Re: AIKR Value Chain

Building off the  Knowledge-Value Chain  Operational Level  (fig 1) ..  I
propose that AIKR core value chain will be a continuum of exploration,
exploitation  and evaluation.
Further,  I propose that a Balanced Scorecard approach would be useful way
to track progress towards value propositions.  Especially when (knowledge
translation in health ) organization is "  Archetype E: centrally
controlled service improvement projects. This model of organizing KT, shown
in Table 5 and Figure 5, is managerially focused retaining control
over both research and implementation activities through ongoing
accountability mechanisms and formalized structures to monitor projects.
Mechanisms for exercising control include centralized budget management and
formal accountability metrics in accordance with central management
priorities, which together enable ambidexterity. This model for organizing
KT places a very high emphasis on knowledge exploitation for improved
service improvement
https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1748-5908-8-104


Carl
It was a pleasure to clarify


On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 10:02 AM carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Confirming that the AI KR value chain will be the focus of our next
> meeting on September 15 (invite to be sent separately).
> In addition to ITIF's model (see below),  as a use-case please review The
> knowledge-value chain: A conceptual framework for knowledge translation in
> health (  Bulletin of the World Health Organisation ). In particular,
> please peruse fig1.    The mission, vision, goals and strategies of a
> public health organization or social enterprise drive the knowledge-value
> chain. The higher the knowledge performance related to dyadic capabilities,
> the higher the value generated (Fig. 1).
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6869769_The_knowledge-value_chain_A_conceptual_framework_for_knowledge_translation_in_health
>
>
> have a great weekend
>
> Carl Mattocks
> co-chair AIKRCG
>
> It was a pleasure to clarify
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 4:30 PM Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Carl, at the end of our televideo conference earlier today you indicated
>> intent to focus on the value chain at our next meeting on September 15.  So
>> I thought you might like to see this objective in ITIF's model for
>> long-term U.S./Western revitalization (in competition with China):
>>
>> Objective 3.5: Mindset
>> <https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/4PM4LTRwStyle.xml#_1ae3e5ae-ec8a-11ea-b213-32ff0183ea00>
>> - Develop a *value chain* mindset
>>
>> Other Information:  Too often, U.S. companies have focused on the
>> top-down delivery and consumption of the end product, with insufficient
>> focus on the full industry value chain—from raw materials to components,
>> subsystems, logistics, and related ecosystems. China has taken much more of
>> a bottom-up approach, and history shows that it’s easier to move up a value
>> chain than down one. Having visibility across the entire value chain is
>> critical strategically, but many companies still fall well short of this
>> goal, and most government agencies have relatively little industry-specific
>> value chain knowledge or data, with many outdated data-collection and
>> reporting processes. In this sense, a thorough modernization and expansion
>> of the federal economics and business statistics system is long overdue.
>>
>> Among the implicit purposes of the StratML standard is to enable value
>> chains to built organically from the bottom up (as well as the middle out),
>> on a worldwide scale.
>>
>> AI is referenced in the following objectives in ITIF's "model":
>>
>> Objective 2.3: Advancement
>> <https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/4PM4LTRwStyle.xml#_1ae3d87a-ec8a-11ea-b213-32ff0183ea00>
>> - Be an advanced user
>>
>> Other Information: Pursue advanced technology usage. You don’t have to be
>> the biggest to be the best, and being a leader in advanced technology usage
>> is an excellent way to stay independent. If Western businesses stay ahead
>> in applying technology within their respective industries, it will be
>> difficult for China to expand its success beyond physical traded goods.
>> However, as Chinese firms are investing heavily in AI and automation,
>> supported by Chinese governments with extremely generous tax and grant
>> programs, Western nations must do the same, in part by ensuring tax,
>> spending, and regulatory policies, as well political rhetoric, favor such
>> investments. As of now, they do not in most Western nations, particularly
>> as there is now widespread fear and condemnation of advanced technology
>> use, such as facial recognition, *AI*, and robotics.
>>
>> Objective 3.1: Tech
>> <https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/4PM4LTRwStyle.xml#_1ae3df3c-ec8a-11ea-b213-32ff0183ea00>
>> - Make tech a national priority
>>
>> Other Information: Prioritize technology leadership. The United States
>> may or may not need a formal organization such as SEMATECH, but
>> systematically assuring that U.S. companies, universities, government
>> agencies, and defense companies are doing the necessary R&D in critical
>> areas such as *AI*, robotics, space, biotech, new materials,
>> cybersecurity, semiconductors, et al. remains a top priority—with
>> bipartisan support and expected legislation. Although such coordination is
>> complex and long term in nature, it is of high symbolic and actual
>> importance, and has a track record of success. The United States has
>> already taken modest steps recently in this direction with its
>> Manufacturing USA Network.
>>
>> Objective 4.2: IT Usage
>> <https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/4PM4LTRwStyle.xml#_1ae3ec3e-ec8a-11ea-b213-32ff0183ea00>
>> - Be a world-class IT user
>>
>> Other Information:  Government policymakers often ask Leading Edge Forum
>> (LEF) and Information Technology and Information Foundation (ITIF) what
>> they can do to better support the technology industry, and of course there
>> is much discussion about education, infrastructure, standards, R&D, and
>> similarly important pursuits. But what is usually missing is the importance
>> of government using technology effectively to meet its own needs. The best
>> of example of this is the Internet. The U.S. government didn’t set out to
>> build a national public infrastructure. (If it had, it would probably have
>> worked with AT&T to develop something like the French Minitel system.)
>> Instead, the U.S. Department of Defense set out to meet its own needs for a
>> highly resilient computer network capability. The technologies behind that
>> effort quickly became the foundation of today’s Internet. There are many
>> areas wherein governments could help their domestic technology industries
>> by better meeting their own needs in, for example, individual identity,
>> authentication, cybersecurity, smart cities, satellite communication,
>> geo-positioning, autonomous systems, health IT, fintech, *AI*, clean
>> energy, and many other areas.
>>
>> Objective 4.3: Talent
>> <https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/4PM4LTRwStyle.xml#_1ae3ede2-ec8a-11ea-b213-32ff0183ea00>
>> - Remain a talent magnet
>>
>> Other Information:  In advanced fields such as *AI*, robotics,
>> autonomous vehicles, and quantum computing, a relatively small group of
>> people do most of the pioneering work. Where do these folks—and their
>> families—want to live? Although China spends lavishly to attract talent and
>> provide world class resources, most technology experts are still wary of
>> moving there. Additionally, many highly skilled people would prefer to live
>> in an English-speaking nation, as English is often either their first or
>> second language. This is a huge natural advantage for the United States,
>> United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and, increasingly, India.
>> It needs to be nurtured and leveraged. Helping spread tech hubs to a few
>> more places across America would make that strategy easier.
>>
>> Paola, Taiwan is prominently referenced the model (plan).
>>
>> Owen
>>
>