Cognitive mapping the topic of technology transfer

Cognitive mapping the topic of technology transfer

Joseph Kim-keung Ho

Independent Trainer

Hong Kong, China

Abstract: The topic of technology transfer in the subject of Technology Management is complex. By making use of the cognitive mapping technique to conduct a brief literature review on the technology transfer topic, the writer renders a systemic image on the topic of technology transfer. The result of the study, in the form of a cognitive map on technology transfer, should be useful to those who are interested in the topics of cognitive mapping, literature review and technology transfer.

Key words: Technology transfer, cognitive mapping, literature review

Introduction

As a topic in Technology Management, technology transfer is complex. It is thus useful to employ some learning tool to conduct its study, notably for literature review purpose. For a teacher in research methods, systems thinking and management, the writer is specifically interested in finding out how the cognitive mapping technique can be employed to go through a literature review on  technology transfer. This literature review exercise is taken up and reported in this article.

On the cognitive mapping exercise for literature review

Literature review is an important intellectual learning exercise, and not just for doing final year dissertation projects for tertiary education students. On these two topics of intellectual learning and literature review, the writer has compiled some e-learning resources. They are the Managerial intellectual learning Facebook page and the Literature on literature review Facebook page. Conducting literature review with the cognitive mapping technique is not novel in the cognitive mapping literature, see Eden and Simpson (1989), Eden, Jones and Sims (1983), Open University (n.d) and the Literature on cognitive mapping Facebook page. In this article, the specific steps involved in the cognitive mapping exercise are as follows:

Step 1: gather some main points from a number of academic journal articles on Technology transfer. This result in the production of a table (Table 1) with the main points and associated references.

Step 2: consolidate  the main points from Table 1 to come up with a table listing the cognitive map variables (re: Table 2).

Step 3: link up the cognitive  map variables in a plausible way to produce a cognitive map (re: Figure 1) on the topic under review.

The next section applies these three steps to produce a cognitive map on technology transfer.

Descriptions of cognitive map variables on the technology transfer topic

From the reading of some academic articles on Technology transfer, a number of main points (e.g., viewpoints, concepts and empirical findings) were gathered by the  writer. They are shown in Table 1 with explicit referencing on the points.

Table 1: Main points from the technology transfer literature and referencing

Main points from the technology transfer literature	Referencing
Point 1: "Technology transfer is a process for applying known technologies to new and novel applications. The term is widely recognized, but the process is not well understood".	Lane, J.P. 1999. "Understanding Technology Transfer" Assistive Technology  11(1): 5-19.
Point 2: ".... the objective of technology transfer is to apply technologies from any source to develop new or improved product features and functions in a cost-effective manner".	Lane, J.P. 1999. "Understanding Technology Transfer" Assistive Technology  11(1): 5-19.
Point 3: "Companies need a systematic process for handling the procedural, legal, and financial issues involved in acquiring external innovations through technology transfer, whether these come in the form of ideas for technologies, prototype devices, or products. Otherwise, the cost (in time and money) of acquiring these external innovations will usually exceed their expected value".	Lane, J.P. 1999. "Understanding Technology Transfer" Assistive Technology  11(1): 5-19.
Point 4: "TCs [technology centres] are, by definition, different from universities and rather act as complements, and not substitutes (Arnold et al. 2007, 7). TCs are mainly aimed at collaboration and transfer knowledge to industry as part of their core mission, while universities are primarily motivated to collaborate with industry due to the need to raise additional resources required to fund research and other university activities".	Hervas-Oliver, J., J. Albors-Garrigos, B. de-Miguel and A. Hidalgo. 2012. "The role of a firm's absorptive capacity and the technology transfer process in clusters: How effective are technology centres in low-tech clusters?" Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An International Journal 24(7-8): 523-559.
Point 5: "Despite the large number of clusters/industrial districts (IDs) analysed in the literature, there are very few cases describing how low-tech clusters are upgraded and promoted through TCs [technology centres] or other types of technology infrastructure. In most cases, TCs and other research infrastructures are cited as being a heavily used asset by colocated  firms in clusters".	Hervas-Oliver, J., J. Albors-Garrigos, B. de-Miguel and A. Hidalgo. 2012. "The role of a firm's absorptive capacity and the technology transfer process in clusters: How effective are technology centres in low-tech clusters?" Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An International Journal 24(7-8): 523-559.
Point 6: "The literature stresses that interactions take place with co-located firms and supporting organizations in the same regional area (Lundvall and Borras 1999). Due to their particular characteristics, SMEs are more dependent on these local/regional interactions (Asheim, Coenen, and Svensson-Henning 2003) than large firms, which are also linked to national and international networks (Coenen, Moodysson, and Asheim 2004). SMEs rely more on personal ways of transferring tacit (local) knowledge, i.e., learning via interaction (Chaminade and Vang 2008). The intensity of such interaction and the exchange of knowledge in RISs are dependent upon the firm’s social capital".	Hervas-Oliver, J., J. Albors-Garrigos, B. de-Miguel and A. Hidalgo. 2012. "The role of a firm's absorptive capacity and the technology transfer process in clusters: How effective are technology centres in low-tech clusters?" Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An International Journal 24(7-8): 523-559.
Point 7: "Technology transfer and the organizational form are inextricably linked because accelerated rates of the former are associated with innovative adaptations in the latter".	Jassawalla, A.R. and H.c. Sashittal. 1998. "Accelerating technology transfer: thinking about organizational pronoia" J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 15, Elsevier: 153-177.
Point 8: "Scholars note that:  a. functional–hierarchical organizations and mechanistic mindsets hinder innovation and the transfer of technology _see Brown and Karagozoglu, 1993.; and b. linear–sequential, ‘relay-race’-type TT [technology transfer] workflows, where one functional group completes its assigned tasks and passes its output to the next group, must be abandoned in favor of organic, concurrent, collaborative workflows". 1995; Takeuchi and Nonaka, 1986.. Organic designs are preferred over the mechanistic because TT processes become more effective when: a. all major functional groups are involved from the initiating stages of the process; b. functional groups are engaged in high levels of communication and can effectively coordinate their tasks; and c. cross-functional teams are used for addressing TT-related decision-making and work-flows".	Jassawalla, A.R. and H.c. Sashittal. 1998. "Accelerating technology transfer: thinking about organizational pronoia" J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 15, Elsevier: 153-177.
Point 9: "Although any technology transfer and the principals of any agreement have complex motives, technology transfer can be viewed along a continuum framed by event or learning perspectives. The event perspective views technology transfer primarily as an economic transaction where one party provides technology in return for some form of payment. .....Organizational learning provides an alternate perspective of technology transfer where technology transfer is not an event but a process. Levitt and March (1988) stress the importance of learning by doing and suggest trial and error is how organizations develop routines and procedures".	King, D.R. and M.L. Nowack. 2003. "The impact  of government policy on technology transfer: an aircraft industry case study" J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 20, Elsevier: 303-318.
Point 10: "Although economic considerations remain, viewing technology transfer from a learning perspective translates into Japan viewing technology transfer as a process (Olk and Xin, 1997), or a means. Japan’s process perspective contributed to its achieving industrialization and rapid economic growth after WWII (Katz, 1998). Kim (1997, pp. 230–231) called the learning approach exhibited by Japan “creative imitation,” or a three-step process of knowledge acquisition, assimilation, and improvement. Japan has distinguished itself from other nations in its openness to foreign knowledge acquisition, or technology transfer".	King, D.R. and M.L. Nowack. 2003. "The impact  of government policy on technology transfer: an aircraft industry case study" J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 20, Elsevier: 303-318.
Point 11: "Companies often incorporate new product technologies in their product designs to help achieve distinctive new products. Companies rarely rely solely on internal research and development (R&D) for the initial development of all the new product technologies they will employ in a new product system (Wheelwright and Clark 1992). Accordingly, careful integration of product technologies from external organizations, called the ‘‘product technology transfer process’’ here, is an essential competence for new product development organizations".	Tatikonda, M.V. and G.N. Stock. 2003. "Product Technology Transfer in the Upstream Supply Chain" J Prod Innov Manag 20: 444-467.
Point 12: "It has been reported that product technology transfer frequently is difficult to conduct (Iansiti 1998). This process often is fraught with unanticipated problems and excessive risk, leading to product development efforts that are unsuccessful due to time delays in market introduction, cost overruns, and technical functionality problems. It is acknowledged that product technology transfer is conducted regularly in an ad-hoc manner".	Tatikonda, M.V. and G.N. Stock. 2003. "Product Technology Transfer in the Upstream Supply Chain" J Prod Innov Manag 20: 444-467.
Point 13: "A technology source firm (the supplier) and a technology recipient firm (the firm conducting a new product development effort) comprise a dyad engaging in interfirm interactions to accomplish product technology transfer. This defines a classic supply chain in that the two firms are organizational players in the supply chain who interact with each other, and an entity (the product technology and associated knowledge about the product technology’s function and interfaces) flows along the supply chain".	Tatikonda, M.V. and G.N. Stock. 2003. "Product Technology Transfer in the Upstream Supply Chain" J Prod Innov Manag 20: 444-467.
Point 14: "Today there is an increased commitment in the cultural and scientific analysis of technology transfer (TT), which is also present in the international literature. This commitment is mainly due to the difficulty traditional approaches demonstrate in responding to the growing need for innovation".	Verbano, C. and K. Venturini. 2012. "Technology transfer in the Italian space industry: organizational issues and determinants" Management Research Review 35(3/4), Emerald: 272-288.
Point 15: "By the term “TT” [technology transfer] we mean the process that allows the passage of a technology from one organisation (donor) to another entrepreneurial organisation (receiver) (Bozeman, 2000). This complex and difficult passage comprises six different stages: technology gap identification, technology source identification, technology selection, technology supplier selection, TT contracting and technology adaptation".	Verbano, C. and K. Venturini. 2012. "Technology transfer in the Italian space industry: organizational issues and determinants" Management Research Review 35(3/4), Emerald: 272-288.
Point 16: "The transference of knowledge and technology from one organisation or person to another does not, however, only entail a physical or intellectual transference, but also the activation of a human relationship. In this sense, the TT process is an interactive process between two or more people who require a multi-directional exchange".	Verbano, C. and K. Venturini. 2012. "Technology transfer in the Italian space industry: organizational issues and determinants" Management Research Review 35(3/4), Emerald: 272-288.
Point 17: "Universities are increasingly being viewed by policymakers as engines of innovation through the technology transfer office (TTO) (Libecap, 2005). In recent years, the transfer of knowledge from universities to industry, facilitated by the TTO, has gained considerable attention because knowledge produced in universities can spur business innovation, foster competitiveness and promote economic and social development through academic entrepreneurship".	Secundo, G., C. De Beer and G. Passiante. 2016. "Measuring university technology transfer efficiency: a maturity level approach" Measuring Business Excellence 20(3), Emerald: 55-78.
Point 18: "There are a number of barriers to successfully transferring best practice between TTOs [technology transfer offices]; among these is the need to understand how well a TTO is performing at present and why it is not performing better (Granieri and Frederick, 2015). These barriers become more evident in the case of developing countries. The process of innovation in developing countries is different from that of developed countries, with mature technologies often being adopted with limited success".	Secundo, G., C. De Beer and G. Passiante. 2016. "Measuring university technology transfer efficiency: a maturity level approach" Measuring Business Excellence 20(3), Emerald: 55-78.
Point 19: "The pressure to develop and market technology faster, the blurring of the line between the production and the use of knowledge, and the blurring between intra- and inter-organizational transfer, which are among the KBE’s [knowledge-based economy] main characteristics, are a strong invitation to redefine the basic technology transfer model and to further analyze the contractual and organizational mechanisms that are the cornerstone of the efficiency of any such transfer".	Amesse, F. and P. Cohendet. 2001. "Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledge-based economy" Research Policy 30,  Elsevier: 1459-1478.
Point 20: "The concept of technology transfer has been used extensively by many disciplines to describe and analyze a wide range of technology issues. In management, technology transfer refers to “intentional, goal oriented interaction” (Autio and Laamanen, 1995) between two or more persons, groups or organizations in order to exchange technological knowledge and/or artefacts and rights. That concept is well rooted in the broad problem of R&D and innovation management".	Amesse, F. and P. Cohendet. 2001. "Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledge-based economy" Research Policy 30,  Elsevier: 1459-1478.
Point 21: "At least since Joseph Schumpeter, scholars have struggled to understand the nature and the dynamics of the economics of technical change. Edwin Mansfield was born into that struggle and was for many decades a true pioneer in the study of the economics of technological change".	Teece, D.J. 2005. "Technology and Technology Transfer: Mansfieldian Inspirations and Subsequent Developments" Journal of Technology Transfer 30(1/2), Springer: 17-33.
Point 22: "In the early 1970s, literature on (international) technology transfer was basically non-existent. Indeed, to the extent that there was a literature, the focus was on the challenges of transferring know-how from the laboratory into practice".	Teece, D.J. 2005. "Technology and Technology Transfer: Mansfieldian Inspirations and Subsequent Developments" Journal of Technology Transfer 30(1/2), Springer: 17-33.

With a set of main points collected, the writer produces a set of cognitive map variables. These variables are informed by the set of main points from Table 1. These variables are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Cognitive map variables based on Table 1

Cognitive map variables	Literature review points
Variable 1: Drivers of interest in technology transfer	Point 14: "Today there is an increased commitment in the cultural and scientific analysis of technology transfer (TT), which is also present in the international literature. This commitment is mainly due to the difficulty traditional approaches demonstrate in responding to the growing need for innovation". Point 19: "The pressure to develop and market technology faster, the blurring of the line between the production and the use of knowledge, and the blurring between intra- and inter-organizational transfer, which are among the KBE’s [knowledge-based economy] main characteristics, are a strong invitation to redefine the basic technology transfer model and to further analyze the contractual and organizational mechanisms that are the cornerstone of the efficiency of any such transfer". Point 21: "At least since Joseph Schumpeter, scholars have struggled to understand the nature and the dynamics of the economics of technical change. Edwin Mansfield was born into that struggle and was for many decades a true pioneer in the study of the economics of technological change". Point 22: "In the early 1970s, literature on (international) technology transfer was basically non-existent. Indeed, to the extent that there was a literature, the focus was on the challenges of transferring know-how from the laboratory into practice".
Variable 2: Improve intellectual understanding of technology transfer	Point 1: "Technology transfer is a process for applying known technologies to new and novel applications. The term is widely recognized, but the process is not well understood". Point 2: ".... the objective of technology transfer is to apply technologies from any source to develop new or improved product features and functions in a cost-effective manner". Point 4: "TCs [technology centres] are, by definition, different from universities and rather act as complements, and not substitutes (Arnold et al. 2007, 7). TCs are mainly aimed at collaboration and transfer knowledge to industry as part of their core mission, while universities are primarily motivated to collaborate with industry due to the need to raise additional resources required to fund research and other university activities". Point 6: "The literature stresses that interactions take place with co-located firms and supporting organizations in the same regional area (Lundvall and Borras 1999). Due to their particular characteristics, SMEs are more dependent on these local/regional interactions (Asheim, Coenen, and Svensson-Henning 2003) than large firms, which are also linked to national and international networks (Coenen, Moodysson, and Asheim 2004). SMEs rely more on personal ways of transferring tacit (local) knowledge, i.e., learning via interaction (Chaminade and Vang 2008). The intensity of such interaction and the exchange of knowledge in RISs are dependent upon the firm’s social capital". Point 7: "Technology transfer and the organizational form are inextricably linked because accelerated rates of the former are associated with innovative adaptations in the latter". Point 9: "Although any technology transfer and the principals of any agreement have complex motives, technology transfer can be viewed along a continuum framed by event or learning perspectives. The event perspective views technology transfer primarily as an economic transaction where one party provides technology in return for some form of payment. .....Organizational learning provides an alternate perspective of technology transfer where technology transfer is not an event but a process. Levitt and March (1988) stress the importance of learning by doing and suggest trial and error is how organizations develop routines and procedures". Point 10: "Although economic considerations remain, viewing technology transfer from a learning perspective translates into Japan viewing technology transfer as a process (Olk and Xin, 1997), or a means. Japan’s process perspective contributed to its achieving industrialization and rapid economic growth after WWII (Katz, 1998). Kim (1997, pp. 230–231) called the learning approach exhibited by Japan “creative imitation,” or a three-step process of knowledge acquisition, assimilation, and improvement. Japan has distinguished itself from other nations in its openness to foreign knowledge acquisition, or technology transfer". Point 11: "Companies often incorporate new product technologies in their product designs to help achieve distinctive new products. Companies rarely rely solely on internal research and development (R&D) for the initial development of all the new product technologies they will employ in a new product system (Wheelwright and Clark 1992). Accordingly, careful integration of product technologies from external organizations, called the ‘‘product technology transfer process’’ here, is an essential competence for new product development organizations". Point 13: "A technology source firm (the supplier) and a technology recipient firm (the firm conducting a new product development effort) comprise a dyad engaging in interfirm interactions to accomplish product technology transfer. This defines a classic supply chain in that the two firms are organizational players in the supply chain who interact with each other, and an entity (the product technology and associated knowledge about the product technology’s function and interfaces) flows along the supply chain". Point 15: "By the term “TT” [technology transfer] we mean the process that allows the passage of a technology from one organisation (donor) to another entrepreneurial organisation (receiver) (Bozeman, 2000). This complex and difficult passage comprises six different stages: technology gap identification, technology source identification, technology selection, technology supplier selection, TT contracting and technology adaptation". Point 16: "The transference of knowledge and technology from one organisation or person to another does not, however, only entail a physical or intellectual transference, but also the activation of a human relationship. In this sense, the TT process is an interactive process between two or more people who require a multi-directional exchange". Point 20: "The concept of technology transfer has been used extensively by many disciplines to describe and analyze a wide range of technology issues. In management, technology transfer refers to “intentional, goal oriented interaction” (Autio and Laamanen, 1995) between two or more persons, groups or organizations in order to exchange technological knowledge and/or artefacts and rights. That concept is well rooted in the broad problem of R&D and innovation management".
Variable 3: Effective technology transfer practices	Point 3: "Companies need a systematic process for handling the procedural, legal, and financial issues involved in acquiring external innovations through technology transfer, whether these come in the form of ideas for technologies, prototype devices, or products. Otherwise, the cost (in time and money) of acquiring these external innovations will usually exceed their expected value". Point 8: "Scholars note that:  a. functional–hierarchical organizations and mechanistic mindsets hinder innovation and the transfer of technology _see Brown and Karagozoglu, 1993.; and b. linear–sequential, ‘relay-race’-type TT [technology transfer] workflows, where one functional group completes its assigned tasks and passes its output to the next group, must be abandoned in favor of organic, concurrent, collaborative workflows". 1995; Takeuchi and Nonaka, 1986.. Organic designs are preferred over the mechanistic because TT processes become more effective when: a. all major functional groups are involved from the initiating stages of the process; b. functional groups are engaged in high levels of communication and can effectively coordinate their tasks; and c. cross-functional teams are used for addressing TT-related decision-making and work-flows". Point 17: "Universities are increasingly being viewed by policymakers as engines of innovation through the technology transfer office (TTO) (Libecap, 2005). In recent years, the transfer of knowledge from universities to industry, facilitated by the TTO, has gained considerable attention because knowledge produced in universities can spur business innovation, foster competitiveness and promote economic and social development through academic entrepreneurship".
Variable 4: Learn from technology transfer practices	Point 5: "Despite the large number of clusters/industrial districts (IDs) analysed in the literature, there are very few cases describing how low-tech clusters are upgraded and promoted through TCs [technology centres] or other types of technology infrastructure. In most cases, TCs and other research infrastructures are cited as being a heavily used asset by colocated  firms in clusters". Point 12: "It has been reported that product technology transfer frequently is difficult to conduct (Iansiti 1998). This process often is fraught with unanticipated problems and excessive risk, leading to product development efforts that are unsuccessful due to time delays in market introduction, cost overruns, and technical functionality problems. It is acknowledged that product technology transfer is conducted regularly in an ad-hoc manner". Point 18: "There are a number of barriers to successfully transferring best practice between TTOs [technology transfer offices]; among these is the need to understand how well a TTO is performing at present and why it is not performing better (Granieri and Frederick, 2015). These barriers become more evident in the case of developing countries. The process of innovation in developing countries is different from that of developed countries, with mature technologies often being adopted with limited success".

The next step is to relate the cognitive map variables to make up a cognitive map on technology transfer. The cognitive map and its explanation are presented in the next section.

A cognitive map on technology transfer and its interpretation

By relating the four variables identified in Table 2, the writer comes up with a cognitive map on technology transfer, as shown in Figure 1.

These cognitive  map variables, four of them altogether, are related to constitute a systemic image of technology transfer. The links in the cognitive map (re: Figure 1) indicate direction of influences between variables. The + sign shows that an increase in one variable leads to an increase in another variable while a -ve sign tells us that in increase in one variable leads to a decrease in another variable.  If there no signs shown on the arrows, that means the influences can be positive or negative.  For further information on technology transfer, readers are referred to the Literature on technology transfer Facebook page.

Concluding remarks

The cognitive mapping exercise captures in one diagram some of the main variables involved in technology transfer. The resultant cognitive map promotes an exploratory way to study technology transfer in a holistic tone. The experience of the cognitive mapping exercise is that it can be a quick, efficient and entertaining way to explore a complex topic such as technology transfer in Technology Management. Finally, readers who are interested in cognitive mapping should also find the article informative on this mapping topic.

Bibliography

1.      Amesse, F. and P. Cohendet. 2001. "Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledge-based economy" Research Policy 30,  Elsevier: 1459-1478.

2.      Eden, C. and P. Simpson. 1989. "SODA and cognitive mapping in practice", pp. 43-70, in Rosenhead, J. (editor) Rational Analysis for a Problematic World, Wiley, Chichester.

3.      Eden, C., C. Jones and D. Sims. 1983. Messing about in Problems: An informal structured approach to their identification and management, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

4.      Hervas-Oliver, J., J. Albors-Garrigos, B. de-Miguel and A. Hidalgo. 2012. "The role of a firm's absorptive capacity and the technology transfer process in clusters: How effective are technology centres in low-tech clusters?" Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An International Journal 24(7-8): 523-559.

5.      Jassawalla, A.R. and H.c. Sashittal. 1998. "Accelerating technology transfer: thinking about organizational pronoia" J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 15, Elsevier: 153-177.

6.      King, D.R. and M.L. Nowack. 2003. "The impact  of government policy on technology transfer: an aircraft industry case study" J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 20, Elsevier: 303-318.

7.      Lane, J.P. 1999. "Understanding Technology Transfer" Assistive Technology  11(1): 5-19.

8.      Literature on cognitive mapping Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/Literature-on-cognitive-mapping-800894476751355/).

9.      Literature on literature review Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/literature.literaturereview/).

10. Literature on technology transfer Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/Literature-on-technology-transfer-150542185495123/).

11. Managerial intellectual learning Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/managerial.intellectual.learning/).

12. Open University. n.d. "Sign graph" Systems Thinking and Practice (T552): Diagramming, Open University, U.K. (url address: http://systems.open.ac.uk/materials/T552/) [visited at April 10, 2017].

13. Secundo, G., C. De Beer and G. Passiante. 2016. "Measuring university technology transfer efficiency: a maturity level approach" Measuring Business Excellence 20(3), Emerald: 55-78.

14. Tatikonda, M.V. and G.N. Stock. 2003. "Product Technology Transfer in the Upstream Supply Chain" J Prod Innov Manag 20: 444-467.

15. Teece, D.J. 2005. "Technology and Technology Transfer: Mansfieldian Inspirations and Subsequent Developments" Journal of Technology Transfer 30(1/2), Springer: 17-33.

16. Verbano, C. and K. Venturini. 2012. "Technology transfer in the Italian space industry: organizational issues and determinants" Management Research Review 35(3/4), Emerald: 272-288.