Search results

The prominent role of technology in economic development has made technology transfer a fertile area of research in recent times. Scholars of economic development often push the “late‐comer hypothesis” which emphasizes that LDCs can easily catch‐up with, and may even surpass, the advanced industrial nations. Yet in many situations, repeated efforts at implementing national economic agenda have failed to corroborate that theory. This article discusses some vexing difficulties and controversies surrounding the transfer process, and posits that unsuccessful technology transfer is attributable to factors which are rooted in cultural, economic, and political differences between the transferrer and recipient nations.

Cultural aspects play an important role in technology transfer. Some member economies of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) have recently conducted joint venture studies with a common theme that cultural aspects are of crucial significance for both the suppliers and recipients of technology. This paper presents in part some of the results of the study conducted in Brunei Darussalam. The study focuses on Brunei‐Japan joint ventures located in Brunei. Based on these results, this study suggests three types of technology transfer models across cultures; that is, a success model, a partial success model, and a minimal success model. This investigation supports the general assertion that continuing changes in cultural values do bring about changes in work values and that, to accommodate different values, some changes in cultural aspects need also be accommodated. Thus, an organization may have to accept fusion of cultures and lowering of cultural barriers to facilitate the process of technology transfer.

This study aims to identify an empirical process model and to delineate success factors (both success-enabling factors and success-inhibiting factors) and special insights useful for managerial interventions for the transfer of spin-off technologies from a public-funded mission-oriented research organization (PMRO) dealing with nuclear technologies in India.

Empirical qualitative case study research was conducted on purposively selected five real-life cases by semistructured interviews with the actors involved in tech-transfers from the PMRO. Within-case content analyses were carried out as per grounded theory. The emerging subprocesses were mapped into a conceptual theoretical model preconstructed based on a literature review. Success factors and special insights were identified by reflecting upon the results of analyses. Cross-case analysis was carried out to yield organization-wide findings.

Organization-wide process model of tech-transfers, success factors and special insights emerged from five cases of technology transfer cases from a PMRO of India.

A limitation stems from the inevitable subjectivity due to considerable presence of human element, and qualitative methods used to study a limited number of cases. However, purposive sampling of cases and traceability of evidence built into the procedure of content analysis largely allay this limitation.

The findings of this research would be useful to practitioners such as scientists, tech-transfer officers, executives of transferee firms and the policymakers of the PMROs for taking well-informed decisions.

Original research was carried out by eliciting field information from the actors of real-life cases. Two of the authors being affiliated with the PMRO makes the research realistic.

This chapter investigates whether traditional design-oriented coordination instruments or more modern management concepts have a stronger influence on the success of forward technology transfers within MNCs.

We conducted an empirical study analyzing the relative influence of (a) traditional coordination instruments (structural, technocratic, and person-oriented) and (b) modern management concepts (epistemic community and absorptive capacity) on the success of forward technology transfers within MNCs.

The study finds evidence that the traditional coordination instruments relate to specific aspects of the success of such transfers. Comparing the different types of coordination instruments, this chapter shows that not only the person-oriented, but also the structural and technocratic coordination instruments relate positively with the achievement of technology transfer goals. The study finds stronger relationships between the traditional coordination instruments and the technology transfer goals than between the modern management concepts and the technology transfer goals.

We believe that these results have important implications for the management of international technology transfers in particular and for the focus of future (international) management research in general. Future MNC research studies need to include traditional coordination instruments, since they continue to strongly influence organizational behavior and outcomes. This would help to make organizational research on MNCs more cumulative and complete.

University–industry technology transfer is growing at a rapid rate in China, involving both multinational and domestic companies. This chapter describes unique characteristics of Chinese National Technology Transfer Centers (NTTCs) and examines whether they can function as an effective policy instrument in promoting the commercialization of university research findings. Our qualitative and quantitative study finds that NTTCs are not by themselves an effective policy tool in accelerating the commercialization of university inventions. We found that universities without NTTCs can achieve the same or even greater success than those with NTTCs. We suggest that Chinese universities should mimic the Western approach by providing an attractive reward system and autonomy to technology management programs that stimulate their efforts in marketing patented technology.

Both entrepreneurship education and commercialization of university research have witnessed remarkable growth in the past two decades. These activities may be complementary in many respects, as when participation in an entrepreneurship program prepares a student to start a company based on university technology, or when technology transfer personnel provide resources and expertise for an entrepreneurship course. At the same time, however, the activities are distinct along a number of dimensions, including goals and mission, influence of market conditions, time horizon, assessment, and providers and constituency. We argue that this situation presents an organizational dilemma: How should entrepreneurship and technology transfer groups within a university maintain independence in recognition of their differences while still facilitating synergies resulting from overlapping areas of concern? In response to this dilemma, we draw on the organizational modularity perspective, which offers the normative prescription that such situations warrant autonomy for individual units, but also require a high degree of cross-unit awareness in order to capture synergies. To illustrate this perspective in an intra-university population of entrepreneurship and technology transfer groups, we present network images and statistics of inter-group relationships at Stanford University, which is widely recognized for its success in both activities. The results highlight that dependence between groups is minimal, such that groups retain autonomy in decision-making and are not dependent on others to complete their goals. Simultaneously, cross-unit awareness is high, such that groups have frequent formal and informal interactions and communication. This awareness facilitates mutually beneficial interactions between groups. As a demonstration of the actual functioning of this system, we present three thumbnail case studies that highlight positive relationships between entrepreneurship education and technology transfer. Ultimately, we argue that to fully realize the synergies between entrepreneurship education and technology transfer, we must also recognize differences between them and ensure the autonomy that such differences warrant.

Firms tend to transfer more knowledge in technology joint ventures compared to contractual technology agreements. Using insights from new institutional economics, this chapter explores to what extent the alliance governance association with interfirm knowledge transfer is sensitive to an evolving industry norm of collaboration connected to the logic of open innovation. The chapter examines 1,888 dyad-year observations on firms engaged in technology alliances in the U.S. information technology industry during 1980–1999. Using fixed effects linear models, it analyzes longitudinal changes in the alliance governance association with interfirm knowledge transfer, and how such changes vary in magnitude across bilateral versus multipartner alliances, and across computers, telecommunications equipment, software, and microelectronics subsectors. Increases in industry-level alliance activity during 1980–1999 improved the knowledge transfer performance of contractual technology agreements relative to more hierarchical equity joint ventures. This effect was concentrated in bilateral rather than multipartner alliances, and in the software and microelectronics rather than computers and telecommunications equipment subsectors. Therefore, an evolving industry norm of collaboration may sometimes make more arms-length governance of a technology alliance a credible substitute for equity ownership, which can reduce the costs of interfirm R&D. Overall, the chapter shows that the performance of material practices that constitute innovation ecosystems, such as interfirm technology alliances, may differ over time subject to prevailing institutional norms of open innovation. This finding generates novel implications for the literatures on alliances, open innovation, and innovation ecosystems.

This chapter considers the role of technology transfer intermediaries (TTIs) in the processes of innovation in networks involving universities, research and development centres, and business firms from an international perspective. A diversity of types of TTIs is recognised in terms of their particular interests in the operation of innovation processes and the conditions they impose in transactions involving intellectual property. It will identify the various objectives of sponsoring stakeholders as differentiating the missions and accountabilities and, in turn, determining the focus and roles of different types of TTIs and the interactions and networking between them, both formal and informal.

In discussion, the chapter will propose that the significance of systemic influence on the processes of technology transfer and innovation should be researched at two levels. At the micro-level of personal interactions, examining how systemic influences shape tacit knowledge transfer between and learning by individuals engaged in research and innovation processes. Second, at the level of national cultures, examining the ways in which the cultural context institutionalises patterns of innovation and technology transfer networking.

This chapter provides a selective survey of the theoretical and empirical literature to date on the relationship between intellectual property rights (IPRs) and measures of innovation and international technology transfer. The chapter discusses the empirical implications of theoretical work, assesses the theoretical work based on the evidence available, and identifies some gaps in the existing literature.

Despite technology transfer being emphasised in most public policy documents globally, it is not always clear how its effectiveness plays out in developing and emerging economies. This paper aims to bridge this gap by providing a systematic understanding of the processes of technology transfer, the antecedents and determinants, and finally how to measure its effectiveness, particularly in technologically dependent and emerging economies.

The paper puts forward a modified contingent effectiveness model of technology transfer based on Bozeman (2000) and Bozeman et al. (2015) and adapts it to incorporate the characteristics of emerging economies. Four major elements of technology transfer are discussed, namely, transfer object, actor characteristics, transfer environment, local environment and how they interact to determine effectiveness. Thereafter, the study shifts its focus to India’s evolving science technology and innovation (STI) ecosystem and discuss the current status, structure and major stakeholders associated with technology transfer. The study also reflects upon the challenges that inhibit effective technology transfer in India. In the last part, the study offers policy recommendations for improving the effectiveness of technology transfer, keeping in view India’s sustainable developmental goals.

A significant distinction of the conceptual model from its predecessors lies in its examination of the four dimensions of technology transfer effectiveness through the lens of developing and emerging economies, keeping in mind the inherent strengths, weaknesses and STI practices of the attendant local economy. As a novel contribution, the paper also discusses India’s evolving STI ecosystem backed by recent policy initiatives on technology transfer and the major stakeholders involved.

The paper constructs a modified contingent effectiveness model of technology transfer with particular emphasis on emerging economies. It also provides a comprehensive overview of India’s complex STI and technology transfer ecosystem, the challenges involved and offers recommendations for policy intervention.