11.11. IBM TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER CASES
Cohen and colleagues (1979, p. 11) focusing on the transfer of technology from research to a profitable commercial enterprise, describe a study of 18 IBM projects; some of them were successful, while others failed. They produced valuable guidelines for moving technology from research to project development. This study can form an archetype for the development of guidelines for technology transfer that are responsive to the unique requirements of a given organization.
As a result of this study, factors identified that affect technology transfer are discussed in the order of their relative importance:
11.11.1. Technical Understanding
It is necessary that research personnel fully understand the main technology before passing it on. Though this may seem obvious, it is not always the case.
It is necessary to evaluate the benefits of new technology in comparison to what is already available and to other competitive advancements.
One must identify where it will fit in the product line and what requirements must be met to reach the fit.
Possible means of manufacturing need to be exhibited.
11.11.2. Feasibility
Both the research and the receiver unit must reach an agreement on what constitutes feasibility and then what should be established.
In some cases, feasibility implies acceptability by the end user. This would recognize some kind of joint study with real users to establish feasibility.
11.11.3. Advanced Development Overlap
For projects being transferred out, some overlap of research activities may be needed either to support development or to explore advanced or related technologies.
For systems work (computer software), creation of a special advanced development effort is often the answer to problems of scaling up or is helpful in answering questions of economic feasibility.
11.11.4. Growth Potential
When projects are narrowly focused on a specific need and do not have paths to technical growth and product applicability, technology transfer may suffer. This is because existing technologies "stretch" themselves and the limited advantage offered by the new technology may not be sufficient to warrant change.
11.11.5. Existence of an Advocate
A strong proponent activity is needed to help overcome many hurdles during the technology transfer process.
11.11.6. Advanced Technology Activities in a Development Laboratory
In moving technology from research to manufacturing, advanced technology programs in the development laboratories are often necessary. (For some research organizations, research and advanced development units may work in the same group.)
11.11.7. External Pressures
In some cases, parallel activity by a competitor may help provide the push for technology transfer; in others, regulatory requirements may necessitate adoption of new technologies—for example, advanced waste treatment technologies.
11.11.8. Joint Programs
Although joint programs with receiver groups are good to have, they do not ensure success.
Other secondary factors affecting technology transfer relate to timeliness, internal users, government contracts, high-level involvement, individual corporate responsibility, and proximity. For the IBM projects studied, however, in no case was the proximity of a development laboratory to a research laboratory an important factor for technology transfer. Being close was convenient and saved money, but no transfer failed because of distance (Cohen et al., 1979, p. 15).
In thinking about the transfer of technology we must be careful not to give sole weight to technical and rational criteria. The following true story makes the point. In India, an agricultural team convinced a farmer to use some new seeds. The results were dramatic. Production was 10 times as great. In evaluating the event, the farmer was asked for comments. To the amazement of the questioner, he indicated he was not planning to use the seed again. "Why?" asked the city-raised Indian agricultural engineer. "Because I have no room to store that much extra production, my cows can't eat the plants that are left on the field after the crop is harvested, and I have no way to get that much production to market." In other words, the engineer had used productivity as the only criterion, not taking into account social and collateral activities associated with the crop.