Developing a Model for Government Technology Transfer Programs

Author(s):  
William S. Piper ◽  
Kimball P. Marshall
1989 ◽  
Vol 21 (6-7) ◽  
pp. 685-698
Author(s):  
J. J. Convery ◽  
J. F. Kreissl ◽  
A. D. Venosa ◽  
J. H. Bender ◽  
D. J. Lussier

Technology transfer is an important activity within the ll.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Specific technology transfer programs such as the activities of the Center for Environmental Research Information, the Innovative and Alternative Technology Program, as well as the Small Community Outreach Program are used to encourage the utilization of cost-effective municipal pollution control technology. Case studies of three technologies including a plant operations diagnostic/remediation methodology, alternative sewer technologies and ultraviolet disinfection are presented. These case studies are presented retrospectively in the context of a generalized concept of how technology flows from science to utilization which was developed in a study by Allen (1977). Additional insights from this study are presented on the information gathering characteristics of engineers and scientists which may be useful in designing technology transfer programs. The recognition of the need for a technology or a deficiency in current practice are important stimuli other than technology transfer for accelerating the utilization of new technology.


2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Paul V. Ellefson ◽  
Michael A. Kilgore ◽  
Kenneth E. Skog ◽  
Christopher D. Risbrudt

Transfer of technologies produced by research is critical to innovation within all organizations. The intent of this paper is to take stock of the conceptual underpinnings of technology transfer processes as they relate to wood utilization research and to identify conditions that promote the successful transfer of research results. Conceptually, research utilization can be viewed from multiple perspectives, including the haphazard diffusion of knowledge in response to vague and imprecise demands for information, scanning of multiple information sources by individuals and organizations searching for useful scientific knowledge, engagement of third parties to organize research results and communicate them to potential users, and ongoing and active collaboration between researchers and potential users of research. Empirical evidence suggests that various types of programs can promote technology transfer (venture capital, angel investors, business incubators, extension services, tax incentives, and in-house entities), the fundamental effectiveness of which depends on research results that are scientifically valid and consistent with the information needs of potential users. Furthermore, evidence suggests preference toward programs that are appropriately organized and governed, suitably led and creatively administered, and periodically evaluated in accordance with clear standards of success.


Author(s):  
Amelia Bryne Potter

There is no doubt that much digital divide work — including connectivity initiatives, technology transfer programs, and other projects — is done with good intention. Yet, as has been widely recognized, the conceptual framework of the digital divide is limiting. The language of the digital divide not only places people into simplistic “have”/“have not” categories, making assumptions about the solution to “information poverty” with little attention to local contexts, its logic also continues a paradigm of development that engages with the global south only at the point of what it “lacks”. I propose a framework, which provides a wider, and more nuanced, lens to look through. It focuses work in ways and in areas consistently overlooked by the digital divide, particularly on the realities, voices, and complexities within its unconnected, “have not” spaces — the zones of silence. Encouraging critical questioning of assumptions and an understanding of local contexts and points of view, a zones of silence framework is a way to broaden the dialogue on global communication and information access beyond a discourse of need, to one of mutual questioning, sharing, and learning. I begin with a brief critique of the digital divide, followed by a definition of this zones of silence framework and how it can help us to see and consider issues differently. I then suggest three areas where work from this perspective might begin.


First Monday ◽  
2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amelia Bryne Potter

There is no doubt that much digital divide work — including connectivity initiatives, technology transfer programs, and other projects — is done with good intention. Yet, as has been widely recognized, the conceptual framework of the digital divide is limiting. The language of the digital divide not only places people into simplistic “have”/“have not” categories, making assumptions about the solution to “information poverty” with little attention to local contexts, its logic also continues a paradigm of development that engages with the global south only at the point of what it “lacks”. I propose a framework, which provides a wider, and more nuanced, lens to look through. It focuses work in ways and in areas consistently overlooked by the digital divide, particularly on the realities, voices, and complexities within its unconnected, “have not” spaces — the zones of silence. Encouraging critical questioning of assumptions and an understanding of local contexts and points of view, a zones of silence framework is a way to broaden the dialogue on global communication and information access beyond a discourse of need, to one of mutual questioning, sharing, and learning. I begin with a brief critique of the digital divide, followed by a definition of this zones of silence framework and how it can help us to see and consider issues differently. I then suggest three areas where work from this perspective might begin.


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 229-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn M. Rose ◽  
Fiona Wills ◽  
Connie Bourassa-Shaw ◽  
Terri L. Butler ◽  
Jeanette Griscavage Ennis ◽  
...  

IntroductionThe Institute of Translational Health Sciences (ITHS), a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA)-funded program at the University of Washington (UW), established the Drug and Device Advisory Committee (DDAC) to provide product-specific scientific and regulatory mentoring to investigators seeking to translate their discoveries into medical products. An 8-year retrospective analysis was undertaken to evaluate the impact of the DDAC programs on commercialization metrics.MethodsTracked metrics included the number of teams who consulted with the DDAC, initiated a clinical trial, formed a startup, or were successful obtaining federal small business innovation awards or venture capital. The review includes historical comparisons of the startup rates for the UW School of Medicine and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, two ITHS-affiliated institutions that have had different DDAC utilization rates.ResultsBetween 2008 and 2016, the DDAC supported 161 unique project teams, 28% of which went on to form a startup. The commercialization rates for the UW School of Medicine increased significantly following integration of the DDAC into the commercialization programs offered by the UW technology transfer office.ConclusionsA formalized partnership between preclinical consulting and the technology transfer programs provides an efficient use of limited development funds and a more in-depth vetting of the business opportunity and regulatory path to development.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document