) as an example. This is interesting because there is a lot of debate and lobbying going on regarding version 2.0 of EIF. A few months ago Glyn Moody analysed a leaked draft of EIF 2.0 highlighting the confusing and vague references to openness and open source software. More recently, the New York Times wrote how companies like Google, IBM and Red Hat are lobbying for inclusion of open source software in the document, which is perceived as a strategy to break Microsoft’s hold. It probably won’t be until the end of the year before the final version 2.0 of the EIF document is released. Although the closeness around the drafting process of this document does not look very promising, it may be a good sign that Kroes includes the framework in this speech.

Additionally, Kroes stresses the importance of strong communities and the role they play in shaping Europe’s digital future. And now the EU commission has the opportunity to put the money where their mouth is, as it recently announced to fund projects worth 1.2 billion Euros to be launched in 2011. This is a genuine opportunity to invest in open source software and in open source companies to make sure that the open source offering can compete better with companies that offer proprietary alternatives.

As Jeff explained, about 20 years ago the central Camden residents were offered a gardening plot in an attempt to counter the effects of the visually appalling derelict buildings and tall blocks of flats that dominated the area. People started growing vegetables, and over the years the plot became the hub of a thriving gardening community.

Bangladeshi women in particular became effective users of these allotments. They grew vegetables for their daily needs using techniques they had learned from their parents and grandparents in Bangladesh. For them gardening was a key source of food, and over the years they became experts in producing sustainable gardens with minimal financial investment. One way of increasing cultivation space was to build ramshackle supports that favoured the 3D expansion of the plants.

It was these string-bound wooden structures that intrigued Jeff Travers in the first place. He examined them with his architect hat on, but at the same time he was curious about their role in increasing vegetable production. By growing his own plants next to those of the Bangladeshi families, Jeff learned a lot about sustainable gardening using traditional techniques, such as saving seeds and using recyclable natural materials.

Jeff’s collaboration with the Bangladeshi women gardeners brought him a silver medal. The right topic in the right place at the right time, one might say. However, according to Jeff, designing and building the garden was not such a simple task:

It’s quite an architectural problem to translate Bangladeshi allotments to suit the Hampton Court setting. We’ve used the intensive Bangladeshi horticultural techniques in the growing of the plants, but we’ve arranged them in a way that conforms to the written rules of 18th century potager of which the garden of Hampton Court Palace was modeled.

This story is a good illustration of open innovation facilitated by connecting groups with apparently disparate sets of skills. To design his prize-winning garden Jeff put together the knowledge networks of the traditional Bangladeshi gardeners, the skills of their British offspring who adapted these techniques to the London context, and his own ‘architect-cum-gardener’ ability to translate these in the lingo of a professional garden design competition.

In fact such processes happen all around us at various levels. As Roland Harwood pointed out in his recent keynote at TransferSummit:

Many organisations are beginning to embrace more open and collaborative approaches to innovation. Inspired by the success of open source products such as the Apache web server and the Firefox browser, many multinational companies such as Procter and Gamble, Orange and IBM have made ‘open innovation’ – the sharing of the risks and rewards of the product development process with partners – a top strategic priority.

Academic institutions had been there long before the businesses:

The open source software movement has been a pioneer in product development which many others have sought to emulate. Like the open source movement, academic institutions have laid the foundations for a model of shared knowledge and incentives based upon reputation rather than ownership.

Increasingly however this academic model is fading out. As recent evidence demonstrates, especially in academic research funding and publication-driven assessment distort the natural balance between peer recognition and institutional hierarchy:

Research assessment exercise encourages individuals to publish independently, to keep things secret while there can be many advantages to their career, no matter if they have been funded publicly or not, because by doing that they appear to be better by the criteria used for measurement of the research assessment exercise. That’s a major cultural problem, because it makes it too difficult to persuade scientists to be open with their data, they fear losing it, and therefore their current position.

TransferSummit revealed that both academic and business teams are seeking inspiration from open development practice. More and more academic departments and businesses understand that by pooling together the expertise of their diversely skilled people they maximise opportunities for mutually beneficial innovation.

But understanding diversity in terms of domain or product expertise is not enough. While brainstorming with inter-disciplinary or professionally diverse teams can be productive, we need to bear in mind that innovation is not just generating new ideas. In fact, as Roland suggests, in the context of our expanding access to global knowledge, one’s expertise is becoming less important:

The cost associated with finding new knowledge is falling fast, to a point where in the not too distant future we can reasonably assume that all knowledge will be in principal accessible [...]. In this scenario our knowledge will no longer differentiate us as individuals or organisations.

The professional diversity of the innovation teams will remain important, but increasingly cultural diversity will become their true unique selling point. As Jeff’s success story implies, his prize-winning garden was less the result of him acquiring in-depth knowledge of Bangladeshi gardening techniques, and more of him experiencing this knowledge in action, in the ways his Bangladeshi gardening mentors had internalized and used it for their daily needs.

In other words, what is becoming important is the diverse cultural practice of the innovation team members, rather than just their external expert knowledge. More than just being clued in about growing veggies differently, the ideal candidates for open innovation will be eating their own grown.

The lack of a common language for all categories of research stakeholders was also identified in studies of UK research infrastructure, as OSS Watch pointed out. Despite an impressive array of online systems and services aimed at helping researchers carry out their research, these technologies are often employed below their full potential. One way to improve this situation is to take stock of some key lessons from open source development, which include providing an open space for expressing the needs and concerns of researchers, software developers, service providers, and indeed all external partners, including businesses, who may wish to join the community.

OSS Watch conceived TransferSummit precisely to address this lack of mutual understanding between the academic and business research stakeholders interested in open development and open innovation. Two of the academic projects we advised recently have started to benefit from collaborating with non-academic partners. TexGen’s decision to make their research software freely available resulted in attracting supplementary grants and facilitating industry collaboration, while Wookie’s choice to join the Apache Software Foundation’s Incubator attracted interest from both the academic and commercial sectors. Both these and other academic projects will feature at TransferSummit, along with key representatives from open source businesses and software foundations, including in no particular order, Red Hat, Sourcesense, Sirius, WSO2, Indiginox, Day, HP, Amazon, Gnome, Apache, Codeplex, Mozilla, LiMo, Wikimedia, who will discuss the challenges and opportunities associated with academic-industry partnerships.

French research may not be ‘wired for innovation’, but is UK ready to reap the benefits of open innovation emerging from the dialogue of the academic and business sectors? Join us at TransferSummit to find out.