Go to previous article
Go to next article
Return to 2005 Table of Contents
Presenter(s)
Tracy Gray, Ph.D., Director
and Christina Diamond, both of:
National Center for Technology Innovation American Institutes for Research 1000 Thomas Jefferson St. NW Washington, DC 20007
202 403 5000 (phone)
202 403 5454 (fax)
1 877 344 3499 (TTY)
Assistive Technology (AT) devices are an equalizing force for millions of Americans with disabilities, helping them increase their independence, earning power, and opportunities. Technology transfer is an important mechanism for transforming technological capabilities generated through research and development projects into new or improved features and functions within AT and for even mainstream products. Making the technology transfer process more systematic and successful is critical to improving the number and quality of AT products in the marketplace.
The phrase "technology transfer" is operationally defined here as:
(what) The novel application of existing technologies or prototype devices,
(who) by members of multiple stakeholder groups,
(where) operating through Research and Development facilities,
(when) collectively viewing transfer as a feasible and attractive option,
(why) to commercialize an innovation or address an unmet need,
(how) through the synergistic matching of capabilities to needs.
Technology transfer's unique promise is in gaining access to a technology with significant value for a new market, without having to replicate the initial development effort and associated cost for the original intended market. It offers a win-win situation for all participants. By implementing an already developed and financed technology in a new and novel application, the originators gain returns from a new market and the appliers meet a need while avoiding the cost of development.
The T2RERC convened a State of the Science (SOS) conference in November 2001, with co-sponsorship from the Technology Transfer Society. The participants from various sectors and industries concluded that the science of technology transfer is only now emerging from practice; that the models, methods, and metrics are not yet documented, standardized, or organized within a theoretical framework; and that the knowledge base underlying the practice is only in a formative stage of development. T2RERC and NCTI have partnered to outline these findings, as well as other research, to document the processes, mechanisms, and key stakeholders.
Technology Transfer Models, Processes, and Persistent Issues
Technology transfer is one overall process encompassing multiple elements that collectively transform technologies into products. The elements comprising technology transfer (e.g., invention, protection, and prototyping production) are routinely viewed as discrete activities, but it is more constructive to treat them as a continuous process from technology discovery through product consumption. Technologies enable a product's features and functions.The complexity of the components and their interrelationships gives rise to persistent issues in four areas.
1. Developing a conceptual framework for technology transfer programs: For technology transfer to mature as a business discipline, practitioners need to develop conceptual models that can be tested in practice.
2. Documenting the technology transfer process: The transformation from core technology to commercial product involves three critical events: Idea, Prototype, and Product. The Idea Event is the conceptual awareness that an existing technology might be applied within a new field. The Prototype Event occurs when a working model can be used to demonstrate that the idea functions as expected in an actual application where the idea is "reduced to practice" in legal parlance. The Product Event occurs when the first production quality unit leaves the assembly line for the marketplace. Technology transfer commences as a result of one of two initiating forces. Forces at either the technology discovery (Supply Push), or at the product consumption end (Demand Pull), can initiate the technology transfer process.
3. Overcoming barriers to transfer with carriers: The transformation from invention to innovation contains numerous barriers and the challenge is to create carriers that overcome them. These barriers embody the "risk" associated with new ventures because they cause projects to fail. Accomplishing technology transfer requires a comprehensive understanding of the stakeholders in the industry, their product lines, and development cycles. Advancing the state-of-the-science requires programs operating on the Supply Push model to focus their efforts on targeted industries offering some strategic value to their internal missions.
4. Evaluating the technology transfer process: Achieving technology transfer through Supply Push or Demand Pull models justifies it as a professional endeavor, and requires a rigorous evaluation of the models, methods, and metrics involved. Most programs focus on the practice, and most organizations do not share a standard approach to conducting technology transfer. As a result, a common framework for program evaluation is often lacking. Program evaluation does requires a careful tracking of the time and effort consumed by each step, however, and the elapsed time to accomplish that step.
The Multiple Stakeholders in Technology Transfer
The various stakeholders in technology transfer can be categorized according to their functional roles in the transfer process. These roles may be mapped to different stages of the process, which determines where their input is most valuable and when their involvement should cease. These roles are:
1. Technology Producers include the inventors and researchers who literally create new core technologies and the "know how" that permits their application - many are Federal Research and Development (R&D) Laboratories and university research centers;
2. Technology Consumers & Product Producers include corporate manufacturers and their partners who identify applications for technology, utilize technologies, and generate products that embody them;
3. Product Consumers are people with disabilities who are the end users of Assistive Technology (AT), their family members, and professional intermediaries, who recommend or acquire products for use;
4. Resource Providers consist of government agencies, third party payers, and process intermediaries who furnish funding and expertise for the competitive marketplace or provide the requisite product demand in the absence of competitive market incentives.
Although all stakeholder groups play important roles in the transfer process, the manufacturers are especially critical due to their unique capability to turn a prototype into a commercial product. This stakeholder group is further pivotal because of their reliance on and need for support from other stakeholders . Manufacturers mostly rely on Product Consumers, including people with disabilities, as the customers for their products. To a lesser extent, manufacturers also rely on Technology Producers as a source for innovations in core technologies. For small markets like AT, manufacturers also need the support of Resource Providers, such as Federal agencies, because of their involvement in funding development projects, regulating new products, and setting reimbursement levels.
Federal Government Resource Providers
The introduction of technology transfer legislation has created a new national priority: to create and provide vehicles to move Federally-funded innovations to the commercial and non-commercial marketplace. Transfers that improve the features and functions of assistive devices and other educational materials, and thereby increase the productivity and independence of our citizens, serve the national interest. Assistive technology companies represent an industry needing Federal support. Several Federal agencies with social missions support the development and transfer of assistive technology devices, including the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), both divisions of the U.S. Department of Education, the National Institutes for Health (NIH), and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
Conclusion
Technology transfer is an appropriate tool for both large and small markets. Larger markets translate into larger returns, so participants will tend to seek the broadest applications possible. The promise of large returns may expedite decisions to proceed or secure needed resources. Although the economic incentives are less for smaller markets, technology transfer may often be the most feasible option for small companies. Small companies may innovate rapidly through technology transfer if they lack internal resources or expertise. Technology transfer is an attractive concept to the field of AT as well as the various agencies and organizations who fund work in this field.
U.S. Department of Commerce (2003). Technology Assessment of the U.S. Assistive Technology Industry. Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Bureau of Industry & Security.
See the full conference papers at: http://cosmos.buffalo.edu/t2rerc/dissemination/journals/abstract_2003_lane.htm
Seely, B.E. (2003). "Historical patterns in the scholarship of technology transfer." Comparative Technology Transfer and Society. 1, 1 (April 2003), 7-48.
Pajer, J. & Gibler, C.D. (1990). Commercialization of Special Needs Products at AT&T. Washington, DC: Proceedings of the 13th Annual RESNA Conference, RESNA Press, 19-20.
Ulrich, KT & SD Eppinger (1995). Product Design and Development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Prosser, G.A. (1995). The Role of Incentives in the Deployment of Technologies from Cooperative R&D. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 20, 2, p. 13-17.
Scadden, L. A., (1987). Stimulating the Manufacturing and Distribution of Rehabilitation Products: Economic and Policy Incentives and Disincentives. Washington, DC: Electronic Industries Foundation Rehabilitation Engineering Center.
Go to previous article
Go to next article
Return to 2005 Table of Contents