Table of Contents

Technology transfer, for the most part, is being practiced in a passive mode, much like a retail operation or mail-order catalog offering. All technologies “for sale” are named, described in some way, listed, and published. They’re displayed in the store window in hopes of attracting passers-by who will say, “That’s just the technology I need!”

Various government organizations, funded by statutory programs, provide “soft” activities that include training and education, facilitating communication, coordinating contacts, encouraging positive environments, increasing dialogue, enhancing collaboration, and measuring performance. The six Technology Transfer Centers “interface” with small companies in their regions. The centers call the companies’ attention to relevant technologies that are available from federal laboratories and are already readily accessible in today’s “e-conomy”.

Some large companies, such as General Electric, Kerr-McGee, Gillette, Eastman Chemical, and Milliken, have forward scouts looking for new technologies that may affect their business in some way, so that they can “take a window”.

Some agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), promote selected technologies with publications that include writeups and pictures (e.g., “a fastener that provides improved corrosion”, if that is what a company is seeking [1]). Meetings and conferences aimed at technology transfer are held by AFRL and others, including the National Technology Transfer Center, the National Center for Excellence in Metalworking Technology, the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Conference Center, and the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.

Cooperative R&D agreements (CRADAs) occasionally combine other agendas with the nominal goal of funding scientific research in worthy fields. SBIR programs and Small Business Technology Transfer Research (STTR) focus more on “converting science to technology” (in the words of the Technology Transfer Society’s fall 1997 symposium title) than on technology transfer. For example, the Air Force–sponsored STTR contract’s Phase I requires proving or evaluating a concept, Phase II calls for developing a lab prototype or production process, and finally, Phase III is “expected to have a wide range of uses” or “commercialization”. STTR programs do not commercialize the results of successful R&D—they don’t transfer technology at all, but fund more R&D on the assurance that as one executive put it, “Many additional applications are anticipated as the company’s scientists continue to refine their understanding of the technology.” Maybe.

Doing the R&D work comes before the fact; finding companies that will be interested in the technology and negotiating licenses are “implementation mechanics” that come after the fact. The heart of technology transfer must be to identify the promising market applications for the developed technology. Then, it is a short and obvious step to find the companies that make a business out of serving those markets.

The hard part

The front part is done, the back part is easy; technology transfer is the hard part. The federal government does not have a mechanism for taking the initiative in deploying technologies in the commercial market.

A reliable process for technology transfer is used by industry, especially the chemical processing industry (where there is arguably the greatest need). The process is called “commercializing new technologies”. Chemical companies call technology transfer the practice of donating unwanted technologies to universities. A survey of a cross-section of 140 companies in June 1998 by BTG International (London) found that a typical company ignores more than 35% of its patents (2) and puts them up for adoption.

Chemical companies have great incentives to expand the market applications of their new technologies because they devote a great deal of R&D effort to developing new materials, polymers, fibers, particles, films, coatings, and processes—and they are usually successful. In addition, large volumes are required to support the investment in plants and equipment to make the product at an acceptable cost. This usually means developing applications for variations of the basic material, to exploit different markets.

Industry’s technology commercialization process, which could well be adopted by the government, consists of six steps.

1. Selecting a particular technology to commercialize.
2. Inviting six to eight broadly experienced outside experts in relevant fields to participate in an innovation session.
3. Preparing the experts in advance, so they have time to do their homework.
4. Conducting the innovation session to generate an array of possibilities.
5. Bringing together six to eight inside experts, who know the most about the technology, to modify and improve the outsiders’ ideas and evaluate them for their practicality.
6. Validating the winning market applications and then implementing commercialization—that is, finding the first and best prospective customers and developing the technology to meet their specifications.

Do’s and don’ts

When you make a phone call in Europe and are put on hold, there is often a recording.

• The Germans tell you what to do: “Bitte warten.”
• The French tell you what not to do: “Ne quittez pas.”
• The British tell you what they are doing: “Your call is being dealt with.”

Here are some suggestions of what to do and what not to do to commercialize new technologies.

1. Select the technology. There are only three kinds of technologies:

• those that are dedicated solely to one application and have no other possible use (e.g., most fine chemicals, agricultural chemicals, paper chemicals, and pharmaceutical intermediates);
• those that have no practical application at all (after all, “only one out of every 6000 scientific findings generates a commercially viable new product” [3]); and
• those that indeed possess multiple applications—these are the only type that warrants technology transfer efforts.

To take the initiative, you have to concentrate on one technology at a time, or at most, a group of technologies that are complementary and represent a single skill base. That’s done in either of two ways:

• The chief technology officer (CTO) selects the top five or six candidate technologies in the R&D lab, and the respective “champions” (i.e., the inventors) make a brief presentation to the management group. The obvious choice surfaces naturally.
• The CTO and top management make the choice on the basis of available evidence and intuition (don’t discount it), with respect to uniqueness and versatility of the candidate technologies.

2. Decide which experts to invite to the innovation session. You have half of the needed experts inside: your own scientists and engineers who developed the technology and know how it works. You need the other half of the equation: what the technology might work on. For this, you need outside experts.

To acquire insights on possible applications for your technology, you need perceptive individuals with experience-based knowledge of market requirements in fields that, in your judgment, may be fruitful to explore. These people might include industrial executives, consulting engineers, trade journal editors, professors, authors, management consultants, professionals (e.g., architects and eye surgeons), and so forth. As an example, see the box “Innovation session experts” for a list of experts who participated in a recent innovation session devoted to uncovering promising applications for high-performance surface-treatment technologies.

3. Prepare the outside experts in advance. What not to do is to bring the group together and brief them at that time. If you do,

• they will ask questions, and you will lose control of the discussion;
• you will lose time that could be spent generating possible solutions;
• you will use up their attention span—in my experience and that of my colleagues, the human brain can operate at high intensity for 3–4 hours, and that’s all; and
• most important, you lose the “soak time” that you would have gained if you had briefed the experts in advance, and given them the opportunity to consider your questions and talk to colleagues.

To prepare the experts in advance, send each one an easy-to-read, jargon-free, nontechnical briefing doc

Guidelines for participation in an innovation session
Do	Don’t
Accept that there are numerous right answers.	Don’t seek just one answer.
You have pieces of a lot of answers—say your piece.	Don’t be shy.
Others have other pieces; listen and let them have their say.	Don’t dismiss or ignore others’ contributions.
Stay positive. Support new ideas and encourage modification and improvements.	Don’t criticize or shoot down other ideas.
Keep the discussion moving. The goal is to generate quantity and variety.	Don’t dwell on any one topic or idea.
Take a lead and go way-out with your thinking.	Don’t be constrained by conventional thinking.
Talk to the group, not a person.	Don’t engage in side conversations.
Allow one person at a time to talk.	Don’t interrupt.
Stay loose; relax and enjoy.	Don’t be too careful or cover your flank. You are in a safe place.
Keep punching; hang in there.	Don’t fold your cards after the first few plays.
Speak up.	Don’t mumble.
Use clear, understandable language.	Don’t use acronyms or jargon.
Adapted from “Guidelines for productive participation in an innovation session”, Strategic Innovations International, 1995. Used with permission.

ument that sets forth the functions, features, and benefits offered by your technology, devoid of details, acronyms, and formulas that are understood by few and of interest to even fewer. The briefing document is a translation job. Claim functions, features, and benefits that you have never reached with your new technology, but probably could if there were a need and you really tried. Suggest several possible paths, and ask lots of questions. Your experts can then load their minds and be prepared to contribute their best in the innovation session.

4. Conduct the innovation session. What not to do is allow an inside expert to orchestrate the search for applications for his or her technology. The inside expert knows too much. The outside experts will ask questions; and the insider will give answers. You are not looking for right answers and good ideas at this stage, and you need to avoid judgmental attitudes. You are seeking the maximum number of possibilities, which can be reviewed later for quality.

The innovation session should be led by an individual who is skilled and experienced at managing group dynamics, and that’s all. The rules in the box, “Guidelines for productive participation in an innovation session”, apply.

5. Convene a meeting of inside experts. The next step is not screening and evaluating the possible applications proposed by the outside experts. The applications cannot withstand such scrutiny yet. The first effort by the inside experts (who understand how their technology could be modified to suit requirements) must be devoted to improving, perfecting, and refining the outsiders’ ideas. This meeting can be led by the individual who led the innovation session.

After the inside experts have done their best to adapt and refine the possible applications of the technology, it is time to evaluate the likelihood that they can be developed for those uses from available data.

6. Validate and initiate market research and commercialization. There is no substitute for doing sufficient research to quantify the market potential of the front-running applications of the technology. In the course of that investigation, you will uncover the companies that operate in those fields.

Now, the experts on the capabilities of technology can meet with the market experts about the specifications of the technology for each application. At this point, laboratory development, scale-up, and field trials can proceed. Meanwhile, your licensing executives can introduce themselves to their counterparts in the organization of prospective licensees.

And you can move on to the next technology transfer project.

References

1. Pre-coated Fasteners Provide Improved Corrosion for Military and Commercial Aircraft. AFRL Technology Horizons, March 2000, p 10.
2. WHAT’S NEWS—Business and Finance. The Wall Street Journal, June 18, 1998, p 1.
3. Page, M. A.; Page, C. H. Contestants, Contestants Everywhere. Boardroom Reports, March 2000, p 60.

Frederick D. Buggie is president of Strategic Innovations Inc. (stratinnov@aol.com; www.StrategicInnovations.com). He founded Strategic Innovations 25 years ago in Westport, CT, and the company now also has offices in the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Switzerland. It specializes in market screening and commercializing unique and versatile technologies.