Energy technology transfer to China.

Item 1070-M

Technology transfer to China.

Item 1070-M

Identification of success and failure factors for technology transfer in biotechnology: case studies and surveys from Academic Sinica in Taiwan

Academia Sinica is the leading research institute in Taiwan founded in 1928. Its Office of Technology Transfer (OTT) was established in 1998. It made great efforts to dramatically turn around the technology transfer activity of Academia Sinica, especially in biotechnology. Academia Sinica has more than 80 cases of experience in biotechnology transfer with companies in Taiwanese industry in the past five years. The purpose of this study is to identify potential success and failure factors for biotechnology transfer in Taiwan. Eight cases were studied through in-depth interview. The results of the analysis were used to design two surveys to further investigate 81 cases (48 successful and 33 failure cases) of biotechnology transfer in Academia Sinica from 1999–2003. The results indicated that 10 of the 14 success factors were cited in more than 40% of the cases as contributing to the success of technology transfer. By contrast, only 5 out of 16 key factors were present in more than 30% of the failure cases.

International technology transfer and collaborative new product development:evidence and a case from the machine tool industry

In recent years, it has become increasingly common for companies to improve their competitiveness and find new markets by extending their operations through international new product development collaborations involving technology transfer. Technology development, cost reduction and market penetration are seen as the foci in such collaborative operations with the aim being to improve the competitive position of both partners. In this paper, the case of technology transfer through collaborative new product development in the machine tool sector is used to provide a typical example of such partnerships. The paper outlines the links between the operational aspects of collaborations and their strategic objectives. It is based on empirical data collected from the machine tool industries in the UK and China. The evidence includes longitudinal case studies and questionnaire surveys of machine tool manufacturers in both countries. The specific case of BSA Tools Ltd and its Chinese partner the Changcheng Machine Tool Works is used to provide an in-depth example of the operational development of a successful collaboration. The paper concludes that a phased coordination of commercial, technical and strategic interactions between the two partners is essential for such collaborations to work.

International technology transfer:perceptions and reality of quality and reliability

Impressions about product quality and reliability can depend as much on perceptions about brands and country of origin as on data regarding performance and failure. This has implications for companies in developing countries that need to compete with importers. For manufacturers in industrialised countries it has implications for the value of transferred technologies. This article considers the issue of quality and reliability when technology is transferred between countries with different levels of development. It is based on UK and Chinese company case studies and questionnaire surveys undertaken among three company groups: UK manufacturers; Chinese manufacturers; Chinese users. Results show that all three groups recognise quality and reliability as important and support the premise that foreign technology based machines made in China carry a price premium over Chinese machines based on local technology. Closer examination reveals a number of important differences concerning the perceptions and reality of quality and reliability between the groups.

University to business technology transfer — UK and USA comparisons

University to business technology transfer offers specific challenges, beyond those encountered in industry more widely. This paper examines the issues in university to business technology transfer in the UK and USA and presents the results of a survey of UK and US university technology transfer officers. Findings indicate significant differences in the motivations of universities in each country to transfer technology, the consistency of university technology transfer policies and the accessibility of university technologies to business. The study also looks at perceived barriers to university to business technology transfer and offers suggestions for possible improvements to the process. © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

From national innovation systems to national innovation capacity:internationalisation and technology transfer perspectives

The last decade or so has witnessed the emergence of the national innovation system (NIS) phenomenon. Since then, many scholars have investigated NIS and its implementation in different countries. However, there are very few investigations into the relationship between the NIS of a country and its national innovation capacity. This paper aims to make a contribution in this area by examining the link that currently exists between these two topics. Whilst examining this relationship, we also explore internationalisation and technology transfer, being cognate areas that have been investigated during the same period. This follows our assertion that the link between NIS and national innovation capacity is the mechanism of internationalisation and technology transfer. The NIS approach was introduced in the late 1980s (see Freeman, 1987; Dosi et al., 1988) and further elaborated later (see Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1993; Edquist, 1997). In essence, a country?s NIS is a historically grown subsystem of the entire national economy consisting of organisations and institutions which play a major role in the innovative activity in the country. In the NIS approach, interactions within organisations as well as the interplay between organisations and institutions are of central importance. The NIS approach has been used to reveal the structure of the innovation processes and the main actors involved in them in industrialised and emerging countries. Although the national focus remains strong, it has been accompanied by studies seeking to analyse the notion of systems of innovation at an international level and at a sub-national scale (Archibugi et al., 1999). Dosi in the edition of Archibugi et al. (1999) argues that the general background of the discussion of national systems is the observation of non-random distributions across countries of: corporate capabilities; organisational forms; strategies; and ultimately revealed performances, in terms of production efficiency and inputs productivities, rates of innovation, rates of adoption/diffusion of innovation themselves, dynamics of market shares on the world markets, growth of income and employment. They also mention that there are several approaches to NIS. Nelson (1993) focuses upon the specificities of national institutions and policies supporting directly or indirectly innovation, diffusion and skills accumulation. Patel and Pavitt (1991) have stressed the links between the national patterns of technological accumulation and the competencies and innovative strategies of a few major national companies. Amable et al (1997) and Soskice (1993) and Zysman (1994) focus on the specifics of national institutions including, for example, the forms of organization, financial and labour markets, training institutions, forms of state intervention in the economy etc. However, the most common reference is by Lundvall (1992) who argues that the focus on the national level is associated with the fact that national economies vary according to their production system and their institutional framework and these differences are in turn strengthened by different historical experiences, language and culture. On the other hand, the national innovation capability consists of abilities to create and carry new technological possibilities through to economic practice. The term covers a wide range of activities from capability to invent to capability to innovate and to capability to improve existing technology beyond the original design parameters (Kim, 1997). The term innovation is often associated by many with technological change at international frontiers. However, technological capability is not the same as innovation capability. Technological capability refers to assimilation, use, adaptation, and change to existing technologies. It also enables the creation of new technologies and development of new products and processes in response to changing economic environments. It denotes operational command over knowledge (Kim, 1997). It is manifested not merely by the knowledge possessed, but, more important, by the uses to which that knowledge can be put and by the proficiency with which it is applied in the activities of investment and production and in the creation of new knowledge (Westphal et al., 1985). Therefore, the analytical framework that is used in this paper is based on the way a country derives from its NIS a national innovation capacity. There are two perspectives that are identified on this way. These are internationalisation and technology transfer. Even though NIS is not directly related to national innovation capacity, to achieve national innovation capacity from NIS, the country should have the ability for technology transfer. Technology transfer is a link between these two phenomena. On the other hand, internationalisation can be either the input or the output of the relationship between NIS and national innovation capability. If a company is investing in a country because of its national innovation capacity, this can be regarded as an input to the relationship between NIS and national innovation capacity. If this company is investigating the national innovation capacity of a country then, for its internationalisation, the national innovation capacity should be important, which in turn means this company is active in innovation and innovation is also an important success factor. The interrelationship between the investment of the company and the NIS of the country (assuming that the country is competent and competitive in technology transfer) will generate and improve that country?s national innovation capacity. This is the output of internationalisation from the relationship between NIS and national innovation capacity. When companies are evaluating whether to internationalise, they investigate certain factors in the countries in which they are considering to invest. The ability to transfer technology is dependent on ability to adopt a new technology and also on the learning derived from this technology. If countries wish to attract innovation related investment they need to show their ability to have a NIS and also the capability to transfer technology. Without the technology transfer capability, the NIS is not functioning. Therefore, companies that internationalise will investigate the factors common to NIS, technology transfer, and their business needs. Through this paper we will demonstrate this link though its mechanisms. Our research will be through extensive literature review and identifying relevant aspects of previous research carried out by the authors. It will investigate certain factors of different countries that are successful in attracting innovation related foreign direct investment. Through these, we will point out the factors that are important for the link and mechanisms of NIS and national innovation capability.

Technology transfer to China:a study of strategy in 20 EU industrial companies

Foreign direct investment has been important in China's economic development since the early 1980s. In recent years, the volume of inward FDI into China, according to some estimates, has been second only to that into the USA. The Chinese government has emphasised the need for FDI to be coupled with the transfer of more advanced technologies to China. For foreign companies, technology transfer raises the risk of losing their technology based competitive advantage to potential competitor firms. This risk may be exacerbated by insufficient legal protection of intellectual property rights in China. After briefly reviewing the development of Chinese official policy on technology transfer, this paper considers the strategy adopted by EU companies regarding the transfer of technology; in particular in advanced technology sectors. The research on which the paper is based included an analysis of information gathered from 20 leading EU companies with investments in China and operating in high-technology sectors. Information was gathered from senior company managers based in both China and Europe during the second half of 1998. The main findings include a measure of reluctance on the part of EU companies to transfer their core technologies to China and to base R&D capability there. At the same time, the companies appear aware that this policy may be unsustainable in the longer-term in the face of Chinese official policy and a desire to expand their operations in China. While they attempt to protect their existing technological knowledge, most of them accept that there will be technology "leakage" and therefore the most effective strategy is to maintain their technological lead through R&D.

Technology transfer under China’s economic reforms:business environment and success factors

The opening up of the Chinese economy and the associated transfer of technology from abroad have been taking place at an accelerating pace. Technology is crucial to China's industrial development. It is a productive resource and has a vital role in the process of economic and social development. This article provides an overview of technology transfer into China, focusing on recent developments, and examines the macroenvironmental and microenvironmental influences which foreign enterprises must consider when making investments or technology transfer decisions. Cases of companies engaged in international technology transfer are used to illustrate the discussion on the microenvironment. To be successful, foreign investors and suppliers of technology must respond to China's industrial priorities and pursue projects that are compatible with the country's broad policy goals as well as the corporate objectives of Chinese partners. The article concludes by listing a number of points to which attention should be paid before a decision is made to transfer technology to China.