Doing technology transfer in federal laboratories (Part 1)

According to data from the Congressional General Accounting Office and the Association of University Technology Managers, the federal laboratories seriously lag some universities in rates of technology transfer. This paper, based on interviews with technology-transfer professionals in federal laboratories and universities, discusses the phenomenon of technology transfer, highlighting subjects such as technology push and market pull, cooperative R&D, technology licensing, start-up companies, information-dissemination and technology-search programs, technology transfer and local development, models of technology-transfer programs, limits to federal technology transfer, and measurement of technology transfer. It concludes that the explanation for the difference in technology-transfer rates between federal laboratories and universities is due primarily to the way technology-transfer opportunities are marketed in the two sectors.     

A guide to the best technology-transfer practices

In analyzing the best technology-transfer practices of a broad cross-section of goverment agencies, research institutions, and national and industrial laboratories, it was found that different technology-transfer practices should be used at the prospecting, developing, trial, and adoption stages of technology transfer. These results are summarized in a benchmark model that indicates which best practices to use at each stage of the technology-transfer process, and what roles should be played by technology disseminators, developers, sponsors, and implementors during these stages. Rules are suggested for making cost-effectiveness trade-offs among alternative best practices and designing optimal transfer strategies when budgets are limited.     

Guns to butter: Technology-transfer strategies in the national laboratories

The military threat to national security has substantially diminished, and the need for a stronger focus on economic competitiveness for the US is becoming more pronounced every day. We must find ways to accomplish more-effective technology transfer. This paper outlines four technology-transfer strategies used by the Department of Energy's national laboratories: the passive strategy, the active strategy, the entrepreneurial strategy, and the national-competitiveness strategy. It compares these strategies in terms of organizational structure, performance measures, and staffing, and it discusses the implications of these comparisons of technology transfer. The findings contained in this paper are based on the author's interviews with technology-transfer staff and program directors at the national laboratories and on analysis of the institutional plans.     

Menu of best practices in technology transfer (Part 2)

This menu accompanies the paper on the previous pages—“Doing Technology Transfer in Federal Laboratories (Part 1)”—and compiles best practices in technology transfer as defined by the institutions that use them. It is based on interviews with technology-transfer professionals in federal laboratories and universities. It highlights best practices in organizing the technology-transfer function, involving the science and technology staffs, capturing intellectual property, evaluating and patenting intellectual property, marketing technologies, preparing technologies for commercialization, transferring technology locally, using technology-transfer intermediaries, and using technology-search programs. The menu ends with a collection of conventional wisdom about technology transfer.     

Selling the technology-transfer function

Throughout the federal system, agency technical directors, laboratory managers, and laboratory scientists are faced with a combination of increasing opportunities and external interests in facilitating the transfer of federal technology to civil use. But this process is unlikely to be significantly strengthened or provided with the needed continuity of effort without a more organized and conscious effort to sell the technology-transfer function as one that is important to the US economy. This effort should no be limited to convincing industrial leaders and their laboratories. It needs to involve a more diverse leadership, including the media, professional and trade associations, and public interest groups. It also must be directed internally within federal agencies, to the laboratory management therein, and even to the bench-scientist level. Oftentimes the increased technologytransfer activity that one sees in federal agencies and laboratories belies the fact that there remains a good deal of confusion, misinformation, and lack of interest on the part of laboratory management, intermediate managers, and scientists concerning the value and importance of technology transfer to both the American economy and to the laboratories.     

A study of technology-transfer mechanisms for federally funded R&D

The purpose of this study is to understand the relative effectiveness of various technology-transfer mechanisms used in transferring federally funded research and development projects. An analysis is carried out for 116 technology-transfer case studies based on survey data compiled through the US Department of Energy program offices. The results show that offering financial incentives and creating supportive advisory groups are highly successful ways to transfer technology.     

Strategic perspective on technology transfer: A call for collaborative research

Technology transfer should not be viewed as a single, “one shot” process. There are downstream strategic issues that must be dealt with if the technology-transfer process is to be well-integrated into a firm's activities. Too often these downstream issues are not apparent during the decisions leading to the actual transfer of the technology. Several key issues that should be weighed by managers are presented, their impact on competitive positioning is considered, and they are discussed in the contexts of maquiladora (twin-plant) factories in Mexico and investments in Chinese Special Economic Zones.     

Extension services and intermediaries: Brokering federal technologies to smaller firms

Extension services and other organizations that assist small and medium-size firms can play an important role in brokering technology from federal laboratories and other R&D sources. They can help the firms identify and define their technology needs and can help interpret and apply federal-laboratory technologies to meet those needs. These are some of the conclusions of a recent Federal Laboratory Consortium project, designed and managed by INNOVATION ASSOCIATES and overseen by the National Association of Management and Technical Assistance Centers. Major recommendations resulting from the project include: a re-examination by Congress of the federal technology-transfer structure to eliminate redundancies and fill gaps; funding extension services to facilitate hiring of dedicated technology-transfer staff; and providing additional incentives and creating informal mechanisms that encourage federal laboratories to work with small firms. The author also recommends that extension services view relationships with federal laboratories as long-term development rather than short-term “fix-its,” provide proactive and continuous follow-up of small firms working with federal laboratories, and act as an advocate on behalf of small firms. The following article discusses the project and its findings. Observations, issues, and recommendations are found at the end of the article.     

Federal laboratories & American industry: Fueling innovation

With a little-used gold mine of federal technical resources available to American industry, and adequate networking structure to expedite the transfer of valuable information is needed. The US government's laboratories have assisted some corporations, particularly those in defense-oriented industries, through collaborative research activities. To face the competition from abroad, a greater segment of American industry, of necessity, must tap the technical information and assistance available within the maze of federal laboratories to convert new and existing research into tangible, marketable products. NERAC has designed and tested an accessing model that matches the technological needs of American industry with federal experts through an existing network of federal-laboratory technology-transfer officers. The process is uncomplicated and direct. As a knowledgeable liaison, NERAC has developed a communication network to facilitate the transfer of often-unique material from the federal laboratories to American industry.     

Technology transfer and value creation: Extending the theory beyond information exchange

Most interfirm models of technology transfer involve the exchange of information. As technology gains increasing importance in competitive strategy, however, the information-exchange perspective becomes increasingly limited. This paper conceptually extends the interfirm technology-transfer process to include aspects of commercialization and value creation. Like other areas of organizational science, much of the problem associated with technology transfer involves implementation. The model developed in this study, in its simplest form, links the technology-transfer process to the well-developed process models of new-product and new-venture development.     

Barriers and Bridges for Successful Environmental Technology Transfer

Governmental policy, social factors, individual behavior, and technology play critical roles in improving the environment. The Department of Defense is not immune to these factors as its actions have, and will continue, to impact its operational environments.This research analyzes the technological aspect of improving environmental conditions. Of particular interest, are the barriers encountered when laboratories transfer environmental technology to an end-user, and the bridges used to mitigate these barriers. A case study methodology is utilized analyzing five environmental technology transfers within the U.S. Air Force.Several key barriers and bridges are specific to the transfer of environmental technologies. They include environmental regulatory agency oversight, difficulty in clearly defining the end-user, and the need to demonstrate technologies to potential end-users. However, many barriers and bridges encountered in the environmental technology transfer, are also encountered in the transfer of other technologies. Based on these findings, recommendations are provided for improving the environmental technology transfer process.     

Success Factors for Transferring Technology to Spin-off Applications: the Case of The Technology Property Rights Concession Program in Korea

This paper is a study of 127 firms participating in Korea's Technology Property Rights Concession Program, a program designed to stimulate technology transfer related to spin-off applications of public technology. The purpose is to identify the determinants of transfer success. The findings indicate that successful firms were motivated by the ability to access a core technology free of charge and to solve technical problems currently encountered in technology development. Second, the targeted technology was highly reliable. Third, interest in commercial success of the transfer was very high among the researchers involved in the transfer process and these researchers had a high degree of prior understanding about industrial problems on the part of participating firms. Relatedly, there was a very high satisfaction with the communication that existed between lab researchers and their industrial partners in the transfer process. Fourth, lab contributions to the transfer process were very high in the pre-commercial and commercial stages of technology development.     

Improving federal technology commercialization: Some recommendations from a field study

This study identified three distinct roles of the federal technology-transfer process in the Huntsville, Alabama region: sponsors, developers, and adopters. The basic structure of transfer barriers and measures during the prospecting and developing of the federal technology-transfer process is also discussed. Sponsors attributed transfer problems to adopters' lack of awareness, while developers cited long development and payback times. Adopters admitted their lack of transfer expertise and their resistance to technologies with long paybacks. None of the role-players were measuring technology transfer very well. While sponsors agreed with adopters that long-term outcome measures were important, sponsors relied on measures of input effort and intermediate results. Developers with the most transfer experience reported the lowest use of measures. Recommendations are made for each role to help improve federal technology transfer.     

Federal laboratories: Economic development and intellectual property constraints

The United States is increasingly looking at ways to link public-sector investments in science and technology with national economic-development goals. The federal laboratories are a reflection of this trend and much has been done to make them a more attractive source for innovative ideas in the private sector. One significant change that has resulted in making the laboratories more interactive with US industry has been the easing of government patent policy for both government-and contractor-operated national laboratories. However, there still are intellectual-property constraints, especially in the areas of technical data and software, that need immediate attention if the full intent of technology-transfer legislation is to be met. Previously he was a science policy analyst in the US General Accounting Office's Resource, Community and Economic Development Division.     

The federal government and technology transfer implementing the 1986 act: Signs of progress

The Technology Transfer Act of 1986 clearly brought into focus the importance of technology-transfer activities in the federal government. Recognition of the potential benefit to be realized by access to results of federally sponsored research was acknowledged at the highest levels of government. While many departments and agencies had been transferring technology within the limits of existing authority and budgets, the act stimulated them as well as less-aggressive agencies to further strengthen their transfer operations. This paper reviews the status of selected agency technology transfer in 1985, describes important progress since passage of the act in 1986, and notes issues that remain to be resolved.     

Models for commercialization of technology from universities and research laboratories

One of the most admired aspects of U.S. technology has been the ability to assimilate and commercialize new science and technology. In light of the rising international competition, there has been new emphasis placed on the commercialization of U.S. science and technology developed in the federal laboratories. While research and development remains the focus of these laboratories, passage of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Act of 1980 and the Technology Transfer Act of 1986 has resulted in a means to further the exploitation of discoveries, patents, and copyrights developed within the laboratories. The transfer of technology to industrial partners and users is a complex task for a federal laboratory. Since the interaction with industry, as well as market knowledge and assessment of the needs of business users are beyond the charter of a federal laboratory, new organizational mechanisms are required in order to obtain full commercial value from the laboratories' efforts. A study was instituted to examine selected organizational and policy arrangements for achieving the optimum commercial value from the science and technology research at the research and development laboratories sponsored and funded by the U.S. government.     

The cooperative extension service: A model for technology transfer

Since its inception in 1914, the Cooperative Extension Service has been delivering technology effectively to the agricultural community. The history of CES is discussed briefly, and the program's success, in terms of visibility, usage, and economic impact, is documented. Although the extension model has not been applied widely in industries outside of agriculture, some states have experimented with technology-transfer programs fashioned after CES. It is argued that these programs have not acquired the critical mass of resources needed to make them truly effective, and, unless they gain additional support, they should expand their services to increase their value and assess fees for assistance rendered. Gregory D. McFall was, during preparation of this paper, an undergraduate research fellow, majoring in physics, mathematics, and philosophy at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He currently is doing graduate work at VPI & SU.     

Technology-transfer strategies of DOE's conservation programs

This paper examines the process by which R&D results funded by the Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy (CE) of the US Department of Energy (DOE) have generated commercial applications. It looks at examples of technology-transfer procedures and activitees across three of CE's component offices that correspond to the major energy end-use sectors: transportation, buildings, and industry. On the surface, the conservation programs would appear to have little strategic consistency and, therefore, lack the clear leadership many seek in a technology-transfer program. However, as an alternative to strategic consistency, one may tailor the technology-transfer approach of each program to its unique circumstances. This paper presents case studies of such tailoring, in which the diversity of approaches mirrors the complexity of the energy end-use markets and the private-public interests that must be negotiated to successfully commercialize energy-saving innovations. The paper discusses the lessons learned about the conditions requiring adaptive design and the structures and practices that have been proven effective.     

Limited Liability Companies and Technology Transfer

This paper provides an introduction to a new organizational form of business in the United States, the Limited Liability Company (LLC), and explores the potential use of LLCs for technology-transfer arrangements. Favorable characteristics of LLCs are limited liability for all equity holders, avoidance of corporate double taxation, flexibility of organizational form and distributions of profit, and few restrictions on membership. An unfavorable characteristic is that shares in an LLC cannot be publicly traded. The paper argues that, overall, the LLC form promotes certain types of strategic alliances, including those dealing with technology transfer. In particular, LLC characteristics lend themselves well to strategic alliances that form to share risk, exploit complementary assets, reduce transactions costs, overcome investment barriers, exchange technology, speed innovation and development, and make international expansions. The paper also points out why technology-transfer arrangements can and will continue to take on other forms as well.     

Regulation of technology transfer: The Mexican experience

Beginning some 20 years ago, regulation of technology transfer became common-place in a number of developing countries. Whether such regulation could prove beneficial was often questioned, particularly in the industrialized world. But with a 15–20 year history to study, we can now look at the impact that regulation has had. Mexico presents a good case study, as its original law was one of the earliest, and the country's political continuity has led to a detectable evolvement of the technology-transfer process that allows analysis of various factors over time.