Individual assignment 4: Technology transfer

Main insights

Technology transfer can be defined as a transmission process from the source that possesses
specialized technical skills and knowledge, to receptors who don´t possess such skills and don’t
create the technology themselves [1].

Technology transfer as a domain covers all activities around technological development. Among the
traditional Technology transfer models developed were the appropriability model, dissemination
model, knowledge utilization model and communication model [1,2]. However, all models have
limitations in terms of their limited application in transferring technology across organizational
boundaries. An actual model is the Rebentiich and Ferretti’s model that has 4 categories: transfer
scope (general knowledge, specific knowledge, hardware, and behaviors), transfer method
(impersonal communication, personal communication, group interaction and physical relocation),
knowledge architecture (technology hardware, experience base, procedures, and organization power
structures) and organizational adaptive ability (staffing and production flexibility) [1,2].

Organizational learning is defined as a development of insights, knowledge and associations

between past actions, the effectiveness, and future actions. Also, as the process by which the
organizational knowledge base is developed and shaped. Finally, as an organizational process, both
intentional and unintentional, enabling the acquisition of, access to, and revision of organizational
memory. Organizational learning involves three key questions and issues: what the learning
processes are, who or what is doing the learning and, when is learning valuable. Endpoints in
evaluative research are used for therapeutic agents are improvements in functional status, health
status and quality of life. Marketing approval decision requires evidence of safety and efficacy, but
post-marketing requires evidence on its long-term safety in everyday clinical practice. Clinical
decisions require information on effectiveness. There is need to improve monitoring of outcomes in
real world clinical practice [2].

Classifying innovation opportunities makes it easier to develop appropriate strategies. Most

common model is the linear model of innovation, which has a linear connection between phases and
has two classes of innovation strategies: technology push and market pull. In the first, new products
emerge through development of new technologies that are presented to the market from the
developers themselves. It focusses on technical issues and problems, trigger research for scientific
and technical knowledge both within the firm and external sources and, develop an innovative,
technical solution to offer in the marketplace. On the other side, market pull considers that products
are developed in response to market demand for novel and innovative products. In this strategy,
external market needs are recognized that trigger a search for scientific and technical knowledge, it
is analyzed by the firm for potential solutions and leads to an innovative offering in the
marketplace. Where technology push and technology pull are linked, innovations will have greater
impact because they view a solution to the problem as both feasible and relevant for users or
costumers [1].

Also, technology push product development is based on the belief that the producer recognizes a
market need even before the market does, and practically educates the costumer. The market pull
approach considers that the innovation process has its origins in latent costumer needs that are still
not satisfied in the market. The technology push is usually evaluated as riskier and R&D-centered
approach, with strong technological base, which is the best-case scenario may result in very
innovative products with great financial feedback. On the other hand, the market pall is the
consumer-centered approach, which is expected to be a safer investment, but may be limited
regarding the innovation aspect and final financial gains. Transferring more innovative research
with technology push can result in higher expected revenues but with more risks and uncertain
financial gains, when compared to a spin-off created with market pull strategy.

Capita selecta topic

Individuals with spinal cord injuries (SCI) experience reduced or complete loss of mobility, but
wearable technologies such as lower-limb exoskeletons could be used to assist gait and help
improve their quality of life. Several commercially available exoskeletons have been developed for
and used by subjects with a complete SCI [3]. They mostly consist of a structure that allows
actuation of knee and hip flexion and extension movements. The exoskeleton joints are typically
controlled in a position control mode, where the motions of the human joints are enforced and
cannot be influenced by the user. However, about 60% of individuals who have suffered a spinal
cord injury only have an incomplete lesion and have some remaining function in their lower
extremities [4]. The remaining movement capabilities depend on the severity and location of the
lesion; the lower (the more inferior/caudal) the lesion, the more remaining function in the lower leg
joints starting from the most proximal joints (the hip) to more distal joints [5]. Exoskeletons also
have great potential to improve the walking ability of individuals with an incomplete lesion (in
terms of speed, endurance, and stability) if they can substitute for the lost or impaired function and
leave control of the unaffected joints to the individual. This approach requires a different class of
exoskeletons that can be tailored to the individual’s needs and provides assisting forces without
enforcing movements [6].

Symbitron aimed to develop a personalized Wearable Exoskeleton that enables individuals with
incomplete or complete SCI to walk again. The market pull approach can be seen here because it
considers that the innovation process has its origins in latent costumer needs that are still not
satisfied in the market. Also, the Rebentiich and Ferretti’s model for technology transfer and
organizational learning were used to accomplish an exoskeleton that consisted of a set of powered
modules, one for each lower limb joint. Personalization was accomplished by selecting only those
joint modules required to compensate for the loss of function for that specific person and tailoring
the control and human-machine interface. The exoskeleton has 8 powered joints and 4 passive
joints. Some parts of the exoskeleton can be electrically and mechanically disconnected from the
others and controlled independently. The backpack module is always needed because it contains the
control computer, power management, and batteries. When the hip module is not used, it is worn as
a normal backpack that is not mechanically attached to the knee or ankle modules [6].

Furthermore, the exoskeleton has been tested with 3 different pilots. When used in KA
configuration (incomplete SCI pilots S2 and S3), the NMC-controlled wearable exoskeleton could
support a wide range of walking speeds for each SCI test pilot. The pilots were able to dictate the
walking speed by varying their (still intact) thigh behavior; the NMC automatically adjusted the
knee and ankle behavior accordingly. Both test pilots walked faster with the aid of the robot than
without it. The NMC allowed the SCI test pilots to change their walking speed and stride length. In
addition, the exoskeleton was also used to support standing balance in the SCI test pilots [6,7]. The
center of mass was estimated from the joint angles of the exoskeleton and IMUs attached to the
chest and right thigh. Results were promising since all SCI test pilots improved their balance
recovery after being perturbed. One of the SCI test pilots could only stand stably with help of the
exoskeleton [6,7].
However, although the results obtained have been very promising so far, there are still certain
things that need to be improved so that the technology can really be used. Future development for
the exoskeleton should be focused at reducing weight, increasing robustness, and increasing
maintainability and further developing high level control software. Finding fast and low-cost ways
to produce a one-to-one structure for each SCI test pilot to minimize mass and volume are necessary
to make this technology usable. Also, the weight of the backpack needs to be reduced significantly.
Large sources of failure in the exoskeleton were the cables and connectors. Again, because of the
number of available size adjustments, the cables were running external to the exoskeleton structure,
creating vulnerabilities. Here, modularity also creates additional complexity by demanding an
additional connection and requiring variable cable length. More effort needs to be made in the
integration of the cables and connectors in the structure not only for patient comfort, but also for
their safety. Finally, design for maintenance was greatly underestimated in the project. In future
designs, electronics should be accessible and easily replaced [6].

While future improvements will further advance exoskeleton performance and usability, the
Symbitron exoskeleton shown here demonstrates that tailored assistance through modularity in
hardware and control is promising for restoring the gait of individuals with a spinal cord injury,
whether they required targeted aid or full support [6].

References.

1. Abd Wahab, Sazali. (2009). Evolution and Development of Technology Transfer Models
and the Influence of Knowledge-Based View and Organizational Learning on Technology
Transfer. Research Journal of International Studies. 12. 79-91.
2. Abdul Wahab, Sazali and Abdullah, Haslinda and Uli, Jegak and Rose, Raduan Che,
Evolution and Development of Technology Transfer Models and the Influence of
Knowledge-Based View and Organizational Learning on Technology Transfer (October 25,
2011). Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes, No. 12, October 2009, Available at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1949174
3. A. Young and D. Ferris, “State of the art and future directions for lower limb robotic
exoskeletons,” IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 171–182, Mar.
2016.
4. M. W. M. Post et al., “Progress of the Dutch spinal cord injury database: Completeness of
database and profile of patients admitted for inpatient rehabilitation in 2015,” Topics Spinal
Cord Injury Rehabil., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 141–150, Mar. 2018.
5. F. M. Maynard et al., “International standards for neurological and functional classification
of spinal cord injury,” Amer. Spinal Injury Assoc., vol. 35, pp. 266–274, May 1997
6. Meijneke, C.; van Oort, G.; Sluiter, V.; van Asseldonk, E.; Tagliamonte, N. L.; Tamburella,
F.; Pisotta, I.; Masciullo, M.; Arquilla, M.; Molinari, M., “Symbitron Exoskeleton: Design,
control, and evaluation of a modular exoskeleton for incomplete and complete spinal cord
injured individuals,” IEEE Xplore Full-text PDF: 2021. [Online]. Available at:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/cookiedetectresponse.jsp
7. A. Emmens et al., “Improving the standing balance of paraplegics through the use of a
wearable exoskeleton,” in Proc. 7th IEEE Int. Conf. Biomed. Robot. Biomechatronics
(Biorob), Aug. 2018, pp. 707–712.