TOOLBOX Project
‘Development of a technology
commercialisation toolbox for publicly
funded food research’.
WORKING PAPER TITLE:
‘Technology Transfer Defined’
Research conducted by:
Dr. Maeve Henchion, Ashtown Food Research Centre, Teagasc, Dublin
Ms. Marie Buckley, Ashtown Food Research Centre, Teagasc, Dublin
Mr. Paul O’Reilly, School of Management, Dublin Institute of
Technology
First Report in a study funded by the Department of Agriculture and Food under the Food Institutional
Research Measure entitled ‘Development of a technology commercialisation toolbox for publicly funded food
research’.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER DEFINED
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to present some theoretical concepts in the context of
technology transfer, encompassing theories of innovation, definitions and models of
technology transfer. Technology transfer is an important component of the overall
innovation process. Perspectives on innovation have evolved over time, with a shift
from a linear to a systems conceptual framework. An appraisal of definitions of
technology transfer reveal the incorporation of this new thinking, with aspects such
as relationships and social aspects featuring in more recent definitions. A review of
models of technology transfer show a parallel evolution in thinking, with a shift from
viewing it as a simple buy-sell arms-length transaction to placing an increased
emphasis on relationships and interactions and external as well as internal factors.
Ultimately, an understanding of technology transfer is paramount if the benefits of
science are to be realised by society.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER DEFINED
1 – INTRODUCTION
This paper provides a literature review on the subject of technology transfer in the
context of publicly funded research and is one of the first stages in a project (known
as Toolbox) aimed at developing a ‘research commercialisation toolbox’ to assist
public research organisations improve technology transfer and commercialisation of
publicly funded food research. Frequently, research conducted in the public sector is
not efficiently or successfully transferred to industry (Markham et al., 1999). The
aim of this paper is to provide background information to the subject of technology
transfer.
In doing this, the authors intend to provide the reader with an
understanding of the obstacles to successful research commercialisation, thereby
identifying areas that, if addressed, will result in substantial improvements to
commercialisation activities.
The first part of this paper relates to the theory of innovation, the underlying
concept in the study of technology transfer. Some definitions of technology transfer
are presented, followed by an overview of the process of technology transfer and the
key stakeholders involved. Some models of technology transfer that have been
described in the literature are then presented.
The paper concludes with an
overview of current debates and thinking in the context of technology transfer.
The Toolbox project, or to give its complete title description, “Development of a
technology commercialisation toolbox for publicly funded food research”, is funded
under the Food Institutional Research Measure of the Department of Agriculture
and Food and is being conducted by a collaborative research team involving
Teagasc, Ashtown Food Research Centre, and School of Management at Dublin
Institute of Technology. This paper aims to provide some of the contextual and
theoretical underpinnings to future empirical research within the project and is
complemented by companion papers –Determinants of Effective Technology Transfer,
The Case for Commercialising Publicly Funded Research in the Food Sector and Ireland’s
Food Innovation System.
2.
THEORY OF INNOVATION
In order to clearly discuss the various perspectives on technology transfer, it is
firstly necessary to clarify some key concepts. Since innovation, and transfer of
innovations, is the hallmark of this study, it is useful at this stage to provide some
background information on the theory of innovation.
Innovation was described in Francis and Bessant (2005) in simple terms as “the
successful exploitation of new ideas” (DTI, 1994 cited in Francis and Bessant, 2005)
and more ornately as “the recognition of opportunities for profitable change and the
pursuit of these opportunities all the way through to their adoption in practice”
(Baumol, 2002 in Francis and Bessant, 2005). According to Kline and Rosenberg
(1986) innovation may be thought of in a number of ways: a novel product; a new
production process; substitution of a less expensive material, newly developed for a
specific task, in an essentially unaltered product; reorganisation of production,
internal functions or distribution arrangements leading to greater efficiency, better
support for a product, or lower costs; or an improvement in instruments or methods
driving innovation. The OECD (1996) provided useful descriptors of product and
process innovation. Technological product and process (TPP) innovation consists of
implemented technologically new products and processes and significant
technological improvements in products and processes. A TPP innovation has been
implemented if it has been introduced on the market (product innovation) or used
within a production process (process innovation)1. Francis and Bessant considered
two further categories of innovation. Market position innovation relates to where an
established product/service produced by an established process is introduced in a
new context and is concerned with such issues as adoption behaviour and technology
transfer. Business model innovation relates to current product/service, process and
market context being restructured, resulting in new challenges and opportunities
being realised and others being deemed defunct.
1
A technologically new product is a product whose technological characteristics or intended uses differ
significantly from those of previously produced products. Such innovations can involve radically new technologies,
can be based on combining existing technologies in new uses, or can be derived from the use of new knowledge. A
technologically improved product is an existing product whose performance has been significantly enhanced or
upgraded. Technological process innovation is the adoption of technologically new or significantly improved
production methods, including methods of product delivery (OECD, 1996).
There have been attempts over the years to place the innovation process into a
conceptual framework. Early attempts at conceptualising the innovation process
depicted it as a “smooth, well-behaved linear process” (Kline and Rosenberg, 1986),
as illustrated in Figure 1. Research is conducted, which leads to development, which
in turn leads to production and finally production leads to marketing. Inherent in
the linear model is the absence of feedback channels within the development process,
either from sales figures or from specific users of the innovation. The model thus
assumes that the innovation was workable and optimised from the outset (Kline and
Rosenberg, 1986).
Figure 1
Linear process of innovation
Source: Kline and Rosenberg, 1986
However this model has its critics. A company cannot simply purchase research
results as an input to a commercial innovation in a linear process of innovation
(Mowery and Ziedonis, 1998 cited in Drejer and Jørgensen, 2004). Furthermore, the
linear model does not fully account for external environmental factors (such as
market demand), which may have an impact on the process of technological
innovation (Rogers et al., 2001). Kline and Rosenberg proposed the inadequacy of
the linear model, regarding is as unreflective of “the real world of inadequate
information, high uncertainty, and fallible people” (1986, p286). The linear view of
the innovation process contributed strongly to localisation of technology production
within the R&D department and to a clear demarcation between development and
commercialisation.
Since “innovation by interacting” as a basic precept of the
innovation process was not well understood at the level of the firm or at the level of
the innovation system in a national context, the innovation process was initially
conceived as being located within the firm with a clear definition of the boundaries of
the firm. Of the many drivers bringing about a change in the traditional view of the
innovation process, the most important is speed as a critical factor in technological
and global competition. The need for speed in development and speed to market has
had a huge impact on the dynamics of technology transfer.
Reduced time for
development and commercialisation forces the innovation process out of the
boundaries of the firm and out of the boundaries of the R&D lab (Amesse and
Cohendet, 2001).
These authors thus proposed an alternative model, termed the ‘chain-linked model’
of the innovation process.
The chain-linked model (Figure 2) describes the
innovation process as a series of paths. The first path is the so-called central chain of
innovation, which goes from design through development and production to
marketing, but science is not part of this path. The second path consists of a series
of feedback links, which iterate steps and send signals from perceived market needs
and users. The third path is the reason for the name ‘chain-linked model’ as it links
the central chain of innovation to science. The link to science occurs alongside the
development process rather than as an input at the beginning of the process.
Further, the use of science occurs in several stages: when a problem is confronted in
technical innovation, attention is first turned towards known science and stored
knowledge in serial stages.
Only when all stages fail to supply the needed
information is attention turned towards research. The fourth path consists of the
direct link from research to innovation, which makes possible radical innovation.
The fifth feedback loop consists of a feedback from innovation to science.
Kline and Rosenberg’s model does not make any assumptions regarding whether
knowledge and research inputs to the innovation process come from within or
outside the innovating organisation. But what the model does illustrate is that a
close association between the knowledge dimension and the central chain of
innovation is required. Thus if the innovation project is carried out in collaboration
between a firm and an external knowledge institution, then the model underlines
that the higher the level of learning necessary for executing an innovation project,
the higher is the requirement for dedicated teamwork between the involved partners
(Drejer and Jørgensen, 2004).
Figure 2
Chain-linked model of the innovation process
Source: Kline and Rosenberg, 1986
As illustrated by Kline and Rosenberg in the chain-linked model of innovation, the
involvement of science and research is necessary throughout the complete process of
research-based innovation.
This requirement points towards the importance of
inter-organisational associations between public research institutions and innovative
firms, and enabling conditions for effective knowledge creation in public-private
collaborations.
The chain-linked model, however, does not consider the context within which
innovation activities take place.
The consensus now among innovation theory
scholars is that a systems view is appropriate to appreciate the dynamics of
innovation. The systems approach builds on the chain-linked model and stresses the
value of devising policies that recognise that innovations are only effective when
they are diffused and adopted. Furthermore, the systems approach recognises the
importance of actors’ actions and interactions in the innovation process and the
influence of the institutional environment (Abrunhosa, 2003). The systems approach
was recognised and adopted for the purposes of this project where a food innovation
system (Figure 3) is defined as:
“The various actors, the environment in which they operate, along with their
interactions, that operate in the food industry, and participate in innovation activities
that produce and transfer economically and socially useful knowledge” (Buckley et
al., 2006).
Figure 3
Ireland’s food innovation system
Source: Buckley et al., 2006
3.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER DEFINED#
Definitions of technology transfer differ widely in the literature, across disciplines
(Reisman, 2005) and in the practical usage of the term. Reisman proposed that there
are 182 independent technology transfer attributes, which are related to the actors
involved, transaction characteristics, motivations, discipline, and perceived role of
technology transfer, thus illustrating the complex nature of the process. Bozeman
(2000) reported that technology transfer is described in numerous diverse ways,
according to the research field and according to the purpose of the research. The
purpose of this section is to provide an overview of the definitions of technology
transfer to present key ideas on the subject to the reader.
In simple terms, technology transfer involves the movement of an innovation.
Gibson and Rogers (1994) described technology transfer as the application of
information (in the form of a technological innovation) into use. The process of
technology transfer entails movement of a technological innovation from an R&D
organisation to a receptor organisation (e.g. a private company). A technological
innovation is fully transferred when it is commercialised into a product that is sold
in the marketplace.
However, technology transfer involves more than movement of an innovation and
may be considered a multi-disciplinary concept.
Rogers et al. (2001) described
technology transfer as a difficult type of communication process, spanning the stages
from R&D to commercialisation, but with a particular focus on the interface between
R&D and commercialisation. This definition highlights that technology transfer
involves a communication aspect.
Technology transfer also involves a relationship dimension.
Research and
technology transfer activities comprise an extended series of “interactive
relationships that connect the functional activities of basic (disciplinary) research,
applied (problem-solving) research, development, diffusion, adaptation, and
dissemination into an overall technology delivery system” (Feller et al., 1987).
Other definitions highlight that technology transfer does not happen by chance.
Technology transfer refers to deliberate, goal-oriented relations between two or
more persons, groups or organisations to exchange technological knowledge and/or
objects and rights (Autio and Laamanen, 1995). Stock and Tatikonda (2000) further
developed this idea of deliberate actions by describing the technology transfer
process as consisting of inter-organisational activities employed to achieve both
movement of technology across the organisational boundary from the source to the
recipient and its utilisation by the recipient to achieve some particular objectives,
with cost and time targets.
Levin (1993) added a social aspect to the definition. Technology transfer may be
considered as a socio-technical learning and development process, where the
technology is perceived as a social construction where human choice and values
influence the result. Levin (1997) studied technology transfer from the viewpoint of
the recipient company, viewing the process as movement of “the physical objects,
acquiring skills for operation and an understanding of the knowledge and cultural
understanding built into machines” (p. 298). Technological development is viewed as a
social process whereby the resultant technology cannot be viewed as isolated from
the actors involved in determining it (Levin, 1997). Implicit in this definition are the
three faces of technology involved in the transfer process: “Technology is the material
artefacts, how to use the artefacts, and the knowledge of how to utilize it” (p. 299).
Finally, there may be a commercial aspect to technology transfer.
Power and
McDougall (2005) defined technology transfer as the process by which technologies
developed in universities are transformed into marketable products. Technology
transfer was described in Decter et al. (in press) as the transfer of new knowledge,
products and processes for business benefit and is influenced by the availability of
skills to utilise the technology, exploitation skills, user education and the availability
of transfer support. The determinants of technology transfer are discussed in detail
in a companion report “Determinants of effective technology transfer”.
In an Irish context, the Irish Council for Science, Technology and Innovation
(ICSTI, now known as ACSTI) defined technology transfer as ‘a formal transferring
of new inventions, creations, discoveries, innovations, processes and the like which
result from scientific research conducted at public research organisations to a
commercial environment for public use’ (ICSTI, 2004).
The ultimate objective of technology transfer is commercialisation. Hsu (2005)
explained technology commercialisation as follows (p. 1320):
“Technology
commercialization
indicates
the
transfer
of
research
organization technology development results into commercial applications.
This transfer process involves applying new technologies in ways that
increase economic benefit or production capacity.
It also involves
transferring relevant specialized knowledge or technology from research
organizations to industry, where commercialization takes place. Research
organizations disseminate information through various means, including the
media, results presentation conferences, technology symposiums, and visits to
enterprises.
They also transfer needed technology to the enterprises
themselves according to their capacity to accept the technology. Approaches to
technology transfer are direct transfer, technology licensing, or help with
personal training.”
The terms “research commercialisation” and “technology transfer” are closely related
and often are used as synonyms, although strictly speaking there are some important
differences in their precise meanings.
“Research commercialisation” means the
process of turning scientific discoveries and inventions into marketable products and
services (Harman and Harman, 2004). A report prepared for the Australian Prime
Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council emphasised wealth
generation aspects when it defined research commercialisation as “the process of
transforming ideas, knowledge and inventions into greater wealth for individuals,
businesses and/or society at large” (Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and
Innovation Council, 2001, p.9, cited in Harman and Harman, 2004). The term
“technology transfer” has a number of specialist meanings, often varying from one
academic discipline to another. Bozeman defined the concept as “the movement of
know-how, technical knowledge or technology from one organisation to another”
(Bozeman, 2000, p.629). The most common use of the term relates to the transfer of
inventions and associated know-how from research organisations to research users.
However, the term is also used to refer to movement of ideas, inventions and
prototypes within companies, from research producers to a wide group of users
including government departments and non-profit agencies, from industry to
universities and from one nation to another (Harman and Harman, 2004).
From these definitions, it can be established that there are a number of aspects to
technology transfer.
Firstly, the process of technology transfer involves the
movement of knowledge from a producer organisation to a receptor organisation.
(The next section of this paper focuses on the knowledge concept.) The second
aspect of technology transfer is that a relationship or network of relationships
develop or already exist between the transferring organisation and the recipient and
inherent in this aspect is the need for communication. Finally, technology transfer
does not occur by chance and has deliberate economic and social goals.
3.1
Knowledge defined
Differences in knowledge are the basic condition that needs to be present to enable
technology transfer to take place between individuals or organisations (Jung, 1980).
Thus, knowledge may be regarded as a differentiated asset, i.e. different levels and
types of knowledge may be possessed by different organisations.
Furthermore
knowledge may be distinguished into tacit and codified knowledge. It is generally
not possible to express tacit knowledge in any significant or comprehensive
framework. Such knowledge incorporates skills and practices that are obtained
through
experimentation
and
are
transformed
through
demonstrations,
apprenticeships, individual training and the provision of professional services. It
relates to forms of personal knowledge that are not readily transmitted as
“information” (Rausser, 1999).
Codified knowledge, on the other hand, can be
reduced and changed into a format that can be stored and communicated as
knowledge. The extent of knowledge codification influences the ease of transfer
(Rausser, 1999; Johnson and Lundvall, 2001). Science and technology activities are
now being linked with tacit knowledge (Cowan et al., 1999).
3.2
The technology transfer process
The process of technology transfer is a difficult type of communication, and demands
trained and skilled personnel, adequate resources, and organisational and
reward/incentive structures (Rogers et al., 2001). Rogers (2003) decomposed the
procedure of deciding to adopt an innovation into five steps. The first step, the
knowledge phase, involves individuals learning that a process exists and is relevant
to an organisation’s problems.
Key stakeholders within the organisation are
persuaded to engage the technology in the persuasion phase. During the decision
phase, the stakeholders decide to use the innovation and the innovation is applied
during the implementation phase. Whether the innovation has been successful is
reviewed during the confirmation phase. In order to provide the reader with a
comprehensive overview of the technology transfer process, a number of models of
technology transfer are discussed in the following section.
Wang et al. (2003) defined the dominant objective of any technology process as the
successful adoption by a significant majority of customers who can use the
technology.
Figure 4 presents an outline of the main steps in the technology
transfer process as viewed by Wang et al. It should be noted that because every
organisation pursues its own goals and culture, there is no single process that suits
all organisations and instances (Wang et al., 2003).
Figure 4
Overview of Technology Transfer Activities
Source:
Wang et al., 2003
Because technology transfer involves many different individuals and organisations
and their diverse needs, it is difficult to define universally appropriate measures of
transfer activity or effectiveness (Wang et al., 2003). The Interagency Committee of
Federal Technology Transfer identified a number of mechanisms for successful
transfer including: licensing, co-operative research and development agreements,
technical assistance and consulting, reimbursable work for non-federal partners, use
of facilities, exchange programmes and collegial interchange, publications and
conferences.
Other categories include graduates taking jobs in a particular
technology sector, patents, manufacturing innovations, innovation networks, web
hits to a science database, transfer mechanisms and knowledge spillovers (Wang et
al., 2003). While Wang et al’s model may be considered as a useful overview of the
transfer of ‘codified’ knowledge, it does suffer from a number of limitations. The
model is linear and ignores the relationship aspect of the systems of innovation
approach.
Furthermore, the model deals only with the transfer of codified
knowledge, and ignores the transfer of tacit knowledge, which is an equally
important element of technology transfer.
Technology transfer offices were established across the USA to facilitate commercial
knowledge transfers from universities to practitioners, or university/industry
technology transfer, and to manage and protect intellectual property.
The
importance of technology transfer offices is highlighted in the increase in the
number of patents between 1980 (300) and 1999 (3661) and the number of licenses,
which increased 12-fold between 1991 and 1999 (Siegel et al., 2004). In a European
context, the European Commission (2004) highlighted that the development of
technology transfer institutions in Europe stemmed from the introduction of new
forms of IPR legislation and the realisation of the need for enhanced collaboration
and communication between public research organisations and enterprises. The key
stakeholders (Table 1) involved in technology transfer are (1) scientists, who
discover new technologies; (2) technology managers and administrators, who serve
as a liaison between academic scientists and industry and manage intellectual
property; and (3) firms/entrepreneurs, who commercialise technologies.
Table 1:
Key stakeholders in the transfer of technology to the private
sector
Stakeholder
Actions
Primary
Secondary
Organisational
motive(s)
motive(s)
culture
Financial gain
Recognition
University
Discovery of new
scientist
knowledge
within scientific
community –
publications,
grants
and a desire to
secure additional
research funding
(mainly for
Scientific
graduate
students and lab
equipment)
Works with faculty
Technology
members and
transfer office
firms/entrepreneurs
to structure deals
Firm/entrepreneur
Commercialises new
technology
Protect and
Facilitate
market the
technological
university’s
diffusion and
intellectual
secure additional
property
research funding
Maintain control
Financial gain
of proprietary
technologies
Bureaucratic
Organic/
entrepreneurial
Source: Siegel et al., 2004
3.3
Models of technology transfer
Earlier in this paper, there was a discussion on how there has been a movement in
thought in innovation theory from linear models to those that take account of other
factors. The next section of this paper presents some of the models of technology
transfer that have been discussed in the literature, and again we see that there has
been a movement in thought from those that consider technology transfer as a
simple buy-sell contract, to those that view the process as influenced by external
factors.
In a review of technology transfer literature, Harmon et al. (1997) classified the
literature into two groups. The studies of the first group assume a rational decision
making point of view and regard technology transfer as a process that can, and
should be, planned. These models have been described as arms-length, buy/sell
transactions between university laboratories and private companies.
In these
models, inventors and future users of the technology function independently,
without co-ordinating their efforts until initial negotiations regarding a specific
technology when the two parties find one another through a formal search process
that is normally mediated by a transfer agent. The majority of these studies focus on
the processes of technology transfer from the research centre to industry, thus the
major goal of these studies is to identify the most efficient methods of administering
and facilitating the technology transfer processes and organisational forms that
facilitate transfer.
According to Cohen et al. (2002) this linear model of the
innovation process is based on stages such as basic research, applied research,
prototype development, market research, product development, marketing and
selling. Interventions are made at different and specific stages by strengthening
public infrastructure, and providing incentives to the private sector, which is then
expected to transform the technology, patents and systems into new products and
processes. This group of studies encompasses several models. One such model,
developed by Goldhor and Lund (1983), envisaged technology transfer as a bridgecrossing process facilitated by a transfer agent who is seen as key to the process.
Goldhor and Lund (1983) placed emphasis on the requirement to match the technical
competencies of the donor and the recipient. Another model viewed the process of
technology transfer from public sector R&D to private sector businesses from a
marketing perspective where business firms are analysed as industrial buyers and the
innovations are sold to them via intermediaries (Large and Barclay, 1992).
The second major group of studies reviewed and categorised by Harmon et al. (1997)
takes a different perspective on technology transfer, emphasising the relationship
aspect of the process. This group of studies is primarily made up of non-linear
models that emphasise multi-directional linkages, interdependency between “hard”
technology and “softer” issues of people management and information flows,
cumulative flows which involve individuals, organisations, regions and government,
and the social, cultural, economic and institutional bases of innovative action (Mitra
and Formica, 1997).
In particular, these studies emphasise the importance of
collaborative activities occurring within an established network of formal and
informal relationships. A number of perspectives are found in this group of studies.
In the communications perspective a successful transfer depends on the effectiveness
of information flows between a set of individuals or organisations within a complex
network of communication paths (Rothwell and Robertson, 1973). A co-operation
perspective studies the process of co-operation between the parties involved that
make the transfer easier. Among the facilitating processes identified in these studies
are open communication, mutual interdependence, respect, trust and willingness to
compromise (McDonald and Geiger, 1987).
Research is moving away from
examining the technology transfer process through stages of the research chain and
is increasingly focusing on alliances among firms and public research centres and
how these alliances pertain to the development and transfer of technology
(Lambricht and Teich, 1976).
Other models combine the two approaches described above in a hybrid model to
ensure successful transfer. Hybrid perspectives address both the structure of the
relationships between organisations and the activities of the process itself. One such
model is that proposed by Padmanabhan and Souder (1994).
Known as the
“Brownian model”, it viewed successful technology transfer as the process of
managing a portfolio of interacting facilitators and barriers in such a way as to bring
about success in new product development, commercialisation, transfer and user
adoption.
Harmon et al’s (1997) review of the technology transfer literature concluded that the
modern view of the technology transfer process has moved towards the second
group of studies presented above. A survey conducted by Harmon et al. found that
the ‘relationships’ perspective accounted for 80 percent of the transfers observed,
leading them to conclude that technology transfer is principally a result of prior
relationships and contacts between inventors and the business community and thus
suggest that formal search techniques for new technologies play a minimal role.
Increasingly, there is awareness of the multitude of factors that can impact on the
process. In their investigation of university-industry interactions in science-based
technologies, Meyer-Krahmer and Schmoch (1998) noted that while there was broad
consensus that the linear model of innovation is inadequate, the concept of the oneway bridge from public research to industrial research is still widespread in the
management of technology transfer. They argued for the establishment of transfer
institutions and incentives within the public research world and recommended that
strategies supporting a two-way bridge should be devised.
Furthermore, a
technology transfer study conducted by Harmon et al. (1997) found that in the
majority of cases analysed, technology was transferred not through formal search,
but rather through some prior relationships among individuals.
These authors
suggested that the ability to build extended networks of relationships in the business
world as well as with the university community is an important skill that owners
and mangers of technology-based businesses need to exhibit.
Other models have been proposed in the literature, some of which present
interesting ideas about the technology transfer process. A number of these are
presented in the remainder of this section. These models highlight one or more of
the characteristics discussed earlier in the overview of definitions of technology
transfer.
Siegel et al. (2004) proposed a model of how technology is transferred, encompassing
the organisational and managerial issues involved in the process (Figure 5). It is an
example primarily of the arms-length type model of technology transfer, whereby
the decision of the university to become involved in technology transfer is affected
by the level and management of resources available.
Insufficient university
resources are an obstacle in the university-industry technology transfer process and
the fixed patent budget of universities affects the level of patenting, as well as the
marketing of technologies to companies.
Figure 5: Organizational and managerial issues in the university/industry
technology transfer process
Source: Siegel et al., 2004
An example of a hybrid approach to the technology transfer process is that proposed
by Callon et al. (1992), who proposed a ‘techno-economic network’ to examine the
interactions between science, technology and the marketplace. A techno-economic
network is defined as “a coordinated set of heterogeneous actors – public laboratories,
technical research centers, industrial firms, financial organizations, users, and public
authorities – which participate collectively in the development and diffusion of innovations,
and which via numerous interactions organize relationships between scientific-technical
research and the marketplace …a network is not just limited to the (heterogeneous) actors
who make it up. A whole set of intermediaries circulates between them. These give material
content to the links uniting the actors. They can be written documents (scientific articles,
reports, patents, etc.), incorporated skills (researchers changing laboratory, engineers going
over from one firm to another etc.), money (contracts for cooperation between a research center
and a company, financial loans, purchase by a client of goods or a service etc.) or more or less
developed technical objects (prototypes, machines, products destined for final consumption etc.)
(p.220). A diagrammatic illustration of a techno-economic network is presented in
Figure 6.
Figure 6
A techno-economic network
Source: Callon et al., 1992
The Callon et al. model recognises the interactions of actors in the transfer of
technologies, as well as the movement of an innovation and indeed the model has
accounted for the impact of the environment to a certain extent in the technology
transfer processes by recognising the marketplace.
In addition to technology transfer being important at an organisational level, it is
also relevant at individual project level. Stock and Tatikonda (2000) developed a
conceptual framework of effective technology transfer at project level.
The
framework captures the nature of the technology to be transferred, activities and
interactions across organisation boundaries, and relationships between technology
and organisation, all at the project level of analysis. The objective of this framework
is to provide theoretical insight and practical guidelines into selection of the best
management approaches for transferring a technology into an organisation and is
called the inward technology transfer typology (Figure 7).
Figure 7
Inward technology transfer (ITT) typology
Source: Stock and Tatikonda, 2000
The ITT typology identifies along the diagonal the best choice of technology
transfer process type by matching the intrinsic technology uncertainty of the
technology to be transferred and the organisational interaction between the
technology source and recipient. There are four transfer process types: arms-length
purchase, facilitated purchase, collaborative hand-off, and co-development. Each
transfer type represents the best match, or fit, between technology uncertainty and
organizational interaction (Stock and Tatikonda, 2000).
Goldfarb and Henrekson (2003) conducted a comparison of two alternative
commercialisation models – bottom-up and top-down. The bottom-up approach
focuses on creating (economic) incentives for universities to commercialise their
research output and allowing them to experiment to find the best means to do that.
The top-down approach represents an attempt to directly create mechanisms that
facilitate commercialisation.
Goldfarb and Henrekson (2003) proposed that by
correcting incentive structures, commercialisation performance could be improved.
Commercialisation of university ideas generally requires the continuing involvement
of academic inventors (Jensen and Thursby, 2001). The academic reward structure
encourages the production of knowledge that is a useful input into other academics’
research. Researchers wish to have their papers cited because this is a signal that
they have established a reputation within the academic community. There is much
evidence that the production of such knowledge is a central objective of academic
researchers, as citation measures are associated with higher income and prestige.
This presents a potential difficulty in the commercialisation of university ideas.
There is little reason to believe that the goal of producing useful inputs into the
research of other academics is congruent with the goal of producing commercially
valuable knowledge. Goldfarb (2001) provided statistical evidence that the pursuit
of practical goals is unlikely to be congruent with the pursuit of academic goals. (A
discussion on the goal differences between public research organisations/higher
education institutions and private enterprises is presented in a companion report
“The case for commercialising publicly funded research”.) Because of this, research
sponsors with applied goals in mind have difficulty building relationships with highprofile academics. The creation of incentives and the weakening of disincentives for
the academic to direct effort towards commercialisation activities are generally
necessary for technology transfer. Mechanisms that are commonly used to elicit
involvement in a project of commercial value are sponsored research, consulting and
starting a new firm. Compensation means include salary, royalties and equity.
3.4
Food specific technology transfer models
In searching the technology transfer literature, the authors came across a number of
models that had been developed specifically in the context of the food industry.
Donnelly (2000) presented a model for innovation management in public research
(Figure 8). This model focuses on extending the task of generating information to
its application.
Research is viewed in the context that research information
represents the instigation of a process that persists until the value and usefulness of
the information is established. The model illustrates the move from pre-commercial
development to where commercial funding takes over. While industry/researcher
interaction not specifically included in the figure, operationalisation of the model
assumes that the researcher will play a key role in the entire process and facilitate
industry-researcher interaction at all stages. The model does highlight the issue of
what is useful information and the need to achieve balance between the public good
aspect of research undertaken and the needs of businesses for information protection.
Figure 8
Model for innovation management in public research
Source: Donnelly, 2000
Morrissey and Almonacid (2005) proposed a ‘dynamic’ model for technology transfer
in the context of seafood processing (Figure 9). The model incorporated a number of
elements including: engagement with SMEs and entrepreneurs at an early stage in
the project, flexibility in the research plan, and access to capital for technology
transfer. These authors believe that the current market-driven economy requires a
dynamic research and technology strategy that can speedily respond to market
changes, where innovation and adaptation are essential elements in successful
ventures. External and internal factors should be considered throughout the project
and the model should allow decisions by participants to change the experimental
design or terminate the effort if considered non-viable.
Internal and external
impacts relate to new demands, new regulations, new trades, new information and
new technologies.
Figure 9
Dynamic model for technology transfer
Source: Morrissey and Almonacid, 2005
4.
CONCLUSION
After reviewing the literature, it is evident that technology transfer is a highly
complex process. Technology transfer can occur through many paths as it is not
limited to the codified knowledge embedded in intellectual property rights, for
example.
It also includes the tacit knowledge that is embodied in the human
resources of researchers.
An evolution has occurred in how innovation is
conceptualised, with a shift from a linear to a systems approach. Consequently
definitions and models of technology transfer have also evolved. The study and
understanding of the technology transfer process is paramount if the benefits of
science are to be received and felt by society.
Bibliography
Abrunhosa, A. (2003). The National Innovation Systems Approach and the Innovation
Matrix. Paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference 2003 on Creating, Sharing and
Transferring Knowledge: The Role of Geography, Institutions and Organisations.
Copenhagen June 12-14, 2003
Amesse, F. and Cohendet, P. (2001). Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of
the knowledge-based economy. Research Policy, 30, 1459 – 1478.
Autio, E. and Laamanen, T. (1995). Measurement and evaluation of technology transfer:
review of technology transfer mechanisms and indicators. International Journal of Technology
Management, 10 (7/8), 643 – 664.
Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory.
Research Policy, 29, 627 – 655.
Buckley, M., Henchion, M. and O’ Reilly, P. (2006). Ireland’s Food Innovation System.
Working Paper Number 1, Ashtown Food Research Centre.
Callon, M., Laredo, P., Rabeharisoa, V., Gonard, T. and Leray, T. (1992). The management
and evaluation of technological programs and the dynamics of techno-economic networks:
The case of the AFME. Research Policy, 21, 215 – 236.
Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R. and Walsh, J.P. (2002). Links and impacts: the influence of
public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48, 1, 1 – 23.
Cowan, R., David, P.A. and Foray, D. (1999).
The explicit economics of knowledge
codification and tacitness. Paper presented at the 1999 DRUID Summer Conference on
National Innovation Systems, Industrial Dynamics and Innovation Policy.
Decter, M., Bennett, D. and Leseure, M. (in press). University to business technology
transfer – UK and USA comparisons. Technovation.
Donnelly, W. (2000). Managing the innovation process. International Journal of Dairy
Technology, 53 (4), 149 – 155.
Drejer, I. and Jørgensen, B. H. (2004).
Public-private collaboration on knowledge
generation and application in new product development projects. Research on Technological
Innovation and Management Policy, 8 (Product Innovation, Interactive Learning and
Economic Performance, 285 – 308.
European Commission (2004). Technology Transfer Institutions in Europe: An Overview.
Feller, I., Madden, P., Kaltreider, L., Moore, D. and Sims, L. (1987). The new agricultural
and technology transfer policy agenda. Research Policy, 16, 315 – 325.
Francis, D. and Bessant, J. (2005). Targeting innovation and implications for capability
development. Technovation, 25, 171 – 183.
Gibson, D. and Rogers, E. (1994). R&D collaboration on trial: the microelectronics and
computer technology consortium. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Goldfarb, B. (2001). The effect of government contracting on academic research, Discussion
Paper No. 00–24. Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
Goldfarb, B. and Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the
commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32, 639 – 658.
Goldhor, R.S. and Lund, R.T. (1983): University-to-industry advanced technology transfer.
Research Policy, 12, 121-152.
Harman, G. and Harman, K. (2003). Governments and universities as the main drivers of
enhanced Australian university research commercialisation capability. Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management, 26 (2), 153 – 169.
Harmon, B., Ardishvili, A., Cardozo, R., Elder, T., Leuthold, J., Parshall, J., Raghian, M. and
Smith, D. (1997). Mapping the university technology transfer process. Journal of Business
Venturing, 12, 423 – 434.
Hsu, C.-W. (2005). Formation of industrial innovation mechanisms through the research
institute. Technovation, 25, 1317 – 1329.
ICSTI (2004). National Code of Practice for Managing Intellectual Property from Publicly
Funded Research.
Jensen, R. and Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: the tale of university
licensing, American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.
Johnson, B. and Lundvall, B-Å. (2001).
Why all this fuss about codified and tacit
knowledge? Paper presented at DRUID Winter Conference 2001 on External Organisation
of the Firm.
Jung, W. (1980). Basic concepts for the evaluation of technology transfer benefits. Journal
of Technology Transfer, 5, 37 – 49.
Kline, S.J. and Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of innovation. In: R. Landau & N.
Rosenberg (Eds), The Positive Sun Strategy (pp. 275 – 305). Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Lambricht, W.H. and Teich, A.H. (1976).
Technology transfer as a problem in
interorganizational relationships. Administration and Society, 8, 1, 29 – 54.
Large, D.W. and Barclay, D.W. (1992). Technology transfer to the private sector: A field
study of manufacturer buying behaviour. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9, 1, 26
– 43.
Levin, M. (1993). Technology transfer as a learning and developmental process: an analysis
of Norwegian programmes on technology transfer. Technovation, 13, 8, 497 – 518.
Levin, M. (1997). Technology transfer is organizational development: an investigation into
the relationship between technology transfer and organizational change.
International
Journal of Technology Management, 14 (2/3/4), 297 – 308.
Markman, S., Kingon, A., Zapata, M. and Baumer, D. (1999). A methodology to find, assess
and commercialize technologies, civilization, modern technology and sustainable
development.
In: Eighth International Conference on Management of Technology,
IAMOT, 15 – 17 March, Cairo.
McDonald, D.W. and Geiger, S.M. (1987). Making Cooperative Research Relationships
Work. Research Management, 30, 4, 38 – 41.
Meyer-Krahmer, F. and Schmoch, U. (1998).
Science-based technologies: university –
industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27, 835 – 851.
Mitra, J. and Formica, P. (ed) (1997): Innovation and Economic Development: UniversityEnterprise Partnerships in Action, Oak Tree Press, Dublin, Ireland.
Morrissey, M. and Almonacid, S. (2005). Rethinking technology transfer. Journal of Food
Engineering, 67, 135 – 145.
OECD (1996). Oslo Manual – The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities:
Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data, Paris,
1996.
Padmanabhan, V. and Souder, W.E. (1994). A Brownian motion model for technology
transfer: Application to a machine maintenance expert system. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 11, 2 119 – 133.
Power, J. B. and McDougall, P. (2005). Policy orientation effects on performance with
licensing to start-ups and small companies. Research Policy, 34, 1028 – 1042.
Rausser, G. (1999).
Private/public research: knowledge assets and future scenarios.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81 (5), 1011 – 1027.
Reisman, A. (2005). Transfer of technologies: a cross-disciplinary taxonomy. Omega: The
International Journal of Management Science, 33, 189 – 202.
Rogers, E.M., Takegami, S. and Yin, J. (2001). Lessons learned about technology transfer.
Technovation, 21, 253 – 261.
Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition. The Free Press, New York.
Rothwell, R. and Robertson, A.B. (1973). The role of communications in technological
innovation. Research Policy, 2, 204 – 225.
Siegel, D., Waldman, D., Atwater, L. and Link, A. (2004). Toward a model of the effective
transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from
the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management, 21, 115 – 142.
Stock, G.N. and Tatikonda, M.V. (2000). A typology of project-level technology transfer
processes. Journal of Operations Management, 18, 719 – 737.
Wang M., Pfleeger, S.L., Adamson, D., Bloom, G., Butz, W., Fossum, D., Gross, M., Kofner,
A., Rippen, H., Kelly, T.K., Kelley, C.T.. (2003). Technology transfer of federally funded
R&D, Conference Proceedings: Perspectives from a forum. Prepared for the Office of
Science and Technology Policy.