Transferring knowledge in Quebec–Mexico partnerships: the case of the dairy industry

This work seeks to contribute to technology transfer case study literature, by exploring the possibilities of an international trade between Mexico and Quebec in dairy industry under an international agreement??s environment. We report this probable exchange on an exploratory study, based on previous studies made at HEC Montréal at the International Technology Transfer course. This was explored in terms of knowledge and technology transfer, involving an innovative product. We present evidence based on public information and company interviews?? results which, analyzed through a theoretical framework of knowledge and technology transfer, suggests a possible future partnership, involving knowledge transfer. Our results show that, even if the two companies selected have similar cooperative-type structures, they do not behave in similar way. Both enterprises could better complement each other in terms of R&D, marketing, benchmarking, process and entrepreneurial capabilities. Furthermore, our research indicates that both enterprises could better face on industry??s threats in domestic and international competition, which could be used as a basis for further research in international technology transfers.     

Regulation of Technology Transfer to Developing Countries: The Relevance of Institutional Capacity*

This article revisits the debate over appropriate approaches to the regulation of technology transfer to developing countries. It begins by contrasting two stylized approaches, labeled for convenience the “New International Economic Order” model and the “Globalization” model, which have historically struggled for acceptance. It then explores the implications for the choice between these or alternative models of the fact that many developing countries presently lack the institutional capacity required to provide optimal regulation of technology transfer. Existing discussions appear either to assume that developing countries possess sufficient institutional capacity to design and implement sophisticated regulatory regimes, or to take the opposite approach and assume a drastic shortage of institutional capacity. Both approaches ignore the intermediate category of countries that do face constraints upon institutional capacity but are striving to overcome them. The analysis here is intended to demonstrate the general point that a country's present and future institutional capacity ought to be considered highly relevant to the design of central aspects of the regime that it uses to regulate technology transfer. The analysis is also designed to highlight the specific need for attention to the distinctive questions of regulatory design which arise in countries that are in the process of enhancing their institutional capacity in this and other regulatory contexts.     

Transferring technology transfer into an Air Force unit

This article describes barriers to technology transfer and changes that occurred when a technology—artificial intelligence—was introduced in an applied high-technology setting at the Deputate of Communications-Computers. Electronic Security Command, US Air Force, San Antonio, TX. The authors, who were responsible for transferring the technology, based their method on an accepted model that focuses on the ability of individuals to bring about change. They regard technology transfer as the introduction and communication of a technology for practical application. Transfer into an organization entails an appreciation by the transfer agent and the recipient of how the technology will be received, used, and applied; how it will affect the recipient's management style; and how the transfer process is designed to meet the needs of the organization. Identifying, infusing, and marketing technologies often causes hostile reactions by the targeted receiver, partly because it is a challenge to the status quo and partly because the organization's technical and non-technical people don't see eye-to-eye. This has been true in our setting. Specialists have been too adamant to accept contrary views and management has not taken the need for specialists and their new technologies seriously enough. He is Chief, Rapid Prototyping Section, and he heads artificial-intelligence development.     

Explaining differences in sub-national patterns of clean technology transfer to China and India

The Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has the capacity to incentivize the international transfer of environmentally sound technologies. Given that both countries are expected to have similar incentives when managing the distribution of technology transfer within the country, why do sub-national patterns in the allocation of projects with technology transfer differ? Using comparable political–economic data compiled for China and India, we offer an explanation for these differences. In China, where the government regards the CDM as a tool for achieving sustainable development, technology transfer is concentrated in provinces that need it the most and that are most conducive to receiving transfers (i.e., economically less developed, yet heavily industrialized provinces). In India, where the government takes on a “laissez-faire” approach to the CDM, neither level of economic development nor that of industrialization affects clean technology transfer. In this regard, although the incentives are similar, the capacity to pursue them is not comparable. We test these hypotheses using data on CDM technology transfer across Chinese provinces and Indian states during the 6-year period from 2004 to 2010.     

A model of cross-cultural training in the transfer of technology

During the past few decades, many aspects of the transfer of technology from developed to less-developed countries have been examined in detail. Although much of the transfer has been done by transnational corporations (TNCs), one area that has received scant attention in the literature is the cross-cultural training of workers in the host country. A model is developed to show how critical training the worker is to the success of the TNC in the host country. This model emphasizes the need for workers to be trained to understand and use the new (foreign) technology and to understand the culture of the foreign corporation. Thomas S. Barker is a Ph.D. student in higher education with a concentration in management and economics at the University of North Texas.     

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.     

An applied technology transfer process

The applied technology transfer process is a communication process based on planning, marketing, and training. Planning is the single most important element, while pre-planning is also essential. The marketing part of applied technology transfer involves an in-depth knowledge of both consumers and products. A sound knowledge of media is also essential. The marketing step is the key delivery or transfer element. Applied technology transfer is a system that requires skills such as management and communication techniques which can be learned in traditional academic courses. However, other skills such as applied human relations are more easily learned under a supervised workshop approach. More complex technology transfer systems require additional training on a continuing education basis. The development of technology transfer learning centers can also be useful. Applied technology transfer is a research investment rather than a cost. It is the technology transfer process that insures the timely application of research effort. Research pay-off is derived from use of research products. Thus, applied technology transfer represents research delivery insurance.     

Foreign investment innovation: a review of selected policies

Whereas foreign investment innovation (FII) has become increasingly common, after decades of debate it is still unclear whether it is desirable for the home country or for the company’s host country. This paper reviews articles from three complementary economic and business traditions which investigate this phenomenon and propose policies based on facts: the economics of technological change tradition, the international business (IB) tradition, and the line of research on international technology transfers. Articles in line with these strands of theory complement each other because they approach different aspects of complex events while explaining FII and its effects on host and home countries. Host countries obtain maximum benefits from FII when affiliates import foreign technology, purchase their inputs in the host country and enjoy product and technological autonomy vis-à-vis the parent. Different types of MNEs, affiliates and foreign R&D units have different potentials for transferring technology to host countries and provide different scope for policies. The authors recommend that governments encourage direct vertical linkages between MNEs and domestic suppliers who could reap the benefits from foreign knowledge. However, some important success factors remain exogenous to governments. As for indigenous MNEs, it is a matter of controversy whether governments should always stimulate them to conduct research in foreign locations or, alternatively, incentive them to stay at home. The need for additional evidence is still considerable in many respects.

China and India’s participation in global climate negotiations

In this paper, we discuss a range of issues concerning developing country participation in current global climate change mitigation negotiations, especially India and China. We argue that the problem of redefining ‘common yet differentiated responsibilities’ in a way which allows developing countries room to pursue their individual development goals while still achieving the necessary level of carbon mitigation is central to the debate. The choice of negotiating instruments, effective technology transfer and financial support, and other related issues have been raised principally by China and India, and may also be raised by several other countries. Kyoto non-compliance by Annex 1 countries will also greatly impact the negotiating power of China and India and other developing countries. We conclude that, once basic principles are clearly defined, the greatest incentive for China and India to participate in climate change negotiations is the prospect of future negotiating rounds that can be linked to a large number of climate change related issues, such as intellectual property, the potential for financial transfers and trade/market access.     

Transferring technology into and within the third world

This article is based on Jordan J. Baruch's talk at the banquet at this year's Technology Transfer Society's annual meeting on the occasion of his being named winner of the society's Thomas Jefferson Award. As recipient of the award, he was cited for outstanding achievements in technology transfer in three categories:1. Exemplary success in managing actual transfer (Baruch invented and managed transfer of many civilian and military technologies in acoustics.).2. Leadership in technology-transfer public policy (He has been a frequent expert in Congressional testimony on such issues as consortia in technology development and commercialization. He also led efforts to develop formal organizations to promote technology transfer between the US and other nations such as Israel, Jordan, India, China, and several African countries.).3. Significant contributions to professional knowledge in technology transfer (Baruch has promoted the use of computer conferencing and was the conceptual and political driving force for the formation of the Center for Utilization of Federal Technology.). Jordan J. Baruch, who has a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), is a consultant (Jordan Baruch Associates). He served as assistant secretary for science and technology at the US Department of Commerce in 1977–81. A professor at Dartmouth, The Harvard Business School, and MIT, he also was a founding partner of the engineering firm Bolt Beranek & Newman. Baruch is a member of the National Academy of Engineering.     

Technology transfer in the americas

This paper focuses on a particular technology transfer area (Anglo-Saxon and Latin America) and presents possible answers to two questions: (1) What are the technologies most needed in the developing nations of Latin America today? (2) How can the transfer of these technologies from the United States and Canada be improved profitably? In addressing these questions, this discussion identifies key technologies driving economic development through-out the world today, and their particular importance for Latin American countries. To better analyze the transfer process, the paper proposes a general model designated as the relocation/absorption paradigm. This model evidences the necessity of an active approach to technology transfer in order for key technologies to arrive in Latin America. This active approach identifies a conceptual knowledge exchange as the essential catalyst in the absorption of the identified technologies. The purpose of this discussion is to explore issues related to the transfer of very recently developed technologies from the United States and Canada to the developing countries of Latin America. By leaving the political discussion aside, the paper approaches this matter from a technology management perspective, aiming to articulate why technology flow to “south of the border” should be increased, and to offer useful discussions on how to achieve that end.     

科技政策、行政规则与司法审查

现代国家中,立法机关对于科技政策法案往往无法作详细的规定,而委诸行政机关以行政立法或行政规则作进一步的规范,而且这类规范会随着科技的发展或研究的最新发现,作相应的调整。在此情况之下,此类科技性规范性文件的制定程序、参与主体、司法审查可能性及其审查密度等问题,均值得研究。本文以司法审查为研究重点,介绍美国的经验,期望对中国能有所借鉴。     

Impact of Currency Boards on Fiscal Policy in Central and Eastern European Countries

The paper focuses on the impact of currency boards on fiscal policy in transition economies. Starting with an overview of theoretical and empirical studies in the related area, it tests for the interaction between monetary policy regimes and fiscal policy in Central and Eastern European countries who aim for the membership in the European Union. The theoretical background of this study lies in the model of Tornell and Velasco (1998). They demonstrate that fiscal transfers do not ultimately depend on the chosen exchange rate and monetary policy, but only on the world's real rate of interest and the rate of time preference of the fiscal authority. A sample of 10 accession candidates constitutes a group of countries which go through similar macroeconomic stabilisation processes but have chosen different nominal anchors. The paper investigates whether there are any systematic differences between those countries with a currency board arrangement and those without. The empirical evidence suggests that currency boards enhance fiscal discipline in Central and Eastern European countries.     

Planning at the National Endowment for the Arts: A Review of the Plans and Planning Documents, 1978–1984

This article investigates revenue diversification in order to verify if it is advantageous for nonprofit creative entrepreneurs to improve their price and product marketing, fundraising, and other financing. The article also focuses on U.S. symphony orchestras that cope with Cost Disease (Baumol and Bowen 1965) thanks to the revenue diversification. Today these creative nonprofits are targeting several stakeholders and rent holders. In this article, they are clustered according to performances of their marketing, fundraising, and investing. As seen in 2008, U.S. symphony managers diversified and maximized total revenues of contributions, program service, interests, dividends, sales of assets, special fundraising events, etc. Thanks to the Ward cluster analysis (1963), two main profiles emerge: the Fundraiser and the Marketing Expert. The Marketing Expert is the most developed profile, but contributions are always exceeding program service revenues, and fundraising is more profitable than marketing.     

Technological Transfers from the European Space Programs: A Dynamic View and Comparison with Other R&D Projects

This article presents the results and lessons learned from a series of studies carried out by the BETA research team (University Louis Pasteur of Strasbourg, France) to measure the spin-offs and technological transfers that resulted from European space programs. Beyond the quantitative results that are analyzed in detail, the article examines some of the main qualitative characteristics that shape the technology transfer process generated by these programs. In particular, it is demonstrated that three main characteristics have a significant impact on the technology transfer process: the nature of the technologies at stake (their degree of maturity, their degree of diversity, the extent to which they are generic or specific), the nature of the network of participants to the programs (the degree of mutual trust, the existence of absorptive capabilities) and the nature of the organizational structure of those firms which participated in the projects (their degree of decentralization, their degree of vertical integration).The article concludes by discussing how these lessons learned could be used to shape the procurement policies to be followed by space agencies in order to favor a high potential for technological transfers arising from future space projects.     

The formation of an international environmental agreement as a two-stage exclusive cartel formation game with transferable utilities

We construct a two-stage exclusive cartel formation game with utility transfers to model the formation process of an international environmental agreement. Our results show that in the first stage of low degree of consensus, engaging in utility transfers by asymmetric countries will accomplish little. In contrast, in the second stage of higher degree of consensus, it is more likely for asymmetric countries to engage in monetary transfers to form the grand coalition, particularly if a small stable coalition has already been formed in the first stage. This article therefore provides a theoretical perspective to explain why it is more likely for some developed countries to initiate an IEA formation process by forming a small stable coalition first before engaging in monetary transfers to form the grand coalition with all the other countries. Such a perspective is consistent with the historical development of the Montreal Protocol and may also explain the difficulty for asymmetric countries to form the grand coalition at the beginning of the IEA formation process of the Kyoto Protocol.

Implications of EU Enlargement on the EU Greenhouse Gas 'Bubble' and Internal Burden Sharing

Currently, the EU-15 forms the only 'bubble' under the Kyoto Protocol and has negotiated an internal burden sharing. A strategic EU climate policy should include accession countries. Thus, even in the case of early ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by 2002, it would be sensible to form a bubble with all countries that are certain to be EU members during the commitment period 2008–2012. Of course due to Art. 4.4 of the Protocol the EU-15 has to stick to its own bubble. However, nothing prevents it from forming an implicit bubble including all first wave countries by inducing them to form a bubble on their own and transfer the surplus to the EU-15. Similarly, second wave countries should form a bubble of their own to co-ordinate JI and permit transfers to the EU. This would reduce the gap between business-as-usual and the target by about 50%. If ratification is delayed to a point where it is clear which second wave countries will be members by 2008, the bubble should be extended by those countries. When in 2005 target negotiations start for the second commitment period, the EU should negotiate a bubble consisting of all states being certain to be members by 2013.     

Return on Investment in Innovation: Implications for Institutions and National Agencies*

Commercial success in universities in the USA and Canada has resulted in many other countries taking steps to emulate this performance and major technology transfer and commercialisation support programmes have been launched in UK, Europe, Australia, Japan and many other countries—including South Africa. Unrealistic expectations have, however, been generated by the spectacular successes of a relatively few institutions and it is not always realised that the success from commercialisation is proportional to the magnitude of the investment in research. Without a well funded, high quality research system, it is not possible for technology transfer to make any significant contribution to economic development. The possible economic returns to higher education institutions from commercialisation of research can be estimated using international benchmarks. This forecast uses a combination of an institutional return on investment model and a simple economic projection. The model is generic and can be adapted for use in any institution. As more data becomes available from local (and international) sources, the model will be refined to give better estimates. The model is dynamic and shows, quantitatively, why it can take up to 10 years for an institution, and 20 years nationally, to attain a positive rate of return from an investment in research and technology transfer. The model enables the long-term impact of policy decisions, in an institution and nationally, to be examined and alternative scenarios explored. The performance of individual institutions is, however, highly variable and unpredictable. This is even for those institutions that are comparable in size and maturity. A large portfolio of patents and licences is required to give a reasonable probability of positive returns. This may be possible at a national level, but is problematic in smaller institutions—and smaller countries. Because the benefits of the innovation system are captured largely at national level, with institutions having a high uncertainty, public sector support to reduce the institutional risk is necessary to assist institutions to make the necessary investments. Technology transfer is of course only one element of the overall research and innovation value chain. All elements must be functioning effectively to derive the economic and social benefits from research. In addition to a strong research system, adequate incentives must exist to encourage academics to participate, particularly with regard to the crucial initial step of invention disclosure. After disclosure, sufficient institutional capacity must be in place to take an idea, evaluate it, protect the intellectual property appropriately and then seek a path to commercialisation through either licensing or start-up company formation. *Based on the paper “Return on Investment in Innovation: Implications for Institutions and National Agencies” presented at The First Globelics Conference on Innovation Systems and Development Strategies for the Third Millennium, Rio de Janeiro, November 2003.     

Technology transfer perspectives in globalising India (drugs and pharmaceuticals and biotechnology)

The paper briefly outlines the status of technology transfer related issues in drugs & pharma and biotechnology sectors in India. The paper also outlines the contemporary business strategies including R&D and technology transfer models. The study indicates that present technology transfer policies and mechanisms are weak and need to be restructured. The current fiscal incentives and tax concessions etc. available for R&D in industry seem to have outlived and are no longer attractive because of continuous lowering of tariff rates and tax rates in the context of WTO and liberalization of policies. Moreover, the issue of R&D support to industry is not covered in the WTO as in case of subsidies. Therefore, it is advisable for the government to revisit the existing promotional measures for R&D. FDI policies also need to be tailored to encourage Technology transfers and capability building. Recommendations are made for making Technology Transfer more effective for the growth and competitiveness of the industry. A technology transfer management model is suggested.      

Cost-sharing — A necessary component for successful technology transfer

The general objective of this paper is to propose the establishment of a federal cost-sharing policy for reducing risk in transferring technology from the R&D stage to commercialization. Minimization of this risk barrier is expected to encourage diverse groups to participate in technology transfer. Section II focuses on specific barriers that impede technology transfer efforts and it presents policy options to minimize identified barriers. Section III introduces objectives of cost-sharing experiments from which cost-sharing policies can be formulated. In addition, we also identify specific cost-sharing participation criteria and success variables for the policy.