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.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate to what extent the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have supported (or could support) the least developed countries (LDCs) particularly for accessing the climate technologies and thereby to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement.

This study adopted legal dogmatism to evaluate the gradual development of technology transfer issues to support the LDCs under the international climate regime.

This study suggested a few potential measures to facilitate meaningful technology transfer to LDCs – such as clarifying and linking the role of the technology and financial mechanism, a more robust role of capacity building, using the sustainable development mechanism with a technology transfer focus, improving the transparency and reporting mechanism to particularly indicate support regarding technology transfer requested and received by the LDCs linking it with the nationally determined contributions, and adapting a pragmatic approach to intellectual property.

This study is an original contribution as it identified concern over technology transfer under the UNFCCC since 1992 with a focus on the LDCs and indicated required actions that need to be taken to support the LDCs in the context of climate-related technology transfer and beyond.

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.

The purpose of this study is to determine the relationships between technology transfer, innovation and firm performance.

The relationship between technology transfer, innovation and firm performance is examined by using data obtained from 252 Turkish export firms, which are among the top 1,000 firms in terms of export volume in Turkey. To examine these relationships, a theoretical framework is empirically tested using structural equation modeling and tested via an empirical study of Turkish export companies.

The results of this study can benefit policymakers in government at the national level and company decision-makers at the firm level. Furthermore, an understanding of the relationship between technology transfer, innovation and firm performance may help firms to make correct technology transfer decisions and focus on the correct type of innovation to increase firm performance in practice. The findings indicate the positive effects of technology transfer on innovation and firm performance. In addition, innovation mediates the relationship between technology transfer and firm performance in Turkish export companies. This study suggests that decision-makers should transfer the right technology because well-realized technology transfers lead to the improvement of corporate innovation capacities and improvement of firm performances for export companies.

There is no study that fully examined the relationship between technology transfer, innovation and firm performance. The proposed literature-based theoretical framework in this study is novel for Turkish export companies.

Prior studies have demonstrated the important role of coopetition in firms’ innovation. Based on the paradox perspective, this study aims to focus on technology transfer, the pre-innovation stage, to provide a supplementary understanding of the complementarity and contradictoriness of paradoxical coopetition, with the formal and informal governance mechanisms which are suitable with this understanding in coopetition.

This study conducted an original, multisource survey of 280 Chinese manufacturing firms. Hypotheses were tested through multiple regressions.

Coopetition has a positive impact on technology transfer between firms. Along with the increasing specificity of assets invested ex ante as a kind of formal governance mechanism, the relationship between coopetition and technology transfer becomes stronger. Meanwhile, inter-firm justice as an informal governance mechanism in the technology transfer process can be positively affected by coopetition between partners.

The study adds to the business-to-business coopetition literature on how to properly treat and use coopetition in technology transfer. Using the paradox perspective in the Chinese context, the findings emphasize the positive role of coopetition in the inter-firm technological exchange process, enriching the understanding of the complementary and contradictory features of paradoxical coopetition. To govern coopetitive relationships, the firms should also implement two fundamental governance mechanisms, that is, specialty asset and inter-firm justice.

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.