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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Red tape and technology transfer in US government laboratories

The purpose of this paper is to gauge the effects of red tape and bureaucratization on the technology-transfer activities and effectiveness of government laboratories in the United States. Two central questions are addressed: Do laboratories involved significantly in technology transfer have more red tape than others? and Does the level of red tape have an effect on technology-transfer success? Objective and perceptual measures of red tape are used. Technologytransfer effectiveness is measured in terms of getting other organizations to adopt technology developed in the laboratory (“out the door” success) and of the commercial impact of transfers. Data are derived from questionnaire responses provided by directors of 276 federal- and state-government laboratories. Results indicate that laboratories involved in technology transfer do not have higher levels of red tape. Out-the-door technology-transfer success relates strongly to low degrees of perceived red tape, whereas high ratings for commercial impact are associated with actual low levels of red tape in acquiring project funding and lowcost equipment.     

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.     

Transferring NBS technology to small manufacturers through state and local centers

Transferring research results from federal laboratories to small, local industries poses major conceptual as well as practical difficulties. To address the problem, this paper provides a model of a technology-transfer system in which a federal laboratory—the National Bureau of Standards's Automated Manufacturing Research Facility—is linked to small manufacturers through state-and community-based technology centers, where the various instituions in the system are matched along dimensions of (a) level of government, (b) stage in cycle of innovation, (C) education of prototypical worker, and (d) nature of capital-revenue base.     

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.     

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.     

Federal technology transfer: Teaching it

This paper recommends development of teaching materials and cases on technology transfer for undergraduate and graduate courses in business and engineering. Its focus is the process of transferring technology from the federal laboratories to business organizations.     

Company interactions with federal laboratories: What they do and why they do it

Focusing on responses from 229 companies that have worked with federal laboratories, the study examines companies' objectives and initial motivations for technical interaction between companies and federal laboratories. Companies come to the federal laboratories for many reasons: some try to enhance their training and human capital, others to build precompetitive knowledge not likely to show a quick return, and still others to avail themselves of unique lab facilities or seek technical assistance. One implication of these findings is that the traditional view of technology transfer may distort the nature of commercially relevant technical interactions, particularly in an era characterized by rampant “metricmania.” Any assessment of company-laboratory interactions failing to take into account the multiple objectives of many different technical interactions is likely to hinder as much as it helps.     

Promoting small business through public-sector technology transfer

It is generally concluded that small businesses are the most effective institutional mechanism for the execution of technological innovation in the United States. Federal legislation provides for special considerations to be rendered to small businesses when public-sector technology is to be transferred to the private sector. Nevertheless, the activities of many federal laboratories lag in the transfer of technology to small businesses relative to large businesses. This paper examines the reasons for the current low level of interaction between federal laboratories and small businesses including the constraints typically encountered in working with small businesses. Recommendations are made to enhance the lab/small-business relationship. Finally, a sample program at Sandia National Laboratory for assistance to small businesses is described.     

Technology transfer from university research in regional development strategies

The involvement of universities in state and local technology-based economic development initiatives is discussed, emphasizing programs designed to exploit technology transfer from university research. The university role is examined in relation to the reality of the difficulties technologically less-developed regions face in creating the technological infrastructure required for the success of such efforts. Generic and specific examples of university programs are described and some appropriate recommendations are made for federal policies to support and encourage these programs.     

Organizational Structure as a Determinant of Academic Patent and Licensing Behavior: An Exploratory Study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities

This paper examines the influences of university organizational structure on technology transfer performance. The analysis treats the organizational structure of the technology-transfer office as an independent variable that accounts, in part, for measured differences in inter-institutional patenting, licensing, and sponsored research activities. We derive and investigate three hypotheses that link attributes of organizational form – information processing capacity, coordination capability and incentive alignment – to technology transfer outcomes. A detailed analysis of three major research universities – Johns Hopkins University, Pennsylvania State University, and Duke University – provides evidence of the existence of alternative organizational structures. The data also suggest that these organizational capabilities result in differences in technology transfer activity.     

Technology transfer to a major manufacturing industry: Case study of a state's approach

The paper presents the state of Alabama's approach to the transfer of technology to the apparel-manufacturing industry. The technology-transfer program has been under way for three years. This paper summarizes the highlights of the program, the approach to transferring technology, and the lessons learned.     

Attracting federal research funds: Why so much from so many goes to so few

This paper addresses the question of the distribution of federal research funds. It is noted that the top five institutions in terms of federal funding occupy very stable and extremely high rankings in terms of the quality of their academic programs in a variety of fields. It is suggested that this is part of their overall strategy for achieving organizational effectiveness. The implications for technology generation and transfer are discussed. In view of the various theories of organizational effectiveness, it is noted that research oriented universities that consistently win in the quest for federal research funds have developed both the structure and atmosphere necessary for responding to external groups.     

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.     

A new perspective to explore the technology transfer efficiencies in US universities

Universities play a critical role in the complex technology transfer process that facilitates technology transformation from pure research activities to commercialization. The literature has recently focused on whether universities are efficient in this process. With a two-stage perspective, this study explores the required capabilities for universities to be efficient in technology transfer process. To explore the efficiencies in different stages of technology transfer, we apply a 2-stage process DEA method. The model considers 2 inputs, 2 intermediate variables, and 3 output variables from the Association of University Technology Management database. These variables represent funding resource, patenting activities, and licensing and entrepreneurships. Technology transfer in the 2-stage perspective includes the research innovation stage and the value creation stage. The results show that achieving efficiency in the 2 technology-transfer stages requires many different innovation capabilities; thus, most efficient universities only perform efficiently in one of the two stages. When mapping the relative site of universities in the reference network, we found that efficient universities in the research innovation stage are in a more centralized location than those in the value creation stage. By contrast, in the value creation stage, efficient universities can be identified as different reference groups for specific inefficient universities. The network visualization also helps to explain that universities must consider their relative advantages and capabilities to reach efficiency goals in different stages. The comparison between the large-scale group and the small-scale group also showed that a resource scale is critical for universities to accumulate different required capabilities for efficiencies in both stages.