Barriers and Bridges for Successful Environmental Technology Transfer
Governmental policy, social factors, individual behavior, and technology play critical roles in improving the environment. The Department of Defense is not immune to these factors as its actions have, and will continue, to impact its operational environments.
This research analyzes the technological aspect of improving environmental conditions. Of particular interest, are the barriers encountered when laboratories transfer environmental technology to an end-user, and the bridges used to mitigate these barriers. A case study methodology is utilized analyzing five environmental technology transfers within the U.S. Air Force.
Several key barriers and bridges are specific to the transfer of environmental technologies. They include environmental regulatory agency oversight, difficulty in clearly defining the end-user, and the need to demonstrate technologies to potential end-users. However, many barriers and bridges encountered in the environmental technology transfer, are also encountered in the transfer of other technologies. Based on these findings, recommendations are provided for improving the environmental technology transfer process.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Baron, S., 1990, ‘Overcoming the Barriers to Technology Transfer,’ Research Technology Management, 33(1), 38–43.Google Scholar
- Carr, R.K., 1992a, ‘Doing Technology Transfer in Federal Laboratories, Part 1,’ Journal of Technology Transfer, 17(2: 3), 8–23.Google Scholar
- Carr, R.K., 1992b, ‘Menu of Best Practices in Technology Transfer, Part 2,’ Journal of Technology Transfer, 17(2: 3), 24–33.Google Scholar
- Creighton, J.W., J.A. Jolly, and T.A. Buckles, 1985, ‘The Manager's Role in Technology Transfer,’ Journal of Technology Transfer, 10(1), 65–81.Google Scholar
- Edwards, R.L., 1994, ‘The Industrial Revitalization Forum Program: Successful Industry/University Cooperation,’ Journal of Technology Transfer, 19(2), 43–46.Google Scholar
- General Accounting Office (GAO), 1995, ‘Military Bases: Environmental Impact at Closing Installations,’ Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
- Guilfoos, S.J., 1989, ‘Bashing the Technology Insertion Barriers,’ Air Force Journal of Logistics, 13(1), 27–32.Google Scholar
- Gummere, R.J., 1989, ‘The Technology Challenge of the Advanced Tactical Fighter: A Study of the Technology Transition Process,’ Masters Thesis, School of Systems and Logistics, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.Google Scholar
- Miles, M.B. and A.M. Huberman, 1994, Qualitative Data Analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- National Science and Technology Council, 1994, ‘Technology for a Sustainable Future: A Framework for Action,’ Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
- Smilor, R.W. and D.V. Gibson, 1991 ‘Technology Transfer in Multi-Organizational Environments: The Case of R&D Consortia,’ IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 38(1), 3–13.Google Scholar
- Souder, W.E., A.S. Nasher, and V. Padmanabhan, 1990, ‘A Guide to the Best Technology Transfer Practices,’ Journal of Technology Transfer, 15(1: 2), 5–16.Google Scholar
- Spann, M.S., M. Adams, and W.E. Souder, 1993, ‘Improving Federal Technology Commercialization: Some Recommendations From a Field Study,'Journal of Technology Transfer, 18(3: 4), 63–74.Google Scholar
- Trott, P., M. Cordey-Hayes, and R.A.F. Seaton, 1995, ‘Inward Technology Transfer as an Interactive Process,’ Technovation, 15(1), 25–43.Google Scholar
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1993, ‘Corps of Engineers Technology Adoption Process (CETAP)Study,’ Washington, D. C.: USACE.Google Scholar
- Wood, O.L. and E.P. EerNisse, 1992, ‘Technology Transfer to the Private Sector from a Federal Laboratory,’ IEEE Engineering Management Review, 20(1), 23–28.Google Scholar