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.      

R&D Venture: proposition of a technology transfer concept for breakthrough technologies with R&D cooperation: A case study in the energy sector

At times when the market demands strong active innovation, large industrial corporations with established R&D organizations benefit from screening and developing breakthrough innovation. The ability of established organizations to absorb for future technologies is a key to successfully recognize, explore and capture breakthrough innovations. R&D Venturing is a practical way of bringing about technology transfer and exploration of future technologies through R&D cooperation, which is described in this paper by a multiple case study in the energy sector. Existing literature has been reviewed and an R&D Venturing concept will be suggested with a number of propositions for implementation. The results of the case study strongly support that different perspectives of the concept from industry, academia and the ventures themselves have to be carefully understood. Based on the results of the case study, a conceptual framework and propositions for a successful implementation have been derived. A critical discussion of the R&D Venturing concept shows the need for further empirical investigation.     

Measuring the Economic Returns from Successful NASA Life Sciences Technology Transfers

Since 1958 NASA has invested approximately $3.7 billion in life sciences R&D in the support of the successful human space flight program. There are numerous studies documenting the spin-off technologies that can be traced to NASA research and development activities. Most of these studies describe the technologies and their uses; however only a few measure the economic impact of the spin-offs and most of these are benefit/cost studies that tend to overstate benefits or underestimate costs. This study takes a different approach, measuring only economic impacts to the companies that developed successful spin-off products from NASA life sciences investments. A personal interview was conducted with each company and the benefits are conservatively estimated as the value-added by the NASA technology to the company's output and the amount of additional private R&D stimulated by the NASA R&D.This pilot study of fifteen companies, using a very conservative measurement technique, found a large return to companies that have successfully commercialized NASA life sciences spin-off products. Value-added benefits totaled over $3.7 billion in life sciences R&D in the support of the successful human space flight program. There are numerous studies documenting the spin-off technologies that can be traced to NASA research and development activities. Most of these studies describe the technologies and their uses; however only a few measure the economic impact of the spin-offs and most of these are benefit/cost studies that tend to overstate benefits or underestimate costs. This study takes a different approach, measuring only economic impacts to the companies that developed successful spin-off products from NASA life sciences investments. A personal interview was conducted with each company and the benefits are conservatively estimated as the value-added by the NASA technology to the company's output and the amount of additional private R&D stimulated by the NASA R&D.This pilot study of fifteen companies, using a very conservative measurement technique, found a large return to companies that have successfully commercialized NASA life sciences spin-off products. Value-added benefits totaled over 1.5 billion and a NASA R&D total investment in these 15 technologies of 64 million was found to stimulate an additional64 million was found to stimulate an additional 200 million in private R&D.     

Technology transfer practice in japanese corporations: Meeting new service requirements

Japanese corporations are undergoing radical transition: they have begun to reassess the role, organization, and management of their internal R&D and technology commercialization activities in response to changing market, business, and technical conditions. From large consumer electronics firms such as Matsushita and Sony to the semiconductor and computing conglomerates such as Fujitsu and NEC, these organizations are under considerable pressure to both invent and innovate more rapidly and cheaply than ever before. As technologies become more complex and integrated—such as the convergence of electronics, computing, video, and broadcast television—it is no longer practical to assume that all of a firm's R&D needs can be met internally. This paper looks first at how major Japanese corporations have embraced technology transfer mechanisms such as licensing, joint collaboration, and the outsourcing of R&D to manage these changes dynamically and effectively. Secondly, this paper looks at why Japanese firms' record of managing collaboration and licensing, particularly on an international basis, has been disappointing because of a number of problems and barriers. These difficulties, which are compounded by the further externalization of research and technology and by increased licensing activity, have given rise to a need for new technology transfer services which, until recently, have not been available either within the organization or through local consulting firms in Japan. This paper concludes by outlining strategic and operational guidelines for managing licensing and collaboration arrangements between U.S. and Japanese firms which are also applicable in the general case. These insights are based on the experiences of managing licensing and collaboration programs between Japanese and U.S. organizations from the dual perspectives of two licensing firms—Innovation Partners, kk. in Japan and Competitive Technologies, Inc. of the United States.     

Innovation capacity and economic development: China and India

Decomposing the GDP growth from 1981 to 2004, this paper finds that innovation capacity has contributed significantly to the economic growth of China and India, especially in the 1990 s. Outputs of the national innovation system, measured by patents and high-tech/service exports, demonstrate the considerable progress China and India have made in innovation capacity. The enhanced innovation capacity of China and India is primarily due to their heavy investment in the inputs of innovation system, i.e., R&D expenditure and R&D personnel, in recent decades. This paper emphasizes the role that the governments have played in promoting innovation capacity and their contribution to economic development. Both governments have transformed their national innovation systems through linking the science sector with the business sector, providing incentives for innovation activities, and balancing import of technology and indigenous R&D effort. Using case studies of domestic biotech firms in China and India, this paper also offers micro-level insights on innovation capacity and economic development: (1) innovation capacity has become essential for domestic firms?? market success and (2) global institutional factors and national government policies on innovation have considerable influence on the choice of innovation at the firm level, i.e., to conduct indigenous R&D or to import foreign technology.     

Factors influencing technology transfer: The case of China

Transferring and utilizing technology in developing economies is a vital issue for economic growth. Often the separation between R&D institutes and industrial concerns limits the transfer of technology. The People's Republic of China, which has conducted R&D in institutes separate from the potential user firms, has recently moved to facilitate domestic technology transfer from R&D institutes to R&D consumers. This study, based on the statistical analysis of 60 R&D institutes in the machinery sector in China, found that, while R&D intensity improves transfer of technology, funding and employee mobility hinders transfer. His special area is in science and technology policy. He had worked for the State Science and Technology Commission of China for six years before he came to the US.     

Technology Transfer Emerging Issues “High Impact Trends”

Using an experienced-based methodology it is possible to “forecast” high impact trends in technology transfer. The results presented in this paper are based upon historical data, the author's professional experience, R&D trend information and the aggregation of responses from experts drawn from a wide range of organizational sectors. The technology transfer trend forecasts may be useful to professionals and organizations in technology transfer as they examine future opportunities.     

Maximizing R&D investments in the Department of Energy's Environmental cleanup program

The investment made in research and development (R&D) by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Environmental Management (EM) program must result in products that will significantly benefit the Department's cleanup efforts. A customer-oriented decision-making process for managing technology development is needed to appropriately link technology development activities with cleanup operations. This paper presents a process for R&D management, which we have named the Technology Investment Decision Model.The model identifies six R&D stages leading to technology implementation. The model incorporates decision points (or “gates”) within the R&D process where projects are selected for funding. The purpose of this “stage-gate” process is to ensure early evaluation of projects against technical and nontechnical criteria in order to ensure that end products will not only provide superior performance, but also meet the acceptance requirements of the intended customers. The model addresses the technology transfer and commercialization factors that must be considered to get technological innovations into the marketplace. The model is now being implemented within the EM technology development program and is providing a common framework to align the Department's environmental R&D activities with its cleanup goals.     

Patent analysis for promoting technology transfer in multi-technology industries: the Korean aerospace industry case

With the increasing importance of technology, the efficiency of R&D investment is becoming a critical factor to an organisation’s success. As a result, many studies have carried out to create useful information to support various decision-makings faced during R&D planning but few efforts were made to discuss technology transferability in creating the information. Technology transferability can be an important factor to increase the efficiency of R&D investment especially in a multi-technology industry, where a compound of several industries produces a variety of components and systems. Therefore, this study purposes to develop a systematic method to analyse the transferability of technology, aiming to facilitate R&D spill-over. For the purpose of analysis, patent data from USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) was adopted and patent citation analysis applied, which shows the relationship between technologies and industries as quantitative measures. The research result then was applied to Korean aerospace industry and its utility verified. The suggested method is expected to be used in understanding technology characteristics and making the most use of R&D outputs by promoting technology transfer in multi-technology industries.     

Innovating from big science research

Increasing scientific knowledge demands technological breakthroughs beyond industrial innovation activity. Using this as a basic motivation for R&D collaboration between industry and big science, the paper reports a systematic approach to exploit the technological treasures embedded in experimental basic research. Based on a systematic technology breakdown and mapping of each technological trajectory with possible application areas, the method enables one to direct joint efforts on the most prominent research topics. Yet, to achieve this active partners are needed to enter the innovative conversion process to turn scientific ambitions into commercial products. Some industrial companies practicing active R&D strategy have realized this, and the paper outlines some cases where the product innovation, is not the only motivation to enter big science collaboration. Putting all this together, and knowing the severe financial and political pressures the major scientific research labs are facing, the paper defines the practical procedures needed to initiate the process which eventually leads to better technological return from fundamental research.     

Industrial R&D Laboratories: Windows on Black Boxes?

This paper provides an overview of the survey-based literature on industrial Research and Development (R&D) laboratories, beginning with the work of Edwin Mansfield. Topics covered include R&D projects, new products, and new processes; the appropriability of intellectual property; the limits of the firm in R&D; and spillovers of knowledge from other firms and universities into the laboratories. I discuss the value of collecting information from industrial R&D managers, who participate in a wide range of R&D decisions and are the natural best source of information on these decisions. I also emphasize gaps in our knowledge concerning R&D from past studies, such as the private and social returns to R&D, the nature of firms' R&D portfolios, and other topics. The paper closes with a discussion of the benefits from building a national database on R&D laboratories that could be shared among researchers and that could take this area of research to a new and higher level of achievement.     

Measurement and Growth of R&D Within the Service Economy

Twenty-five years ago, industrial performance of research and development (R&D) was primarily an activity undertaken by large traditional manufacturing firms. Only about 3 percent of the R&D conducted in industrial labs was done by service sector firms. By the late 1990s, however, such firms accounted for approximately 30 percent of the Nation's total industrial R&D expenditures, with a fairly large amount of the effort being directed toward the development and use of information technologies. Industry's increasing reliance on research and technology outsourcing also apparently has contributed to the service sector's substantial R&D expansion. This paper documents recent trends in US non-manufacturing R&D expenditures, highlighting their growth and focus and the difficulties in measuring these trends, as available from national R&D statistics. Broad comparisons with trends and concerns identified through other countries' surveys of service sector R&D are presented.     

Firm heterogeneity,absorptive capacity and technical linkages with external parties in Italy

While it is widely acknowledged that internal R&D is a fundamental source of the ability to absorb, select and use external knowledge, severe data limitations prevent from capturing differences across firms in this respect. Using a novel dataset supplied by the Italian Bureau of Statistics, we highlight that, when controlling for internal R&D efforts, not all firms are equally prone to gain access to external technology, and to the knowledge provided by universities in particular. We find that firms which do not only perform R&D activities but also belong to a group exhibit a higher propensity to access external knowledge by either contracting out R&D or cooperating with external parties, as compared to independent firms that are not organized into groups. This premium persists when controlling for different measures of internal R&D efforts. Furthermore, the differential in the propensity to access external knowledge is particularly high in the case of R&D performers belonging to foreign groups, i.e. Italian affiliates of foreign owned companies; and it is even higher in the case of the few Italian firms that have R&D activities abroad. The relative dis-advantage of independent firms, which represent the bulk of the Italian industry and include most small and medium sized enterprises, appears to be less of an obstacle in the case of linkages with universities, especially when R&D contracting out is considered.     

Nanotechnology and the US national innovation system: continuity and change

A substantial literature on nanotechnology innovation and commercial development has characterized several elements of these phenomena as constituting new developments in the US national innovation system. Among these elements are the (asserted) “post-academic” nature of US universities’ involvement with nanotechnology R&D, and federal funding of nanotechnology R&D on goals related to economic competitiveness. This paper challenges the “novelty” of these elements, while suggesting that other elements of nanotechnology R&D, including the extensive patenting of the results of nanotechnology-related research and the emphasis within many university-industry collaborations on patent-based channels for “technology transfer,” may indeed be new and raise questions for the long-term efficiency and innovative performance of nanotechnology-related R&D.     

Underinvestment in Public Good Technologies

Although underinvestment phenomena are the rationale for government subsidization of research and development (R&D), the concept is poorly defined and its impact is seldom quantified. Conceptually, underinvestment in industrial R&D can take the form of either a wrong amount or a suboptimal composition of R&D investment. In both cases, R&D policy has not adequately modeled the relevant economic phenomena and thus is unable to characterize, explain, and measure the underinvestment. Four factors can cause systematic underinvestment in R&D-intensive industries: complexity, timing, existence of economies of scale and scope, and spillovers. The impacts of these factors vary in intensity over the typical technology life cycle, so government policy responses must be managed dynamically. In addition to understanding the causes of underinvestment in R&D, the magnitude of the deficiency relative to some “optimum” must be estimated to enable a ranking of technology areas with respect to expected net economic benefits from a government subsidy. Project selection criteria must therefore be based on quantitative and qualitative indicators that represent the nature and the magnitude of identified market failures. The major requirement for management of R&D policy therefore is a methodology that regularly assesses long-term expected benefits and risks from current and proposed R&D portfolios. To this end, a three-stage process is proposed to effectively carry out R&D policy analysis. The three stages are (1) identify and explain the causes of the underinvestment, (2) characterize and assess the investment trends and their impacts, and (3) estimate the magnitude of the underinvestment relative to a perceived optimum in terms of its cost to the economy. Only after all three stages of analysis have been completed can the underinvestment pattern be matched with the appropriate policy response.     

The relation between technology import and domestic R&D

The relation between domestic R&D and imports of technology is examined for 10 countries. Simple regressions revealed strong complementarity for each of the countries. Multiple regressions including GNP per capita and number of scientists and engineers were performed for the five countries with time series for all the variables. Strong complementarity was found between technology imports and domestic R&D and other variables for Japan and South Korea, weak for France, none for Germany and the US. Excluding government-financed R&D in the US resulted in a substitutive relation. Japan revealed a sharp decline in the ratio of technology payments to R&D spending; Korea is following in its steps. Complementarity appears to weaken in later stages as technology development strategies shift from dependent to imitative to autonomous or offensive technology development.     

Measurement of S&T Performance in the Government of Canada: From Outputs to Outcomes

A major trend in the assessment of R&D program performance over recent years has been the shift from a focus on activities and outputs as measures of success to a more comprehensive perspective which includes analysis of the recipients and beneficiaries and the immediate, intermediate, and longer term outcomes of R&D. This transition to a more complete view of performance has proven more difficult in practice than in theory, as it involves a significant culture shift. This article describes how some groups in the Government of Canada have used a performance framework approach to successfully measure R&D performance in federal organizations. The Canadian experience suggests that three elements are critical to the successful establishment of a performance management culture in an organization. First, a shared vision of the role performance information can play in the management process is necessary. Second, there must be a commitment to the vision as demonstrated by the appropriate organizational incentives and culture—including senior management support. Finally, the organization must have the capacity not only to produce credible performance information, but also to use it effectively.     

The role of R&D and input trade in productivity growth: innovation and technology spillovers

Productivity improvements generally are driven by technology innovation and its spillovers. This study explores the role of R&D investment and intermediate input trade in productivity growth using country-industry-level data for 25 advanced and emerging economies. This paper confirms that R&D investment and intermediate input import/export (both intra- and inter-industry) with technologically advanced economies play important roles in productivity growth in non-frontier countries. We further find that the productivity gains of technology spillovers via input trade channels are likely larger for countries/industries where technology converges to the frontier. These findings imply that the recent slowdown in R&D investment and intermediate input trade in some advanced economies may contribute to declining productivity growth. The potential productivity improvements from R&D investment and free trade as well as the importance of domestic capacity in facilitating technology spillovers should be recognized.

     

Federal laboratory missions,products, and competitiveness

A number of initiatives over the past decade have tried to increase the federal laboratory system's impact on U.S. competitiveness, largely based on assumptions that the system is a reservoir of readily available technology appropriate to industry's competitive needs. However, there is a virtual absence of empirical data on the nature of research and development in the national laboratory system and the character of its R&D “products.” This paper reviews the limited data on R&D in the national laboratory system available from the General Accounting Office, the National Science Foundation, and the National Comparative Research and Development Project. The findings suggest that technologies available within the system are likely to emerge from the most strongly mission-oriented R&D, and are therefore the least likely to spin off and diffuse throughout the industrial base. Once the hardware needs of the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are excluded, most of the system's R&D output is fundamental knowledge, which flows through public domain literature and requires substantial additional processing to become commercial products. The implications are (1) there is no reason to believe the current federal laboratory system can directly enhance U.S. competitiveness; (2) in order for labs to contribute to competitiveness, they must have more explicit missions to do so; and (3) policy expectations of commercial impacts are inconsistent with policy requirements that labs conduct precommercial basic and applied research.     

Policy Issues for R&D Investment in a Knowledge-Based Economy

The Internet Revolution induced an unbalanced perspective on future economic growth strategies. Because information technology (IT) largely constitutes an infrastructure upon which other economic activity is based, its economic role is to facilitate the productivity of investment in a wide range of products and services that meet final demand. Other economies around the world can and are investing in the same infrastructure, so the efficiency advantages now being realized by the U.S. economy will be fleeting unless U.S. R&D efforts produce a new and broad range of innovative products and services that take advantage of this infrastructure. A deep and diverse technology-based manufacturing sector must be a core objective of a national R&D strategy. United States manufacturing contributes $1.5 trillion to GDP, employs 20 million workers, accounts for more than 70% of industrial R&D, and constitutes the main source of technology for the larger service sector. While knowledge-based services are the largest source of economic growth for the U.S. economy, their long-term performance is highly dependent on synergies with a domestic manufacturing sector. These synergies will be even more important in the future because services are increasingly exposed to foreign competition. Knowledge-based services can be supplied from anywhere in the world—as long as these foreign sources can rapidly access and assimilate the necessary technology components. This caveat is the critical point for economic growth policy. Considerable research supports the argument that hardware and software components are most efficiently supplied to services by a manufacturing sector that is geographically close and institutionally integrated with the service applications. Policy debates have raged for decades over the nature and magnitude of underinvestment in manufacturing R&D. The need to resolve the relevant policy issues has increased, as industry is funding less of the long-term, high-risk research that creates the technology platforms supporting new industries and future economic growth. Unfortunately, only about a third of U.S. manufacturing is high-tech by conventional definitions. Some of the remaining industries develop technologies internally, but most purchase a large proportion of their technology from the high-tech sector. Because a technology acquisition strategy can be more easily imitated by foreign competitors, traditional industries are much more susceptible to exchange rate variations, global economic cycles, and secular shifts in foreign competition. Thus, with global technological capabilities relentlessly increasing, the long-term prospects for the moderate and low R&D-intensive portions of U.S. manufacturing are not good. This paper presents a conceptual framework and available data as inputs for the analysis of Federal R&D investment strategies. Such strategies must recognize the full range of public and private technology assets constituting a national innovation system. A developed and efficient innovation system has characteristics making imitation by foreign competitors difficult and thereby enables sustained competitive advantage.