Before starting, I think it is convenient to highlight that: every transfer involves two actions: transmission and absorption by the person or group, equivalent to the processes of exteriorization and combination, and socialization and interiorization, respectively. If knowledge is not absorbed, it is simply because it has not been transferred. The simple fact of presenting information does not imply per se, a transfer, even the transmission-absorption duo would not have any useful value, rather it could be counterproductive, if the new knowledge does not generate a change in behavior or the development of a new idea that, in turn, lead to new behavior, the shot could easily backfire.
Be careful with the handling of the concepts since we could be in the presence of a pseudo-transference. The fragile or non-existent scientific-technological infrastructure (R + D + i (research, development and technological innovation)) could play against since it requires the necessary conditions to travel the long path of scientific research that would make possible a better assimilation of this foreign technology and the consequent incremental innovation. OjO, but this is not all, on the other hand, in general, we find the timid, fragile and uncritical assimilation of said technology by a local company (a subsidiary of the foreign organization that owns the technology) who will provide us with the mentioned transfer.
Now, according to Tapias, technology transfer is “… the process of incorporating knowledge developed outside of it into a productive unit”. Since such incorporation directly impacts the daily work of an organization in production, great care must be taken with the effectiveness of the transfer.
All Technology Transfer is a process through which the transmission of know-how, scientific and / or technological knowledge and technology from one organization to another is carried out. It is therefore a process of transmission of scientific and technological knowledge to develop new applications.
The origin of the technology to be transferred can come from universities, research centers, laboratories, technology centers, other companies, national or foreign. Keep in mind that transferring technology implies acquiring, assigning, sharing, licensing, accessing knowledge.
Excellent, but let's see some models that will allow us to have a clearer idea of the importance and implications of all Technology Transfer, for this, I will rely on the work "European models of university-company technology transfer", presented by María Teresa Aceytuno Pérez from the University of Huelva and F. Rafael Cáceres Carrasco from the University of Seville at the XIII World Economy meeting.
Anglo-Saxon model
This model is represented by the United Kingdom. The innovation policy carried out in that country is characterized by being centralized, since it is directed by a department that is in charge of trade and industry activities (Department of Trade and Industry, DTI). Its objectives include increasing competitiveness and scientific excellence as the basis for achieving high and sustainable levels of growth and productivity (European Commission, 2006a: 215)
The Nordic model
The most representative countries of the Nordic model of technology transfer are Finland and Sweden. The keys to the success of the Finnish system are, according to the European Commission, in the coordination between the different political agents (Council of Science and Technology Policy of Finland –Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland–), Tekes and the Academy of Finland (Academy of Finland), organized through liaison mechanisms between them and participation in joint working groups that promote information flows between the different agents (European Commission, 2006a: 130). On the other hand, Sweden has had as its main objective the integration of research policy into growth policy.
Central European model
This is identified with the German innovation system. The differential characteristic of this model is based on the fact that the policy of innovation and technology transfer is dictated by federal and regional institutions (Länder), and that both political levels act in a coordinated manner to promote technology transfer
Mediterranean model
According to Rubiralta, in this model the innovation systems of France, Italy and Spain can be identified. The differential characteristic of this model with respect to the previous ones is based on a greater importance of centralized research structures (CNRS in France, CNR in Italy and CSIC in Spain) compared to the activity of universities and other research centers.
Now let's see the transference from a more generic perspective, for this, I will use the article by María del Socorro López G., Juan Carlos Mejía C., and Rodolfo Schmal S. «An Approach to the Concept of Technology in Universities and its Different Manifestations », For the magazine Panorama Socioeconómico year 24, Nº 32, p. 70-81 (January -June 2006).
Linear Model
Under this model, the technology transfer from a university to a company is understood as a process made up of a linear sequence of stages. The model begins with a discovery by a scientist in a laboratory and ends with a commercialized product. According to Cohen, the linear model conceives industrial innovation as a process that goes from basic (university) research to applied research and from there continues development until it reaches commercialization.
Dynamic Model
This model is similar to the linear one but in its process it takes into consideration the analysis of the internal factors that can affect the success of the transfer of scientific-technological knowledge. Despite being a more comprehensive proposal with respect to the linear model, it does not contemplate the analysis of factors external to the transfer process, including the role of the State.
Triple Helix Model
This model highlights the Company-University-State triad. Silicon Valley in the US and Cambridge in the UK are the most representative examples of the role played by the three actors. Basically, both experiences consisted of the concentration of small high-tech companies, in telecommunications, software and biotechnology, of which many began as affiliates of the University run by academic personnel or graduates. Its main activities are technical and technological advice, generating a culture of business, risk and research. On the other hand, the Nordic and Asian countries instead present a model of greater institutionalization, where governments, in addition to creating conditions for technology transfer, from the legal point of view,they issue large-scale public policies to generate structural changes in production.
Three spheres (political, industrial and academic) have emerged in a new organization of the economy based on knowledge with particular characteristics: internal transformation in each helix, influence from one sphere to another, a strong creation of networks that stimulate organizational creativity, regional cohesion, institutionalization, reduction of uncertainty, increased confidence, where new ideas and projects arise that would not have emerged in isolated spheres.
Triple Helix Model
In this sense, the triple helix model is known, which relates the university and public research centers with companies and the Public Administration in the innovation process, and where the success of the system depends on the relationships between the agents that interact in it.
Catch Up model (technological approach)
This is a Technology Transfer model based on the imitation and capture of technology created by a third party, a scheme that has been used by Korea and Japan. Kim, explains the dynamic process of technological learning in industrialization, presenting the case of Korea, which in forty years went from an agrarian subsistence economy to compete in the cutting-edge technological industry, such as information technology and semiconductors, passing through the automotive and electronics industry.
In this model, emphasis is placed on the mobilization of tacit knowledge (knowledge that is part of our mental model, the result of our personal experience and involves intangible factors such as beliefs, values, points of view, intuition, conscience, sense of belonging, patriotism, etc…) as a means to absorb foreign technologies and develop their own.
It is also considered as a triple helix model where the Company, the University and the State are aligned in favor of one objective, Technology Transfer.
Some legal bases and some agencies of the Venezuelan State for Technology Transfer
Technology Transfer, license contracts and franchises: are regulated by Decisions 291 and 292 of the Commission of the Cartagena Agreement and Decree 2095 and also by Decision 486 from January 1, 2000, on the Common Regime of Industrial Property. This legislation establishes that license contracts related to patents, trademarks and technology transfer, to be valid, must be registered with the Autonomous Industrial Property Registry Service SARPI and with SIEX. It also establishes a series of mandatory clauses to be included in contracts aimed at ensuring an effective technology transfer.
The Organic Law of Science, Technology and Innovation (LOCTI) in its Title III.- Contribution and investment, contemplates mechanisms for Large Companies, those that have gross annual income greater than one hundred thousand (100,000) tax units, contribute and Invest resources in activities of: Research and Development, Technology Transfer Processes and National Human Talent Training.
In its Article 29, it tells us: Any large foreign company that makes a direct investment in the country, or enters into association contracts, must invest an amount whose lower limit will be between half a percent (0.5%) and twenty percent (20%) of the profit before tax, in the respective fiscal year, in the training of national human talent, in research and development and technology transfer processes in the country, related to the object of its activity.
MPPCTII
Proposal of a new model for Technology Transfer
Here is a proposal for a new Technology Transfer model, of the triple helix type.
Proposal of a new model for Technology Transfer
Footnotes:
- Tapias, H. (2010). Teachers' productions: Technology Transfer. Effectiveness is nothing more than the balance point between Efficacy and Efficiency http://www.degerencia.com/staranRubiralta Alcañiz, M. (2004): Transfer to the companies of the university research. Description of European models, Cotec Foundation for Technological Innovation. Government agency dedicated to financing innovation activities. Cohen W.; Nelson R. and Walsh J. (2002). Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48 (1): 1-23 Etzkowitz H. (2002): The Triple Helix of University - Industry - Government. Implications for Policy and Evaluation. Institutet för studier av utbildning och forskning. Stockholm, Kim L. (2000). The dynamics of technological learning in industrialization.Working Paper, United Nations University, Institute for New Technologies. http://www.oei.es/salactsi/limsu.pdf. Taken October 20, 2012.
