Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding the environs that impact technology transfer and transition

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since the mythical time of King Arthur, technology transfer has interested governments. Arthurian history revels in the exploits of the knights as they search for the Holy Grail. Always, it seems, finding it must mean the end to poverty, hunger, illness-all the sufferings of the kingdom. In early renditions of the legend, the Grail was a set of magical talismans to be stolen from the Celtic otherworld. With the coming of Christianity, the Grail evolved into a eucharistic vessel.

This paper focuses on the differences between technology transfer and technology transition while simultaneously emphasizing the impact of laboratory mission on the perceived importance of each task. The conceptual model presented highlights the difficulties inherent in changing the culture at federal laboratories.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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. Antonini, Joseph E. “Organizational Renewal is More Than a New Logo.” Arthur Andersen & Co. SC:Retail Issues Newsletter 5, no. 3 (May–June 1993): 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barley, Stephen R. “Semiotics and the Study of Occupational and Organizational Cultures.”Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (1983): 393–413.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Belk, Russell W.Manifesto for a Consumer Behavior of Consumer Behavior in Scientific Method in Marketing, edited by Paul Anderson and Michael J. Ryan, 163–167. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Berry, Leonard L. “Organizational Renewal is More Than a New Logo.” Arthur Andersen & Co. SC:Retail Issues Newsletter 5, No. 3 (May–June 1993): 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Branscomb, Lewis M. “Does America Need a Technology Policy?”Harvard Business Review (March–April 1992): 24–31.

  6. Burgelman, Robert A. “A Process Model of Internal Corporate Venturing in the Diversified Major Firm.”Administrative Science Quarterly (June 1983) 28: 223–244.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Carr Robert K. “Doing Federal Technology Transfer (Part 1).”The Journal of Technology Transfer 17, nos. 2 & 3 (Spring-Summer 1992): 8–23.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Carr, Robert K. “Menu of Best Practices (Part 2).”The Journal of Technology Transfer 17, nos. 2 & 3 (Spring-Summer 1992): 24–39.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Clancy, Tom.The Sum of All Fears, 435 New York: Jack Ryan Enterprises, Ltd., the Berkely Publishing Group, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Coursey, David, and Barry Bozeman. “Technology Transfer in U.S. Government and University Laboratories: Advantages and Disadvantages for Participating Laboratories.”IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 39, no. 4 (November 1992): 347–351.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Deshpande, Rohit, “Paradigms Lost: On Theory and Method in Research in Marketing.”Journal of Marketing 47 (Fall 1983): 101–110.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Deshpande, Rohit, John U. Farley, and Frederick E. Webster, Jr. “Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation, and Innovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad Analysis.”Journal of Marketing 57 (January 1993): 23–27.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Eng, Sherri. “Federal Labs Roll out the Red Carpet for Business.”Investor's Business Daily (May 18, 1993): 4.

  14. Executive Order 12591.Facilitating Access to Science and Technology. (April 10, 1987).

  15. Feick, Lawrence F., and Linda L. Price. “The Market Maven: A Diffuser of Marketplace Information.”Journal of Marketing 51 (January 1987): 83–97.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ford, David and Chris Ryan, “Taking Technology to Market.”Harvard Business Review, Vol. 59 (March–April 1981): 117–126.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Geertz, Clifford. Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture, inThe Interpretation of Cultures, edited by Clifford Geertz, 231–267. New York: Basic Books (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gupta, A.K., and D.L. Wilemon. “Accelerating the Development of Technology-Based New Products.”IEEE Journal of Engineering Management Review (1990): 23–33.

  19. Hammer Michael and James Champy.Reengineering The Corporation. New York, Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Holbrook, Morris B., and Elizabeth Hirschman. “The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun.”Journal of Consumer Research 9, no. 2 (1982): 132–140.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Howell, Jane M., and Christopher A. Higgins. “Championts of Technological Innovation.”Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (June 1990): 317–341.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kesting, W. Roy “Product Development and the Science of Chaos.”The Journal of Technology Transfer 18, nos. 1 & 2 (Winter-Spring 1993): 22–31.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kotler, Philip. “Analyzing the Marketing Environment.” inMarketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control, 150–171. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. GubaNaturalistic Inquiry. Bevely Hills: Sage, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Public Law 96-480.Stevenson-Wydler Act 1980. Title 15, Section 3701-3714. October 21, 1980.

  26. Public Law 99-953.Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1986. 1986.

  27. Public Law 100-519.National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act for FY 1989. 1989.

  28. Rood, Sally A. “Legislative-Policy Initiatives As a Problem-Solving Process: The Case of Technology Transfer.”The Journal of Technology Transfer (Winter 1989): 14–25.

  29. Schriesheim, Alan. “Toward a Golden Age for Technology Transfer.”Issues in Science and Technology 7, no. 2 (1991): 52–55.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sexton, Donald L., and S. Michael Camp. “Technology Transfer and Value Creation.”The Journal of Technology Transfer 17, nos. 2 & 3 (Spring-Summer 1992): 68–76.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Spivey, W. Austin, J. Michael Munson, and William T. Flannery. “Interest in Technology Transfer across Academic Disciplines: Publication Trends, 1981 thru 1989.”The Journal of Technology Transfer 15, no. 3 (Summer 1990): 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Thompson, Craig J., William B. Locander, and Howard R. Pollio. “Putting Consumer Experience Back into Consumer Research: The Philosophy and Method of Existential-Phenomenology.”Journal of Consumer Research 16 (September 1989): 133–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tornatzky, Louis G., J. D. Eveland, Myles G. Boylan, William A. Hetzner, Elmima C. Johnson, David Roitman, and Janet Schneider.The Process of Technological Innovation: Reviewing the Literature. National Science Foundation, 1983.

  34. Von Hippel Eric “Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts.”Management Science 32, no. 7 (July 1986): 352–366.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Zhao, Liming, and Arnold Reisman. “Toward Meta Research on Technology Transfer.”IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 39, no. 1 (February 1992): 13–21.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. W. Austin Spivey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Michael Munson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William T. Flannery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Spivey, W.A., Munson, J.M. & Flannery, W.T. Understanding the environs that impact technology transfer and transition. J Technol Transfer 19, 63–73 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02371414

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02371414

Keywords

Search

Navigation