Technology transfer, also called transfer of technology (TOT), is the process of transferring (disseminating) technology from the person or organization that owns or holds it to another person or organization. It occurs along various axes: among universities, from universities to businesses (and vice versa), from large businesses to smaller ones (and vice versa), from governments to businesses (and vice versa), across geopolitical borders,
both formally and informally, and both openly and surreptitiously.
Often it occurs by concerted effort to share skills, knowledge,
technologies, methods of manufacturing, samples of manufacturing, and
facilities among governments or universities
and other institutions to ensure that scientific and technological
developments are accessible to a wider range of users who can then
further develop and exploit the technology into new products, processes,
applications, materials, or services. It is closely related to (and may
arguably be considered a subset of) knowledge transfer. Horizontal transfer is the movement of technologies from one area to another. At present
transfer of technology (TOT) is primarily horizontal. Vertical transfer
occurs when technologies are moved from applied research centers to
research and development departments.
Technology transfer is promoted at conferences organized by such groups as the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and the Association of University Technology Managers, and at "challenge" competitions by organizations such as the Center for Advancing Innovation in Maryland. Local venture capital organizations such as the Mid-Atlantic Venture Association (MAVA) also sponsor conferences at which investors assess the potential for commercialization of technology.
Technology brokers are people who discovered how to bridge the emergent worlds and apply scientific concepts or processes to new situations or circumstances. A related term, used almost synonymously, especially in Europe, is "technology valorisation". While conceptually the practice has been utilized for many years (in ancient times, Archimedes was notable for applying science to practical problems), the present-day volume of research, combined with high-profile failures at Xerox PARC and elsewhere, has led to a focus on the process itself.
Whereas technology transfer can involve the dissemination of highly complex technology from capital-intensive origins to low-capital recipients (and can involve aspects of dependency and fragility of systems), it also can involve appropriate technology, not necessarily high-tech or expensive, that is better disseminated, yielding robustness and independence of systems.
Technology transfer is promoted at conferences organized by such groups as the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and the Association of University Technology Managers, and at "challenge" competitions by organizations such as the Center for Advancing Innovation in Maryland. Local venture capital organizations such as the Mid-Atlantic Venture Association (MAVA) also sponsor conferences at which investors assess the potential for commercialization of technology.
Technology brokers are people who discovered how to bridge the emergent worlds and apply scientific concepts or processes to new situations or circumstances. A related term, used almost synonymously, especially in Europe, is "technology valorisation". While conceptually the practice has been utilized for many years (in ancient times, Archimedes was notable for applying science to practical problems), the present-day volume of research, combined with high-profile failures at Xerox PARC and elsewhere, has led to a focus on the process itself.
Whereas technology transfer can involve the dissemination of highly complex technology from capital-intensive origins to low-capital recipients (and can involve aspects of dependency and fragility of systems), it also can involve appropriate technology, not necessarily high-tech or expensive, that is better disseminated, yielding robustness and independence of systems.
Transfer process
Many
companies, universities and governmental organizations now have an
Office of Technology Transfer (TTO, also known as "Tech Transfer" or
"TechXfer") dedicated to identifying research which has potential
commercial interest and strategies for how to exploit it. For instance,
a research result may be of scientific and commercial interest, but patents
are normally only issued for practical processes, and so someone—not
necessarily the researchers—must come up with a specific practical
process. Another consideration is commercial value; for example, while there are many ways to accomplish nuclear fusion, the ones of commercial value are those that generate more energy than they require to operate.
The process to commercially exploit research varies widely. It
can involve licensing agreements or setting up joint ventures and
partnerships to share both the risks and rewards of bringing new
technologies to market. Other corporate vehicles, e.g. spin-outs, are
used where the host organization does not have the necessary will,
resources or skills to develop a new technology. Often these approaches
are associated with raising of venture capital (VC) as a means of funding the development process, a practice more common in the United States than in the European Union, which has a more conservative approach to VC funding. Research spin-off companies are a popular vehicle of commercialisation in Canada, where the rate of licensing of Canadian university research remains far below that of the US.
Technology transfer offices may work on behalf of research
institutions, governments and even large multinationals. Where
start-ups and spin-outs are the clients, commercial fees are sometimes
waived in lieu of an equity stake in the business. As a result of the
potential complexity of the technology transfer process, technology
transfer organizations are often multidisciplinary, including
economists, engineers, lawyers, marketers and scientists. The dynamics
of the technology transfer process has attracted attention in its own
right, and there are several dedicated societies and journals.
There has been a marked increase in technology transfer
intermediaries specialized in their field since 1980, stimulated in
large part by the Bayh-Dole Act and equivalent legislation in other countries, which provided additional incentives for research exploitation.
Partnership intermediaries
The
U.S. government's annual budget funds over $100 billion in research and
development activity, which leads to a continuous pipeline of new
inventions and technologies from within government laboratories. Through legislation including the Bayh-Dole Act,
Congress encourages the private sector to use those technologies with
commercial potential through technology transfer mechanisms such as
Cooperative Research and Development Agreements, Patent License
Agreements, Educational Partnership Agreements, and state/local
government partnerships.
The term “partnership intermediary” means an agency of a state or
local government—or a nonprofit entity owned, chartered, funded, or
operated by or on behalf of a state or local government—that assists,
counsels, advises, evaluates, or otherwise cooperates with small
business firms; institutions of higher education defined in section
201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 USC § 1141 [a]); or educational institutions within the meaning of
section 2194 of Title 10, United States Code, that need or can make
demonstrably productive use of technology-related assistance from a
federal laboratory, including state programs receiving funds under
cooperative agreements entered into under section 5121 of the Omnibus
Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 USC § 2781).
Drawbacks
Despite
incentives to move research into production, the practical aspects are
sometimes difficult to perform in practice. Using DoD Technology
Readiness Levels as a criterion (for example), research tends to focus
on TRL (technology readiness level) 1–3 while readiness for production
tends to focus on TRL 6–7 or higher. Bridging TRL-3 to TRL-6 has proven
to be difficult in some organizations. Attempting to rush research
(prototypes) into production (fully tested under diverse conditions,
reliable, maintainable, etc.) tends to be more costly and time-consuming
than expected.
