POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NYU Issues in Technology/knowledge Transfer/Exchange Between Developed and Developing Countries Global Innovation Tamba Lamin Telecom and Information Management - Executive Masters Program “Technology transfer is the process of sharing of skills, knowledge, technologies, methods of manufacturing, samples of manufacturing and facilities among governments 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” Terry Moss, Eskom
45
Embed
Tambalamin Technology Transfer Global Innovation Final
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NYU
Issues in Technology/knowledge
Transfer/ExchangeBetween
Developed and Developing CountriesGlobal Innovation
Tamba Lamin
Telecom and Information Management - Executive Masters Program
“Technology transfer is the process of sharing of skills, knowledge, technologies, methods of manufacturing, samples
of manufacturing and facilities among governments 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” Terry Moss, Eskom (South Africa)
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NYU – GLOBAL INNOVATION – TELECOM & INFORMATION MANEGEMENT Fall 2009
SECTION I - Summary of key points.....................................................................................................................3
Literature Review................................................................................................................................................4Definitions of Technology...............................................................................................................................4Definitions of Technology Transfer................................................................................................................4Definition of Knowledge.................................................................................................................................4Knowledge Transfer........................................................................................................................................5Methods and channels of Technology Transfer:.............................................................................................5Foreign Direct Investment (FDI).....................................................................................................................6The Multinational Corporation (MNC)...........................................................................................................6Joint Venture....................................................................................................................................................7Licensing Agreement.......................................................................................................................................8
Movement of People............................................................................................................................................8SECTION II - Summary of technology transfer case studies..................................................................................8
Making a contribution to the health sector in Ghana.......................................................................................8Butane Gas Stove in Senegal...........................................................................................................................9Bamboo Fiber Reinforced Cement Board for Carbon Sequestration..............................................................9The Commercial Dissemination of Photovoltaic Systems in Kenya...............................................................9ROK-5 Mangrove Rice Variety in Sierra Leone...........................................................................................10Research, Development and Commercialization of the Kenya Ceramic Jiko (KCJ)....................................11
Summary of lessons learned from the Case studies...........................................................................................11SECTION III.........................................................................................................................................................12
The relationship between technology transfer, R&D and innovation strategies...........................................12The Pros and cons of technology transfer..........................................................................................................13
Implications for firms....................................................................................................................................14Benefits and Challenges of Technology Transfer.............................................................................................16
Typical Channels of technology tranfer...........................................................................................................18Recommendations to stake holders of developing countries.............................................................................19
Works Cited...........................................................................................................................................................22
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NYU – GLOBAL INNOVATION – TELECOM & INFORMATION MANEGEMENT Fall 2009
the donor at the long run. The reason for technology transfer is to benefit both parties and at the long run, the
donor should be independent of the technology gained. The motivation for licensing of technology and product
could be for the penetration of the international market. Companies are willing to license their technology to
countries where they do not have penetration through export or direct investment and also selling of their
product. Countries willing to embark on technology transfer through licensing must be sure of the credibility of
the licensors and their willingness to transfer technology.
Movement of People International movement of people associated with nationals studying or working abroad for a limited period and
applying their new knowledge when they return, or the inward movement of foreign nationals into developing
countries is another potential channel for technology transfer. A challenge for developing countries is to
facilitate temporary movement abroad and to encourage returnees to undertake local research and business
development.
SECTION II - Summary of technology transfer case studies
Most of the case studies summarized in this section where selected within 30 case studies included in a
special report titled “Methodological and Technological issues in Technology Transfer” published by
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) online.
Making a contribution to the health sector in Ghana
“According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), Ghana faces a severe brain drain of professional health workers, such as medical doctors and nurses. For this reason, IOM launched the Migration for Development in Africa (MIDA) Ghana Health Project in cooperation with the Ghanaian Ministry of Health and the Dutch Embassy in Accra. “The objective of the project is to contribute to the development of the health sector in Ghana”. They implemented two methods; Ghanaian and other African migrants living and working in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany and other EU countries transferred knowledge, skills and experiences through temporary assignments in Ghana. On the other hand there is the possibility for Ghanaians to travel for professional training to the Netherlands or the United Kingdom. Ghana I & II phases were successful and hence IOM in April 2008 started MIDA Ghana phase III project. The project aims to contribute to the strengthening of human resource development in the health sector through medical knowledge transfer”
Butane Gas Stove in Senegal
“This case involved the French companies Total, Totalgaz, the government of Senegal, the European Development Fund, about 50 distribution companies, and local communities. The consumption of fuel wood was leading to deforestation and desertification in Senegal. But the introduction of butane as a household fuel with a suitable energy efficient stove helped to turn the tide. Totalgaz was a leader in the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) market. The Senegalese Government subsi -dized the use of butane gas and waived a levy on bottles or accessories. The European Development Fund financed the
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NYU – GLOBAL INNOVATION – TELECOM & INFORMATION MANEGEMENT Fall 2009
three years Regional Gas Program and also financed the training of workers in the region from 1989 to 1992, with more than US$ 14 million. As a result of this financing, the retail distribution flourished. Butane was selected as the effective fuel because it was cheap and easy to transport. Total designed a new stove, which was simple to use, stable, cheap and met all the cooking requirements. The unit cost in 1993 was the equivalent of US$ 16. This new gas stove, 'Nopale', was a success and is now an everyday part of the Senegalese way of life. This case demonstrates how technology cooperation al-lowed the government of Senegal to diversify energy sources as well as protect the environment through technology trans-fer from France to Senegal. LPG is now widely used as the domestic fuel in place of wood and charcoal, reducing defor -estation. Charcoal consumption of 400,000 tons a year was reduced to about 100,000 tons a year due to the butane pro -gram, saving 20,000 hectares of Senegalese forests. Supply of LPG in the 6 kg bottle became a main activity of Totalgaz in Senegal. Sales of Nopale cooking gas rose from 402 tons in 1983 to more than 22,360 tons in 1994. The bottles and the burners for the Nopale were imported, but stands were made locally to reduce costs. The butane program produced pro-ductive partnerships with local people and led to more job opportunities”.
Bamboo Fiber Reinforced Cement Board for Carbon Sequestration
“Cement board has become a standard construction material in the tropics. The mixing of cement with mineral fibers or synthetic substitutes has evolved into a major industry. Taiheyo Cement, the second largest cement producer in the world, invested in a special research program in association with the Zero Emissions program to substitute the mineral and synthetic fibers with natural ones. This has now been successfully implemented. Researchers identified bamboo-specific fungi that would eliminate all sugars after crushing the bamboo. This process saves water and offers a good quality fiber with no residual sugars. The blending of 50% cement with 50% bamboo fibers reverses the carbon dioxide balance. Since the cement board has an expected life of 30 years, the fast growing species like Bambusa vulgaris offers a unique opportunity for the construction industry to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol. The research was undertaken in Japan, but the first pilot plant was located in Java, Indonesia, just one hour outside Jakarta. The proximity to a cheap and abundant supply of bamboo is critical in the financial viability of the operation. On the basis of this first experience, an improved version of the production technology has been obtained. A second factory is now being planned in Manizales, Colombia, the centre of bamboo forests in Latin America. This permits the fast and pragmatic transfer of technologies developed in Japan to be fine-tuned in Indonesia and then transferred to Latin America”.
The Commercial Dissemination of Photovoltaic Systems in Kenya
“The commercial market for solar photovoltaic (PV) home systems has been active in Kenya for over 10 years. Over 80,000 solar home systems (SHSs) have been sold, providing power to over 1% of the rural population of roughly 25 mil -lion people. The Kenyan PV market evolved without subsidies or significant government or multinational agency support, although the activities of several private and volunteer organizations helped to disseminate information on photovoltaic and provide opportunities. Today dozens of companies are active in the PV industry in east Africa, and annual sales may exceed 20,000 - 30,000 individual systems and over 300 kWp (Msinga et al., 1997). USAID, GTZ, Care and Bellerive foundations were instrumental in the development and dissemination process of cook stoves. A key aspect of the dissemi -nation process for photovoltaic in Kenya is the degree that it has been market driven, and thus the 'approach' taken is best described as 'market realism'. Initially, most systems were relatively large, and, as noted above, either donated or pur -chased by rural elites”.
“A recent survey of over 400 households (Msinga et al., 1997) found that while the mean income was US$108/month, three-fourths of the system owners earned less than US$100/month, which is close to the national average. Recently the average system size had decreased from over 40 WP to about 20 WP; including the sales of large numbers of 12-14 WP packaged systems. Expanding interest in SHSs in the late 1980s and early 1990s was accompanied by a change in the re -tail network and the development of a diverse regional network of assembly, sales, installation, and maintenance busi-nesses. While solar panels are still imported, local companies now manufacture batteries for use in PV systems, and the
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NYU – GLOBAL INNOVATION – TELECOM & INFORMATION MANEGEMENT Fall 2009
'balance-of-system' (electronics, charge controllers, lights and outlets, and other components) is assembled or manufac-tured in Kenya. Local agents now sell over half of all modules, and three-fourths of the PV batteries. Sales of SHSs in Kenya have been increasing at 10 - 18% per year, and this trend is expected to continue.”
“PV systems have had a significant impact in Kenya and East Africa. Surveys indicate that most of the systems (> 60%) were performing well, with the majority of the remaining systems not in use because the battery had no charge (Acker and Kaman, 1996; Msinga et al., 1997). Most users purchased PV for the combined services of lighting, TV, and radio, and were pleased with the systems and would recommend them to others. In many locations the PV systems are simply cheaper than the kerosene, diesel or other alternatives, and in virtually every case the service provided by the SHS is su -perior in quality and reliability to these alternatives. The PV experience in Kenya has also proved to be an important model for SHS introduction efforts in other developing nations (Cabraal et al., 1995), and Kenya as well as a number of other nations is now the target for international aid and development funding to expand the markets for rural PV in devel-oping nations. Kenya has also become the focus for a regional PV market that extends into neighboring nations, as well as to other regions of Africa.”
ROK-5 Mangrove Rice Variety in Sierra Leone
“The development of a new mangrove rice variety in Africa is an important case study of technology development and dif -fusion that relates to the opportunity for agriculture to contribute to increased output of food while at the same time re -ducing the impact of agriculture on global climate change per unit of food produced. This development involved both in-ternational cooperation and a critical commitment of local resources to be successful and has proved itself to be an im -portant contributor to increasing rice production in Sierra Leone with important potential contributions to similar areas in Africa. This project developed and extended a rice variety for mangrove rice production that increased yield per unit of land and per unit of inputs as well as adapting to changes in climate that had already occurred. The diminishing rain for-est resulted in less rainfall and in a reduction of the fresh water available to mangrove rice systems. Thus, a shorter-sea-son variety to capture available seasonal rainfall was a logical potential adaptation. Pest resistance was also added which reduced energy consumption from the use of pesticides. The incentive for this was a national and regional concern over adequate food production. The path used was the development of a new rice variety to improve yields and reduce the level of inputs required. Stakeholders included consumers and farmers in Sierra Leone, Sierra Leone agricultural re-searchers at Rokupr, and the West African Rice Research Development Association (WARDA). Critical to the choice of this path was the farming systems research which had been carried out years earlier. This identified the problem, pro -vided an understanding of mangrove rice farming systems, and described the parameters under which new technology would be successful and successfully transferred. The barriers to technology transfer included a civil war, a collapsed transportation system, no capital for investment, and the lack of government resources to mount a large-scale technology transfer effort.”
“Much of the success of this effort hinged on the accident of a critical mass of researchers at the government rice research station in Rokupr Sierra Leone and the interest of WARDA in this effort. The impact was an increase in rice out-put from mangrove rice production where climate change was beginning to reduce yields from this agricultural resource. This lead to improved conditions for farmers and more rice available beyond farm-family subsistence for distribution and sale to local consumers. This case is replicable, but the key was the existence of local research and development capacity such as the Rokupr rice research station with a critical mass of competent staff. (Due to civil war, this institution is no longer a viable operation.) Its viability was also a result of the willingness of WARDA to give it the marginal resources to do the job that the government of Sierra Leone was unwilling or unable to supply.”
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NYU – GLOBAL INNOVATION – TELECOM & INFORMATION MANEGEMENT Fall 2009
Research, Development and Commercialization of the Kenya Ceramic Jiko (KCJ)
“The Kenya Ceramic Stove, or Jiko (KCJ), is a charcoal-burning stove that is roughly 30% efficient, and if used properly can save 20 - 50% in fuel consumption over simple 'unimproved' stoves or a traditional three-stone fire (Walubengo, 1995). The KCJ was developed after study of a Thai 'bucket' stove that was examined partially through a 'South-South' di-alog over stove characteristics and design. There are now more than 200 businesses, artisans, and micro-enterprise or in-formal sector manufacturers producing over 13,000 stoves each month. There are over 700,000 KCJ's in use in Kenya (Walubengo, 1995). The KCJ is found in over 50% of all urban homes, and roughly 16% of rural homes. Stove models adapted from the KCJ are now being disseminated in many countries across Africa, and wood-burning variants are being introduced and promoted in rural areas as well. The fuel savings of the KCJ have important economic benefits to the users, who in some cases devote a quarter of family income to charcoal purchases (Kammen, 1995).”
“The KCJ is the result of research on stove design, efficiency, and patterns of usage initiated in the 1970's and actively continued through the 1980s (Barnes et al., 1994; Kammen, 1995). A single private sector company, Jerri International, served as the initial manufacturer of the KCJ. Since 1982 the Kenya Energy and Environment Organization (KENGO) has organized promotion and outreach efforts to encourage the use of the KCJ. A number of NGOs and national develop-ment agencies have played important roles in the evolution of the stove and the stove dissemination process, and have worked both within Kenya and across sub-Saharan Africa to promote the manufacture and sales of the KCJ through a network of informal-sector stove entrepreneurs. A decision was made not to directly subsidize commercial stove produc-tion and dissemination. Initially stoves were expensive (~ US$ 15/stove) sales were slow, and quality control has been a significant problem. Continued research and refinement and expanded numbers and types of manufacturers and vendors increased competition, and spurred innovations in materials used and in production methods. The KCJ can now be pur-chased in a variety of sizes and styles. Prices for KCJ models have decreased to roughly US$ 1 - 3 (Walubengo, 1995). This decrease is consistent with the 'learning curve' theory of price reductions through innovations that result from expe-rience gained in the manufacturing, distribution, marketing and sales process. Two architects of the stove program re-ceived an international award for their work, which is an important recognition for the need for research on often unher -alded but important technologies. The ceramic liner of the KCJ degrades over time, and needs to be replaced. Street ven -dors of stoves and many of the larger stove sales outlets take 'used' stoves back, discounting the purchase of a new stove. The liners of the old stove are then removed, the metal cladding is repaired, if needed, and the stove is reassembled, re -painted, and resold. This process has also served to foster wider informal sector stove economy.”
Summary of lessons learned from the Case studies
Support for certain technology or knowledge transfer projects doesn’t need to take the form of direct subsidies.
For successful technology transfer there must be locally-based and supported institutions with a primary stake
in the technology and in its successful transfer. The development of technology also depends upon a degree of
civil order and investment by the local government in technology development and transfer. The key lesson
learned is that if there is an essential need and the technology is good enough agriculture technology can be
transferred by farmers without new formal technology transfer institutions or efforts. In cases like this, interna-
tional resources must involve and contribute to the national program to ensure appropriateness and transfer
based on local ownership and local institutions that are already trusted in technology transfer.
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NYU – GLOBAL INNOVATION – TELECOM & INFORMATION MANEGEMENT Fall 2009
Second, subsidies are not necessarily needed to promote technology transfer, although logistical support, train-
ing courses, and performance standards all have central roles that require policy attention and commitments of
resources. Technology transfer from a developed country partner to developing countries will be successful if
the technology is wanted by the recipient countries.
SECTION III
The relationship between technology transfer, R&D and innovation strategies
R&D generally comprises any creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the
stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture, society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to
devise new applications, products, services and solutions for public, private good and commercialization
purposes (www.arc.gov.au/general/glossary.htm). In its simplest form, it can be defined as all research
activities, both basic and applied, and all development activities that are performed by research institutions and
public and private funded research centers (www.fau.edu/research/ocg/procedures/files/sc-definitions.doc).
In developed countries like the Unites States, technology and knowledge is generally transferred from
R&D centers to companies or government for commercialization which results into an end product, service or
solution. The figure below schematizes how technology is transferred from R&D centers to the end users. It
must be noted that over 50% of fortune 500 INCs in the United States and the world have their own R&D
centers. Some of these companies also collaborate with the few top research institutions in research and
development projects. This means technology transfer, R&D and innovation strategies are inter-twinned and
one cannot exist without the other in the company or government pursing this strategy wants to succeed. In
developing countries, the case is different.
Figure 1: The process of technology transfer in developed countries
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NYU – GLOBAL INNOVATION – TELECOM & INFORMATION MANEGEMENT Fall 2009
In other for developing countries to successfully achieve technology transfer, factors such as good
investment policies, basic infrastructures, good information and communication technology infrastructures, and
support for the establishment of public research and development centers will need to be put in place (Li-Hua
2009). Some developing countries have tried to encourage foreign investment participation in their countries
over the years, but these have been very difficult especially due to the lack of political stability and skilled
labor. Those countries that have succeeded in attracting few foreign investments still lack the successful transfer
of technology from foreign companies to indigenous companies which is due in part to the lack of government’s
participation and partnership with universities and research & development projects. University and R&D
projects are usually not well funded by governments in developing countries and the relationship between
companies and universities is very weak or non-existence. It must also be noted that most developing countries
believe in technology adoption than technology transfer. Very little efforts have been made by companies and
governments to invest in technology transfer projects and this is because; they want a quicker way of gaining
the technology instead of going through the process of transfer which usually takes a little longer to be
achieved. In my opinion, developed countries will be willing to set up manufacturing and R&D facilities in
countries with strong Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and well advertised investment incentive strategies as
opposed to those without. But in contrary to this, some authors’ belief that weaker patent protection may be
desirable for technology transfer in developing countries and this in their view allow indigenous companies to
produce and compete with foreign companies. (Li-Hua 2009). (Prabuddha 2004) argued that the treatment of
intellectual property among other policy instruments is an important factor on a country’s ability to attract R&D
investment from Multinational Corporations (MNCs)
The Pros and cons of technology transfer
because it’s the opposite of the globalization approach that many industrial-goods manufacturers based in
developed countries have employed for decades (Immelt, Govindarajan, and Trimble 2009).
mplications for firms
Because of the limited size of internal markets and early stages of industrial development most international
firms experience particular difficulties in developing countries. This coupled with forced industrialization and a
general tendency toward economic nationalism policies also make it difficult to invest or transfer technology
into developing countries. Most developing countries also generally lack the full range of skilled human
resource capacity needed to run successful manafacturing operations. It is also very known that some of these
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NYU – GLOBAL INNOVATION – TELECOM & INFORMATION MANEGEMENT Fall 2009
countries insist on national ownership and have strigent staffing requirements which often inhibits even the
interim use of foreign technicians in vital areas of plant operations and in local procurement policies of
protection and high domestic content it also create serious problems. Some scholars argued that most recently,
governments in developing countries have been mandating local manufacturers to produce for export markets,
which places an even heavier burden on technology transfer agents in terms of quality and cost competitiveness.
Exchange controls associated with industrilization policies, remitting equity earnings or royalties and licensing
fees and balance-of-payment difficulties also add to the problem of running plants in developing countries.
Recipient firm’s characteristics
One of the major factores in considering whether to enter into license arrangement as an alternative to direct
investment is the technical absorptive capability of the recipient firm and its potential in competitive markets
For example, licensing arrangements are often preferred with industrially-advanced partners, because of the
ease of transfer coupled with the advantages of cross-licensing. Direct investment is sometimes preferred in
underdeveloped countries because of the uncertainties and added difficulties in imparting technology in those
areas. Donor firms are also more willing to disclose technical know-how to less sophisticated partners in
devoloping countries than they are to industrially-advanced firms, which may eventually become serious
commercial rivals in third markets. Where the donor firm has a strong technological lead and a dynamic R&D
program to maintain that lead, this consideration may be less important (Immelt, Govindarajan, and Trimble
2009).
Donor firm’s characteristics
The transfer capability, financial position, and corporate philosophy of the donor firm are among the decisive
factors influencing licensing-investment decisions. International firms may realize returns on their technological
assets in a variety of ways; dividends on equity investment, sale of components and parts, royalties, licensing
fees , and technical assistance fees. Direct investment involves the commitment of financial and managerial
resources to which there are limits, even for the largest corporations. For example, in the automitive field,
international firms have had to devlop low-cost systems to package and ship components and provide cadres of
managers and technicians to staff overseas assembly and manufacturing operations in newly industrializing
countries. Even straight licensing arrangements often require commitment of managerial resources and the
development of new corporate capabilities, if product standards are to be maintained internationally. Corporate
views on how to maximize long-run profits (cost of developing transfer capabilities as against benefits from
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NYU – GLOBAL INNOVATION – TELECOM & INFORMATION MANEGEMENT Fall 2009
licensing versus direct investment) having a strong bearing upon the chosen transfer mode. Certain firms view
technology as an intgral part of their marketing-manufacturing package and insist on full ownership and control
to maximize international profit (Immelt, Govindarajan, and Trimble 2009).
Conflicting interests over licensing versus investment choices
International firms prefer direct investment to licensing where;
(a) The financial and human resources are available
(b) Control over present and future market development is desirable, particularly with products and
techniques having a longer life circle
(c) The firm fears licensing will result in the give-away of valuable know-how or will threaten its position
in established markets
(d) The transfer involves a broad line of products or is an integrated part of marketing and financial
management
(e) The technology is highly complex or the foreign affiliate lacks industrial sophiscation and the transfer
requires a prolonged and sustained relatioship to effect the transfer or
(f) There is a concern over protecting the product standards or trade name. also, for U.S. firms, transfer to
controlled subsidiaries avoids most antitrust aspects entailed in licensing to third parties
(Immelt, Govindarajan, and Trimble 2009).
Benefits and Challenges of Technology TransferThe challenges of technology and knowledge transfer have over the years been a great concern to researchers.
Because of the closeness between these two elements, their challenges are almost similar. (Samli 1985), model
the pattern of technology transfer into six dimensions: geography, culture, economy, business, people and
government, while (Egbu 2000), looked at knowledge transfer in six dimensional ways; people, content, culture,
process, infrastructure and technology. These shows that the challenges and benefits of technology and
knowledge transfer are similar and that one cannot do without the other. One of the benefits of technology
transfer is globalization of industries. Technology transfer brings the world together as one large market place.
When technology is properly transferred around the world from a developed nation to developing nations,
economic vibrancy will be seen and nations will draw closer to one another making the world look like a large
global market place.
Internationalization of domestic market is also a benefit to technology transfer. Products produced by domestic
markets could compete with large international industries if proper technology is transferred to the domestic
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NYU – GLOBAL INNOVATION – TELECOM & INFORMATION MANEGEMENT Fall 2009
market. This will increase production and also economic growth. Some barriers of technology transfer to
developing countries also exist. These includes; lost of intellectual property, exploitation of indigenous
employees, lack of infrastructure, attitudes of employees, government policies/legal protection, geographical
location, environment, etc.
“Knowledge transfer is an important issue when talking about technology transfer” (Li-Hua 2009).
Technology transfer will only be achievable in developing countries if academic, policy makers/government
and companies are involved in the process of knowledge transfer. Although, it has been proven difficult to
measure the level of technology transfer from foreign companies to local companies, but the measurement of
transfer between foreign companies and local companies involves the observation of human communication and
interactions, attitude, interest and motivation of all participant of the transfer process. Universities in developing
countries have always been involved in the traditional way of teaching without more involvement with
companies for research and innovations. Government should be involve in the development of knowledge-based
economies and increase demand for innovation which has brought about new challenges for universities to
move beyond their traditional role of educational institution and develop more outreach activities in partnership
with companies (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 1997; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2001; Etzkowitz and De Mello,
2003).
The process of technology transfer by developing countries is one of learning and improving their
technological capability (Barbosa and Vaidya, 1997). This is a complex, long-term process with various levels
of technological competence such as the ability to use the technology, adopt it, stretch it, and eventually to
become more independent by developing, designing and selling it.
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NYU – GLOBAL INNOVATION – TELECOM & INFORMATION MANEGEMENT Fall 2009
SECTION IV
Typical Channels of technology tranfer
Figure: 2 Typical channels of technology transfer
Figure 2 above schematizes the technology development and transfer process in both developed and developing
countries. It must be noted that technological knowledge, experience and equipment can be transferred from the
upper level to the lower level through various channels between them, such as exports, foreign direct
investments, including joint ventures, licensing and imitation. The exports channel is the one being used the
most current because most developing countries prefer to buy the end product at whole sale prices and then
retail to end consumers at prices that will allow them make 100% profit. Most of the large and small enterprises
prefer this method because it’s less costly, less risky and returns are immediate. Taking the time to partner in
joint ventures sometimes takes too much of their time and hence are never interested.
R&DCommercializa
tion
Production
Deployment/
Diffusion
R&DCommercializa
tion
Production
Deployment/
Diffusion
Developed countries
Developing countries
Manufacturers
Manufacturers
In-house development
Technology LicensingFDI & JV Imitation
Technology LicensingFDI & JV Imitation
Export
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NYU – GLOBAL INNOVATION – TELECOM & INFORMATION MANEGEMENT Fall 2009
Recommendations to stake holders of developing countries.
A lot of cases that involve technology transfer between a developed and developing country, result in a failure
because the donor country was either unable or unwilling to transfer tacit knowledge or the recipient country
was incapable of continuing to sponsor the project, or lacked skilled workers with the ability to learn through
experience. Those case there were successful involve the transfer of tacit knowledge. As in the case of Senegal
and Kenya, you will notice that the process was initiated by a multinational corporation operating locally. The
corporations leveraged on their home experience and came up with new ideas to develop a new market. They
got the support of government and the people and hence technology was transferred successfully. Developing
countries can successfully transfer technology and knowledge if a proper, measurable and goal oriented strategy
is put in place. This strategy should include all major stake holders (the government, Educational institutions,
public and private R&D centers and institutions, large, midsized and large private and public companies). If all
this stake holders come together and develop a technology and knowledge transfer strategy, most of the
problems encountered in the past will be avoided.
The government can create partnerships with foreign and national private sector investors to develop the basic
pillars for national development. These are; adequate and efficient road and transportation network to allow free
movement of people and goods within and out of the country, adequate and efficient national information and
communication technology infrastructure with undersea sub-marine fiber used for international backhaul,
development of a solid foundation for the establishment of science and technology educational institutes,
develop strong intellectual property laws and business establishment policies to encourage foreign investments
and joint ventures with multinational enterprises and market the natural resources of the countries and invite
foreign companies to invest. Figure 3 below schematizes my recommendation for a successful knowledge and
technology transfer process.
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NYU – GLOBAL INNOVATION – TELECOM & INFORMATION MANEGEMENT Fall 2009
Figure: 3 – Suggested framework and process for a successful technology/knowledge transfer
(Dougherty 1999) argued that knowledge transfer is about connection not collection. The collection of
knowledge is considered when discussing the adoption of knowledge. This process does not allow the
continuous flow of knowledge from the recipient to the donor. Therefore, a successful technology transfer can
only be implemented when there is continual flow of knowledge transfer between the parties involved. In my
recommended figure above, you will notice that the flow is a continual process with one-to-many, many-to-one
and many-to-many relationships. Knowledge is recognized as a fundamental asset of an organization in this
current competitive global environment (Teece, 1998). Therefore, knowledge transfer is very important when
considering economic strength of a country or company. Knowledge transfer has be defined by authors in
The media of transfer and buffer zone to allow knowledge and technology to be transferred from Developed countries to developing countries and in some cases from developing to developed countries
Suggested framework and process for a successful knowledge and technology transfer between developed and developing countries
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NYU – GLOBAL INNOVATION – TELECOM & INFORMATION MANEGEMENT Fall 2009
different ways, in all the definitions, one thing is very clear and that is, knowledge transfer is a continual flow of
knowledge that leads to innovation for economic development. My recommended approach includes the
following stake holders; Governments, Educational Institutions, Public R&D centers, and companies in both
developed and developing countries. Since developing countries are the once in need of technology/knowledge
the most, they should be taking the lead to create strategic partnerships with one or all of the stake holders
mentioned here in developed countries. For example; Government ‘A’ in developing country ‘a’ can create a
strategic technology/knowledge transfer partnership with Government ‘B’ in developed country ‘b’. This will
be a one to one partnership in which both countries will mutually benefit. In such partnerships, the developing
country government should negotiate terms that will include the transfer of technology between public and
private R&D centers and companies of both countries. The key term or point in the negotiation should be the
transfer of tacit knowledge and not explicit knowledge. How can this be done?
There are many ways but I will recommend one that I know works always. Let’s say Sierra Leone government
is partnering with a USA government company to build a national telecom network. The first step in such
knowledge/technology transfer should include the movement of workers from Sierra Leone to United States and
from United States to Sierra Leone to study and learn more about each other’s company and operations. The
Sierra Leone company workers will learn about the equipments to be used in the process, how they are currently
being used, network management practices, leadership skills and support and customer service processes and
etc while they are in the US. The US team in Sierra Leone will learn the same about Sierra Leone company and
interact directly with customers and other stake holders in the process. This could be done for a period of at
least 6 months prior to contract or project implementation start date. The two teams can then later meet and put
together lessons learnt and make recommendations for a successful knowledge/technology transfer. This
process will continue even while the project is ongoing. It should also be part of the agreement to train Sierra
Leoneans how to maintain, customize, and support the technology to be transferred. Such training should take
place in Sierra Leone. The point that is being stressed here is “on the job training through learning by doing”
and the removal of barriers that will stop the recipient company or government from customizing and improving
the technology being transferred. Such barriers are not good in the process and if they are, technology will be
transferred successfully. A cutoff point for support should also be set because this usually adds on the overall
cost of the technology transfer process. With a cutoff date for support, the recipient country or company will be
obliged to learn and customize the technology for ongoing growth.
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NYU – GLOBAL INNOVATION – TELECOM & INFORMATION MANEGEMENT Fall 2009
Works Cited
BARANSON, JACK. "TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER THROUGH THE INTERNATIONAL FIRM." American
Economic Review. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
BELL, MARTIN and ANABEL MARIN. "Where Do Foreign Direct Investment-Related Technology
Spillovers Come From in Emerging Economies? An Exploration in Argentina in the 1990s." European
Journal of Development Research. Frank Cass & Company Ltd.