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 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.

In international business international technology transfer is an important part. It involves several modes. Product or process technologies can be transferred to a host country within a multinational company. Other modes include sale or licensing of technology. In these cases a company other than the technology owner takes technology to a host country. International technology transfer involves many matters such as transfer mode, government trade policies, risk of losing technology and influence of industry associations. In this chapter I report a longitudinal case study (1950–1980) of the diffusion of new manufacturing technology, suspension preheating, within the U.S. cement industry. Here I employ concepts from the literature on international technology transfer. Based on this analysis I identify what impact international technology transfer literature has on dominant design theory. Here I address in more detail the era of ferment of the most recent technology adoption (that is innovation).The U.S. cement industry was included in the original development of the dominant design model. However, technology adoption or innovation was defined as the first commercial introduction of a product made by a new manufacturing technology or process in the United States. This domestic definition of technology adoption neglects all aspects of international technology transfer mentioned earlier.While comparing the results of these two studies of the U.S. cement industry I found differences in the adoption time of technology and inconsistence in the introduction of the technology in the United States. I found that the length of the era of ferment was 29 years – contrary to the seven years reported in the development of dominant design model. This time difference has naturally impacted on the analysis of diffusion. It seems that the international business and international technology transfer literature have impacted on the dominant design model and theory.

We review and synthesize the burgeoning literature on institutions and agents engaged in the commercialization of university-based intellectual property. These studies indicate that institutional incentives and organizational practices play an important role in enhancing the effectiveness of technology transfer. We conclude that university technology transfer should be considered from a strategic perspective. Institutions that choose to stress the entrepreneurial dimension of technology transfer need to address skill deficiencies in technology transfer offices, reward systems that are inconsistent with enhanced entrepreneurial activity, and education/training for faculty members, post-docs, and graduate students relating to interactions with entrepreneurs. Business schools at these universities can play a major role in addressing these skill and educational deficiencies through the delivery of targeted programs to technology licensing officers and members of the campus community wishing to launch startup firms.