The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 28, Issue 3–4, pp 319–332 | Cite as

Systematic Technology Transfer: A Case Study in Assistive Technology

  • Vathsala I. Stone

Abstract

This paper presents the methodology and findings of a study currently underway at the Rehabilita-tion Engineering Research Center on Technology Transfer (T2 RERC). The program is federally funded to transfer needed technologies and products into the marketplace for persons with disabilities or Assistive Technology (A/T) marketplace. The study is a research effort to validate an innovative approach to technology transfer through its application to the field of A/T. It focuses on the feasibility, effectiveness and efficiency of the model processes as well as a description of how they work. Stakeholder involvement is fundamental to the model. The operating model is judged against the proposed model, rather than against an external model. Design validity is improved by providing a causal chain of Carriers that link intermediate outcomes to final outcome. Quantitative and qualitative data generate case studies that report on the validated model version. Findings include outcomes (transferred technologies and devices), their time to success/failure and effort expended in the transfer at the current stage of the program. We also include examples of the Carriers used, the Barriers encountered and the Best Practices established.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baskerville, R. and J. Pries-Heje, 1997, ‘IT Diffusion and Innovation Models: The Conceptual Domains,’ in T. McMaster, E. Mumford, E.B. Swanson, B. Warboys, and D. Wastell, (eds.), Facilitating Technology Transfer through Partnership: Learning from Practice and Research, London: Chapman & Hall, pp. 23–38.Google Scholar
  2. Bauer, S.M., J.P. Lane, V.I. Stone, and J. Buczak, 2002, ‘A Systematic Process for Successful Technology Transfer,’ Proceedings of the RESNA 2002 Annual Conference, Arlington, RESNAPRESS, pp. 309–311.Google Scholar
  3. Bogan, C.E. and M.J. English, 1994, Benchmarking for Best Practices: Winning Through Innovative Adaptation, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Camp, R.C., 1989, Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices that Lead to Superior Performance, Milwaukee, Wis: Quality Press.Google Scholar
  5. Camp, R.C., 1995, Business Process Benchmarking, Milwaukee, Wis: ASQC Quality Press.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, D.T and J.C. Stanley, 1963, Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research, Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  7. Cook, T.D. and D.T. Campbell, 1979, Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings, Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  8. Cronbach, L.J., 1963, ‘Course Improvement through Evaluation,’ Teachers College Record 64, 672–683.Google Scholar
  9. Guba, E.G. and Y.S. Lincoln, 1985, Effective Evaluation, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass publishers.Google Scholar
  10. The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, 1994, The Program Evaluation Standards (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Lane, J.P., 1999, ‘Understanding Technology Transfer,’ Assistive Technology 11(1), Arlington, RESNAPRESS, pp. 5–19.Google Scholar
  12. Lane, J.P., 2000, ‘Applications for a Technology Transfer Model,’ Proceedings of the RESNA 2000 Annual Conference, Arlington, RESNAPRESS, pp. 282–284.Google Scholar
  13. Leahy, J.A. and J.L. Lane, 2002, ‘Paths to Market,’ Proceedings of the RESNA 2002 Annual Conference, Arlington, RESNAPRESS, pp. 204–206.Google Scholar
  14. McNair C.J. and K.H.J. Liebfried, 1992, Benchmarking: A Tool for Continuous Improvement, New York: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Mohr, L.B., 1995, Impact Analysis for Program Evaluation, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Mohr, L.B., 1999, ‘The Qualitative Method of Impact Analysis,’ American Journal of Evaluation 20(1), Stamford: Jai Press Inc, pp. 69–84.Google Scholar
  17. Patton, M.Q., 1990, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.), Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Rogers, E.M., 1995, Diffusion of Innovations (4th ed.), New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  19. Scriven, M., 1973, ‘The Methodology of Evaluation,’ in B.R. Worthen and J.R. Sanders (eds.), Educational Evaluation: Theory and Practice, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  20. Scriven, M., 1976, ‘Maximizing the Power of Causal Investigations: The Modus Operandi Method,’ in: G.V. Glass (ed.), Evaluation Studies Review Annual 1, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 343–355.Google Scholar
  21. Stake, R.E., 1973, ‘The Countenance of Educational Evaluation,’ in: B.R. Worthen and J.R. Sanders (eds.), Educational Evaluation: Theory and Practice, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  22. Stake, R.E., 1995, The Art of Case Study Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Stake, R.E., 2000, ‘Case Studies,’ in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 435–454.Google Scholar
  24. Stone, V.I. and J.P. Lane, 2002, ‘Critical Success Factors in Technology Transfer,’ Proceedings of the RESNA 2002 Annual Conference, Arlington, RESNAPRESS, pp. 207–209.Google Scholar
  25. Stufflebeam, D.L. and A.J. Shinkfield, 1985, Systematic Evaluation: A Self-instructional Guide to Theory and Practice, Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. T2RERC website: http: //cosmos. buffalo. edu/t2rerc/.Google Scholar
  27. Worthen, B.R. and J.R. Sanders, 1973, Educational Evaluation: Theory and practice, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  28. Worthen, B.R., J.R. Sanders, and J.L. Fitzpatrick, 1997, Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines, White Plains, NY: Longman, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vathsala I. Stone
    • 1
  1. 1.RERC on Technology Transfer, Center for Assistive TechnologyUniversity at BuffaloBuffalo

Personalised recommendations