Technology Transfer Issues and a New Technology Transfer Model 49 T Hee Jun Choi h e J o u r n a The following are major issues that should Accordingly, this article will propose a new inte- l o f be considered for efficient and effective technol- grated model of technology transfer that reflects T e ogy transfer: conceptions of technology, techno- recipients’ perspectives by considering the key c h n logical activity and transfer, communication components for enhancing technology transfer. o l o channels, factors affecting transfer, and models In order to achieve this purpose, this paper first g y S of transfer. In particular, a well-developed model focused on understanding implications that are t u d of technology transfer could be used as a frame- necessary to identifying the main components i e work for facilitating a technology transfer for effective technology transfer by reviewing s process. There are many popular models of tech- and analyzing the main issues related to technol- nology transfer; examples include the appropri- ogy transfer. ability model, the dissemination model, the knowledge utilization model, the contextual Technology Concepts, Technological Activity, and collaboration model, the material transfer model, Technology Transfer the design transfer model, and the capacity Defining technology is paramount because transfer model (Rogers, 2003; Ruttan & Hayami, it helps to identify phenomena related to tech- 1973; Sung & Gibson, 2005; Tenkasi & nology transfer. Since the 1960s, many scholars Mohrman, 1995). According to the appropriabil- have tried to understand the real meaning of ity model, purposive attempts to transfer tech- technology using different underlying philoso- nologies are unnecessary, because good tech- phies (DeVore, 1987; Frey, 1987; Galbraith, nologies sell themselves. Regarding the dissemi- 1967; Mitcham, 1980; Skolimowski, 1966). The nation model, the perspective is that transfer definitions or meanings of technology these processes can be successful when experts trans- authors proposed were unique, according to their fer specialized knowledge to a willing recipient. context, philosophy, economy, or other variables. The knowledge utilization model emphasizes This implies that it might not be that simple to strategies that effectively deliver knowledge to define technology because technology is situa- the recipients. A contextual collaboration model tion and value specific. However, the concept of is based on the constructivist idea that knowl- technology should be outlined in order to under- edge cannot be simply transmitted, but it should stand what is being transferred in a technology be subjectively constructed by its recipients. The transfer process. Two approaches have been used material transfer model focuses on the simple to comprehend technology: one is to define transfer of new materials, such as machinery, technology in a way of capturing the platonic seeds, tools, and the techniques associated with essence in a few sentences by differentiating the use of the materials. According to the design technology from science, and the other is to pro- transfer model, transfer of designs, such as blue- vide characterizations of technology. Scholars, prints and tooling specifications, should accom- such as Skolimowski (1966), Galbraith (1967), pany the technology itself for effective technolo- and DeVore (1987) might be the representatives gy transfer. The capacity transfer model empha- of the former approach. Skolimowski (1966) sizes the transfer of knowledge, which provides defined technology as a form of human knowl- recipients with the capability to design and pro- edge and a process of creating new realities. He duce a new technology on their own. argued that science is concerned with what is, but technology is concerned with what is to be. These models were developed and used to Later, Galbraith (1967) defined technology as make technology transfer successful. A success- the systematic application of scientific or other ful transfer of technology, however, might not be organized knowledge to practical tasks. This guaranteed simply by using a particular model. definition is notable because it emphasizes the In addition, the previously mentioned models of systematic and practical aspects of technology. technology transfer tend to be fragmented rather DeVore (1987), a major scholar, made an effort than integrated. This implies that a new model to define technology. He argued that technology of technology transfer should be developed that should create the human capacity to “do,” and includes novel and macro viewpoints. it should be used to create new and useful products, devices, machines, or systems. He also ultimate outcome of a technology activity as the 50 emphasized the relationship between technology extension of human capabilities through the cre- and social purpose. He contended that technolo- ation of artifact, knowledge, and process. This s e i gy has always been situated directly in the social view is very important because it implies that d u t milieu and conditioned by values, attitudes, and technology can be used to improve both system S y economic factors; thus, the goal of technology is and individual performance; thus, it can be a g o l the pursuit of knowledge and know-how for spe- tool for Human Resource Development (HRD) o n h cific social ends. interventions. c e T f o In contrast, some scholars criticized defining Markert’s (1993) definition of technology l a n technology in a few sentences. They argued for transfer is the most typical - she defined tech- r u o providing characterizations of technology. Frey nology transfer as the development of a technol- J e (1987) could be considered the most typical ogy in one setting that is then transferred for use h T advocator of this approach. In 1987, he character- in another setting. However, this definition does ized technology as four elements: object, process, not reflect a deep comprehension of technology knowledge, and volition. Technology as object is transfer, because it is mostly focused on differ- regarded as the concept of physical embodiments, entiating technology development from utiliza- involving tools, machines, consumer products, tion. To overcome the disadvantage of this defi- instruments, or any objects that have intentionally nition, Johnson, Gatz, and Hicks (1997) tried to been created to extend practical human possibili- interpret technology transfer through a holistic ties. Moreover, technology as an object may be perspective that included both the movement of tangible and focused on efficiency. Technology as technology from the site of origin to the site of process is concerned with how to use or develop use and issues concerning the ultimate accept- the object effectively. From the systems perspec- ance and use of the technology by the end user. tive, technology as process would be a means to They argued that recognizing the end user’s improve the system’s performance. Skolimowski needs and the context where the technology will (1966) also supported this knowledge viewpoint be used is essential for the successful transfer of when he stated that technology is a form of technology. Technology transfer is not the same human knowledge. According to Mitcham process and perception for everybody. (1980), volition, which incorporates aims, inten- Universities, corporations, federal labs, and tions, desires, and choices, provides links to tie developing countries have different roles and together the three aspects of technology: object, interests in technology transfer. For example, process, and knowledge. All technologies are universities, as a provider of technology, view influenced by human intention. In other words, technology transfer as a means for serving a when, how, and why technology will be used community through knowledge sharing. On the depends on human intention and will. other hand, technology transfer is regarded as a Consequently, technology as volition emphasizes way to obtain competitive advantages through the human element and culture within technology. performance improvements in corporations that are the recipients of this technology. Like this, According to DeVore (1987), the range of the perception of technology transfer in each site technological activity includes everything from would be different. According to Frey (1987), problem identification to the design and imple- technology can be an object, a process, or mentation of solutions. This involves not only knowledge that is created by human intention. In technical or physical elements but also human most cases, technology tends to be the integra- elements. Savage and Skerry (1990) argued that tion of all three components: object, process, the ultimate outcome of technological activity is and knowledge. Therefore, a provider of tech- the solution derived from the problem-solving nology should try to transfer the integration of activity undertaken by humans through the use all components that make up that technology, of technological processes and resources. The not just one component. model of technology activity that Johnson, Gatz, and Hicks (1997) proposed seems to be based Diffusion of Technology Innovations on the open-systems model composed of inputs, According to Rogers (2003), diffusion is the transformations, outputs, environment, and feed- process by which an innovation is communicat- back. Their model consists of inputs, personal ed through certain channels over time among the problem solving environment, outputs,