The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 18, Issue 3–4, pp 63–74 | Cite as

Improving federal technology commercialization: Some recommendations from a field study

  • Mary S. Spann
  • Mel Adams
  • William E. Souder


This study identified three distinct roles of the federal technology-transfer process in the Huntsville, Alabama region: sponsors, developers, and adopters. The basic structure of transfer barriers and measures during the prospecting and developing of the federal technology-transfer process is also discussed. Sponsors attributed transfer problems to adopters' lack of awareness, while developers cited long development and payback times. Adopters admitted their lack of transfer expertise and their resistance to technologies with long paybacks. None of the role-players were measuring technology transfer very well. While sponsors agreed with adopters that long-term outcome measures were important, sponsors relied on measures of input effort and intermediate results. Developers with the most transfer experience reported the lowest use of measures. Recommendations are made for each role to help improve federal technology transfer.


Economic Growth Field Study Basic Structure Technology Transfer Industrial Organization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Chapman, R.L., L.C. Lohman, and M.J. Chapman(1986).An Exploration of the Benefits from NASA “Spinoff.” Littleton, CO: Chapman Research Group, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnsrud, C.S., J.R. Thornton, and T. Horak (1992).Technology Transfer: Attitudes and Practices in US Firms. Management of Technology III: The Key to Global Competitiveness. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Management of Technology. T.M. Khalil and B.A. Bayraktar, eds. Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Institute of Industrial Engineers; Norcross, GA. pp. 319–328.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee, J.W. (1990).Improvement of Technology Transfer from Government Laboratories to Industry. Fifteenth Annual Meeting Proceedings, R.W. Harrison, ed. Technology Transfer Society, Dayton, OH.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Soderstrom, E.J., and B.M. Winchell (May 1986).Patent Policy Changes Stimulating Commercial Application of Federal R&D. Research Management, Vol. 29, pp. 35–38.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wyden, R. (1990).Technology Transfer Obstacles in Federal Laboratories: Key Agencies Respond to Subcommittee Survey. Subcommittee on Regular Business Opportunities and Energy of the Committee on Small Business, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, USGPO: Committee Print, pp. 101–103.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Souder, W.E., A.S. Nashar, and V. Padmanabhan (1990).A Guide to the Best Technology Transfer Practices. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 15, Nos. 1 & 2 (combined issues), pp. 5–16.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ibid., Souder, Nashar, and Padmanabhan.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Calantone, R.J., M.T. Lee, and A.C. Gross (1990).Evaluating International Technology Transfer in a Comparative Marketing Framework. Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 23–46.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    National Academy of Engineering (1974).Technology Tansfer and Utilization: Recommendations for Redirecting the Emphasis and Correcting the Imbalance. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ibid., Souder, Nashar, and Padmanabhan.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weijo, R.O. (1987).Strategies for Promoting Technology Transfer to the Private Sector. Journalof Technology Transfer, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 43–65.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ibid., Souder, Nashar, and Padmanabhan.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ibid., Souder, Nashar, and Padmanabhan.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Adams, M., M.S. Spann, and W.E. Souder (1992).Sponsors', Developers', and Adopters' Perceived Barriers to Transferring Federal Technologies. Paper under review at the Journal of Engineering and Technical Management.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Souder, W.E., and V. Padmanabhan (October–November 1989).Transferring New Technologies from R&D to Manufacturing. Research Technology Management, Vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 38–43.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ibid., Calantone, Lee, and Gross.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ibid., Johnsrud, Thornton, and Horak.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morone, J., and R. Ivins (May 1982).Problems and Opportunities in Technology Transfer from the National Laboratories to Industry. Research Management, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 35–44.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ibid., Souder, Nashar, and Padmanabhan.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ibid., Souder and Padmanabhan.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Swyt, D. (Fall 1988).Transferring NBS Technology to Small Manufacturers Through State and Local Centers. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 13, pp. 7–13.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ibid., Weijo.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ibid., Wyden.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hibino, S., and G. Nadler (1980). “TOTALS”: Transfer of Technology Approached Logically and Systematically. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 11–28.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jung, W. (1980).Basic Concepts for the Evaluation of Technology Transfer Benefits. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 37–49.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    O'Brien, T.C., and L.M. Frank (1981).Evaluation Framework for Federal Technology Transfer Initiatives. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 73–86.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Large, D.W., and D.W. Barclay (1992).Technology Transfer to the Private Sector: A Field Study of Manufacturer Buying Behavior. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 26–43.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Creighton, J.W., J.A. Jolly, and T.A. Buckles (1985).The Manager's Role in Technology Transfer.Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 67–75.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ibid., Souder, Nashar, and Padmanabhan.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Block, Z., and I. MacMillan (1985).Growing Concerns: Milestones and Successful Venture Planning. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 63, No. 5, pp. 184–191.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Miller, A., B. Wilson, and M. Adams (1988).Financial Performance Patterns of New Ventures: An Alternative to Traditional Measures. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 287–299.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tsai, W.M., I.C. MacMillan, and M.B. Low (1991).Effects of Strategy and Environment of Corporate Venture Success in Industrial Markets. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 9–28.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bourgeois, L.J. (1980).Performance and Consensus. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 227–248.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dess, G. (1980).The Relationship Between Objective and Subjective Measures of Manufacturers' Competitive Environments: Implications for Firm Economic Performance. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington Graduate School of Business.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hambrick, D. (1983).An Empirical Typology of Mature Industrial-Product Environments. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 213–230.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Babbie, E. (1983).The Practice of Social Research, third ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishers.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ibid., Souder, Nashar, and Padmanabhan.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ibid., Souder, Nashar, and Padmanabhan.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    DeNardo, A.L. (April 22–26, 1991).Technology Transfer Mechanisms for the National Aero-Space Plan (NASP). SAE Technical Paper 911202, presented at the SAE Aerospace Atlantic Conference, Dayton, OH.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Merrifield, B.A. (1988).Industrial Survival via Management Technology. Journal of Business Venturmg, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 177–185.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Technology Transfer Society 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary S. Spann
    • 1
  • Mel Adams
    • 1
  • William E. Souder
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Management and Marketing at the University of Alabama in HuntsvilleUSA
  2. 2.Center for the Management of Science and TechnologyUniversity of Alabama in HuntsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations