The author provides an exhaustive review of technology transfer/diffusion through his own lens: i.e., a framework he calls the Contingent Effectiveness Model; it earns its name from the fact that there are multiple ways of defining transfer effectiveness (6 by Bozeman’s count). Before outlining the key factors in parsing out what constitutes innovation/technology transfer/diffusion, it should be noted that (1) Bozeman’s focus is mainly on public sector (university and government labs), and very little regarding private sector technology transfer research; and (2) it clearly represents “physical technology and its end products” more than, say, social science/technology and its “end products.”

Regardless, from both “hard” and “soft” technology vantage points, Bozeman’s article (and its inclusive model) is instrumental for any entity embarking on a technology/innovation enterprise; especially in terms of articulating with great clarity what the stakeholders are and are not proposing in very purposeful terms. Early in the paper, Bozeman depicts the anatomy of technology transfer with surgical precision by: (a) defining technology, (b) demarcating the technology object to be transferred, (c) giving insight to the natural instability of technology (which is always evolving), and (d) defining technology transfer itself.

Bozeman’s six effectiveness categories for demonstrating use of any technology-transfer object’s use include: (1) Opportunity Cost; 92) Scientific & Technical Human Capital; (3) Political; (4) Economic Development; (5) Market Impact; and (6) “Out-the-Door”. His model (and all supporting research cited) devolves into five interrelated factors which influence transfer effectiveness. Each of the five factors has its own unique set of characteristics (extrapolated by research reviews): (1) Transfer Agent; (2) Transfer Media; (3) Transfer Object; (4) Demand Environment; and (5) Transfer Recipient. Several explanatory tables support Bozeman’s model’s contentions with examples and highlighted focal points. Thus, this paper serves two objectives, as a relatively thorough review of supportive research on the one hand, and as a useful lens or filter for logic modeling of any venture ambitiously taking to task technology/innovation transfer. transfers from business service sectors to other industrial sectors. The RISE project deals with the roles of knowledge-intensive economic activities and of research and technology organizations within innovation systems. It stresses the importance of an anthropological interpretation of the role of services, service providers and the relationships between them. The INNOCULT project looked at National innovation systems, with a focus on institutional innovation. It stressed the role of cultural factors in national innovation systems, the role of culture in research and innovation networks, and the effect of internationalization on national innovation systems. UNIREG details the various roles of universities in producing and transmitting knowledge, as cultural agents, and as leading or facilitating agents in the regional and local governance systems. The KISINN project analyzes innovation processes at the institutional, spatial, organizational and strategic levels, and emphasizes the accumulation and circulation of knowledge and competence. Particular attention is devoted to the analysis of concrete; learning by interacting; processes in different countries, regions and sectors.

Citation

Bozeman, B.(2000). Technology Transfer and Public Policy: A Review of Research and Theory. Research Policy, 29: 627-655.