Skip to main content
Log in

Red tape and technology transfer in US government laboratories

The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to gauge the effects of red tape and bureaucratization on the technology-transfer activities and effectiveness of government laboratories in the United States. Two central questions are addressed: Do laboratories involved significantly in technology transfer have more red tape than others? and Does the level of red tape have an effect on technology-transfer success? Objective and perceptual measures of red tape are used. Technologytransfer effectiveness is measured in terms of getting other organizations to adopt technology developed in the laboratory (“out the door” success) and of the commercial impact of transfers. Data are derived from questionnaire responses provided by directors of 276 federal- and state-government laboratories. Results indicate that laboratories involved in technology transfer do not have higher levels of red tape. Out-the-door technology-transfer success relates strongly to low degrees of perceived red tape, whereas high ratings for commercial impact are associated with actual low levels of red tape in acquiring project funding and lowcost equipment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bozeman, Barry, and Michael Crow (1988).The U.S. R&D Laboratory System: The Effect of Public and Market Influence. Report prepared for the National Science Foundation.

  2. Bozeman, Barry, and Michael Crow (1990).The Environments of U.S. R&D Laboratories: Political and Market Influences. Policy Sciences, Vol. 23, pp. 25–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Crow, Michael, and Barry Bozeman (September 1989).Bureaucratization in the Laboratory. Research/Technology Management, Vol. 32, September–October, pp. 30–31.

  4. Fesler, James, and D. Kettl (1991).The Politics of the Administrative Process. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kaufman, Herbert (1977)Red Tape: Its Origins, Uses and Abuses. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dupree, H. G. (1986).Science and the Federal Government, second edition. Cambridge, MA: The Bollings Press of Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bagur, J., and A. Guissinger (1987).Technology Transfer Legislation: An Overview. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 12, pp. 51–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. De la Barre, D. (1985).Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1985. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 10, pp. 31–45.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rahm, D., B. Bozeman, and M. Crow (1988).Domestic Technology Transfer and Competitiveness: An Empirical Assessment of the Roles of University and Government R&D Laboratories. Public Administration Review, Vol. 48, pp. 969–978.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bozeman, B., and M. Fellows (1987).Technology Transfer at the U.S. National Laboratories: A Framework for Evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning Vol. 11, pp. 65–75.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bozeman, B. (June 1991)Evaluating Government Laboratories' Technology Transfer Effectiveness. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Technology Transfer Society, Denver, Colorado.

  12. Chandler, R.C., and J.C. Plano (1982).The Public Administration Dictionary. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Blau, P.M., and W.R. Scott (1982).Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Merton, R.K. (1940).Bureaucratic Structure and Personality. Social Forces, Vol. 17, pp. 560–68.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Goulder, A.W. (1952).Red Tape as a Social Problem. In Robert Merton (ed.)Reader in Bureaucracy. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. March, J., and H. Simon (1958).Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Weber, M. (1946).From Max Weber: Essays in sociology translated, edited, and with an introduction by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Thompson, V. (1963).Modern Organizations. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ibid. (1977).Red Tape: Its Origins, Uses and Abuses. Washington, DC: Brockings Institution, Kaufman, 5, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Goodsell, C. (1985).The Case for Bureaucracy. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ibid., Kaufman, 5, p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ibid.Bureaucratization in the Laboratory. Research/Technology Management, Vol. 32, September–October, pp. 30–31. Crow and Bozeman.

  23. Ibid., Bozeman and Crow (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ibid.Bureaucratization in the Laboratory. Research/Technology Management, Vol. 32, September–October, pp. 30–31, Crow and Bozeman.

  25. Ibid.Bureaucratization in the Laboratory. Research/Technology Management, Vol. 32, September–October, pp. 30–31. Crow and Bozeman.

  26. Hall, R. (1963).The Concept of Bureaucracy: An Empirical Assessment. American Society of Sociology, Vol. 69, pp. 32–40.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Meyer, M., and M. Brown (1977).The Process of Bureaucratization. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, pp. 364–85.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Meyer, M. (1972).Bureaucratic Structure and Authority: Coordination and Control in 254 Government Agencies. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ibid., Goodsell.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Director of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs' Technology and Information Policy Program. His research on technology transfer and R&D policy has been published in a variety of journals and he has written such books asInvestments in Technology: Corporate Strategy and Public Policy (with Albert Link) andPublic Management Strategies (with Jeffrey Straussman). Bozeman received his Ph.D. in political science from Ohio State University in 1973.

Michael Maurice Crow is associate vice-provost for science and technology at Columbia University. Previously, at the time this paper was written, he was director of the Institute for Physical Research and Technology at Iowa State University. Crow has authored the bookSynthetic Fuels Technology Development in the U.S.: A Retrospective Assessment. He received a Ph.D. in science policy at Syracuse University.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bozeman, B., Crow, M.M. Red tape and technology transfer in US government laboratories. J Technol Transfer 16, 29–37 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02371354

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02371354

Keywords

Navigation