Technology Transfer processes supported by a R&D

infrastructure

Carlos Palminha

Dissertation submitted to obtain the degree of

Master in Electrical and Computer Engineering

Thesis Committee

Supervisors: Prof. Luís Miguel d´Ávila Silveira, Dep. Engenharia Electrotécnica e de Computadores

Prof. José Manuel Costa Dias de Figueiredo, Dep. de Engenharia e Gestão

President: Prof. Mário Serafim dos Santos Nunes, Dep. Eng. Electrotécnica e de Computadores

Members: Prof. António Artur Ferreira da Silva, Dep. de Engenharia Informática

September 2008
 Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements
Thanks to Eng. Paulo Relvas for his availability and contribution in the descriptions of the CICLOPE
and PET projects.

A special thanks to Eng. Fernando Moreira for his availability and contribution in the description of the
XTRAN project and for being my skipper in a great professional adventure called INOV.

Thanks to. Prof. Luís Silveira for the support, contributions and corrections.

A special thanks to Prof. José Figueiredo for believing and supporting the idea behind this thesis, for
the revealing and enlighten classes and for all his patience in contributions and corrections.

A very special hug for all my former colleagues at INOV.

ii
 Abstract

Abstract
Taking R&D (Research and Development) practices and technology transfer involving technological
infrastructures, basically INESC and the INOV institute, the goal of this study is to follow, examine and
question technology transfer processes with actors in the academic world and in the professional
enterprise world. This research pretends to be a reflection on the methodologies and approaches used
and the problems encountered in completed, ongoing and prospective technology transfer projects.
We intend that future solutions can be more adapted to the actual context and challenges of the
university-industry link. It pretends to research, evaluate and infer about technology transfer processes
through the identification of the actors involved in an Actor-Network Theory perspective (actors can be
either persons, institutions or technological resources).

Based on the activity portfolio of INOV - INESC Inovação, a R&D (Research and Development) and a
technology transfer institution, we focus on three technology transfer projects as a case study: one
being an already terminated project, other being an ongoing project and the last representing a
prospective candidate to a future project. With the first case study, the already terminated project we
pretend to take advantage of the obtained experience so that in an actor network context, the settings
and the “negative” (not aligned) and “positive” (aligned) actors can be identified. With the second case
study, the ongoing project, we intend to understand in which way terminated processes and the
cumulative experience (absorption capacity) can influence the ongoing processes. With the third and
last case, the prospective candidate to a technology transfer process, we intend to research on ways
to orient and plan the process itself. With all three cases we pretend also to understand in which way
the evolution of the university-industry link influences the technology transfer process.

Keywords
Technology Transfer, ANT, Actor Network Theory, Research & Development, Innovation, INOV –
INESC Inovação

iii
Resumo

Resumo
Pegando em actividades de I&D (Investigação e Desenvolvimento) e de transferência de tecnologia
envolvendo infra-estruturas tecnológicas, basicamente os institutos INESC e INOV, pretende-se
acompanhar, analisar e questionar processos de transferência de tecnologia com actores no meio
académico e no meio empresarial. Esta analise pretende ser uma reflexão sobre as metodologias e
as abordagens usadas e sobre os problemas encontrados em projectos de transferência de
tecnologia já concluídos, em curso e perspectivados. Pretende-se que soluções futuras possam estar
mais adaptadas ao contexto actual e aos desafios que o binómio universidade - indústria apresenta.
Pretende investigar, avaliar e inferir sobre processos de transferência de tecnologia através da
identificação dos actores envolvidos numa perspectiva ANT (actores podem ser pessoas, instituições
ou recursos tecnológicos).

Baseado no portfólio de actividades do INOV – INESC Inovação, uma instituição de I&D (Investigação
e Desenvolvimento) e transferência de tecnologia, focando como estudo de caso três projectos de
transferência de tecnologia: um já terminado, um a decorrer e um possível candidato a um futuro
projecto. Pretende-se com a análise do projecto já decorrido, aproveitar a experiência obtida de forma
a perceber e identificar num contexto de rede de actores quais os settings e os actores “positivos”
(alinhados) e “negativos” (não alinhados) do processo. Com o acompanhamento do projecto a
decorrer pretende-se perceber de que forma os processos passados e a experiencia (capacidade de
absorção) podem influir nos processos correntes. Com a análise de um projecto perspectivado
pretende-se pesquisar e inferir formas de planear e orientar o respectivo processo. Pretende-se com
a análise dos três estudos de caso perceber de que forma a evolução do binómio universidade-
indústria influencia o processo de transferência de tecnologia

Palavras-chave
Transferência de Tecnologia, ANT, Teoria de Rede de Actores, Investigação e Desenvolvimento,
Inovação, INOV – INESC Inovação

iv
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements................................................................................... ii


Abstract.................................................................................................... iii


Resumo.................................................................................................... iv


Table of Contents......................................................................................v


List of Figures ......................................................................................... vii


List of Tables.......................................................................................... viii


List of Acronyms ...................................................................................... ix


1
 Introduction ........................................................................................10

1.1
 Background and Context .............................................................................. 11


2
 Technology Transfer..........................................................................16

2.1
 Socio-Technical approaches ........................................................................ 17

2.2
 Aspects of culture and technology................................................................ 18

2.3
 The technology transfer process .................................................................. 20

2.4
 Technology transfer initiatives ...................................................................... 22


3
 ANT – Actor Network Theory .............................................................26


3.1
 Introducing ANT............................................................................................ 27

3.2
 Approaches to Technology Transfer............................................................. 28

3.3
 Forms of TT: Diffusion vs. Translation (ANT) ............................................... 29

3.4
 Using the ANT approach to explore TT process........................................... 30


4
 Project Analysis .................................................................................32


4.1
 XTRAN.......................................................................................................... 33

4.1.1
 ANT analysis ................................................................................................................34

4.1.2
 Conclusions..................................................................................................................37

4.2
 PET............................................................................................................... 38

4.2.1
 ANT analysis ................................................................................................................39


v
 4.2.2
 Conclusions..................................................................................................................44

4.3
 CICLOPE ...................................................................................................... 45

4.3.1
 ANT analysis ................................................................................................................45

4.3.2
 Conclusions..................................................................................................................48


5
 Conclusions .......................................................................................50


References..............................................................................................55


vi
 List of Figures

List of Figures
Figure 1.1. INESC holding (structure) ...................................................................................................13
Figure 1.2. INOV actuation model .........................................................................................................14
Figure 1.3. INOV Technology Transfer activity .....................................................................................15
Figure 2.1. Linear mode of innovation ...................................................................................................17
Figure 2.2. Functional organization structure ........................................................................................19
Figure 2.3. Divisional organization structure .........................................................................................19
Figure 2.4. Matrix organization structure ...............................................................................................20
Figure 2.5.Technology transfer three steps...........................................................................................21
Figure 4.1. Actors diagram reference ....................................................................................................33
Figure 4.2. XTRAN technology transfer diagram ..................................................................................36
Figure 4.3. XTRAN translation process diagram ...................................................................................37
Figure 4.4. Illustration of PET equipment ..............................................................................................42
Figure 4.5. PET translation process diagram ........................................................................................43
Figure 4.6. CICLOPE translation process diagram ...............................................................................47

vii
 List of Tables

List of Tables
Table 4.1. PET project partners ............................................................................................................41

Table 5.1. Diffusion vs. Translation .......................................................................................................51

Table 5.2. Positive and Negative actors ................................................................................................52


viii
 List of Acronyms

List of Acronyms
APD Avalanche Photo Diode
ARM Advanced RISC Machine
ASIC Application Specific Integrated Circuit
BPI Banco Português de Investimento
CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research
FPGA Field-Programmable Gate Array
IBEB Instituto de Biofísica e Engenharia Biomédica
IBILI Instituto Biomédico de Investigação em Luz e Imagem
ICN Instituto de Conservação da Natureza
INEGI Instituto Engenharia Mecânica e de Gestão Industrial
INESC Instituto de Engenharia de Sistemas e Computadores
INESC-ID INESC Investigação e Desenvolvimento
IST Instituto Superior Técnico
GDP Growth Domestic Product
GPS Global Positioning System
GSM Global System for Mobile communications
HGO Hospital Garcia de Orta
JNICT Junta Nacional de Investigação Cientifica e Tecnológica
LHC Large Hadron Collider
LIP Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology
PET Positron Emitter Technology
PNPG Parque Nacional da Peneda Gerês
R&D Research and Development
RISC Reduced Instruction Set Computer
USA United States of America
UTL Universidade Técnica de Lisboa
TT Technology Transfer

ix
 Chapter 1

Introduction
1 Introduction
Technology is a term with origins in the Greek technologia, techné art, skill + -o- + -logia –logy, and
means a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or
knowledge. Technology transfer is the process of sharing skills, knowledge, technologies, methods of
manufacturing and facilities among industries, universities, governments and other institutions to
ensure that scientific and technological developments are accessible to a wider range of users who
can then further develop and exploit the technology into new products, processes, applications,
materials or services. While conceptually the practice has been utilized for many years, the present-
day volume of research has led to a focus on the process itself.

Technology transfer processes were always analyzed taking into account the knowledge as a base
factor of the process. The neoclassical models considered this knowledge as exogenous, while
innovative models like the “linear model of innovation” considered it intrinsic to a linear evolution by
stages that were strictly separated in space and time. With the rise of social networks and with the
new models inbreeding sociology and technology, knowledge and people are brought together
considering that the main motivation for technology development is no longer purely economic or

10
technological, but the networks of people and technology assumes growing importance in the
technology transfer processes.

Even considering knowledge and people as factors of the technology process, the models ignored not
only the interactions between technological change and natural resources but also a whole range of
additional adaptations/transformations, which are a miscellaneous of technological change,
redesigning and substitution. New theories now includes time in the interpretation of innovation
analysis, theorizing that there are different time lags for innovation and that the innovation processes
is based on skills and knowledge that evolve over time (trial-and-error, problem solving process),
leading to dynamic analysis of the technology transfer process taking into account that knowledge,
people and their social network evolve and change over time [Figueiredo, 2008].

Initially created in an attempt to understand processes of innovation and knowledge-creation in

science and technology, the Actor Network Theory is used as a constructivist approach for mapping
innovations in science and technology and this study use it as an alternative and innovative way for
following, examining and questioning technology transfer processes.

The study is organized in five chapters: This chapter is devoted to present a brief biography of the
1 2
involved R&D institutes (INESC and INOV ) and to contextualize the R&D and technology transfer
universe of the studied projects. The second chapter briefs about technology transfer, its evolution
over the years, its pros and cons and finalizes with a brief look of several recent initiatives. The third
chapter explains and describes the Actor Network Theory and how it can be used to explore
technology transfer projects. The fourth chapter describes the three technology transfer projects and
presents a holistic view and conclusion for each one. The fifth and latest chapter presents the study
conclusions taking in account the conclusions of each project, points the negative and positive
settings, suggests adjustments for the technology transfer processes and assesses the advantages of
using the Actor Network Theory for exploring technology transfer projects.

1.1 Background and Context

INESC was born in 1980 and at that time universities and industry in Portugal were two separated
worlds. Universities were almost exclusively oriented to science, ignoring the virtues of applied
research on technological development. Also, most of the times working with a limited budget,
universities had their activities strongly limited by the lack of modern laboratories and technical
equipment, sometimes even qualified technical staff. Communication between the academic and

1
Instituto de Engenharia de Sistemas e de Computadores – Institute of Systems and Computer
Engineering
2
INESC Inovação - Instituto de Novas Tecnologias

11
industry worlds was very poor, causing companies to search for new technological developments
abroad.

At that time, three young Portuguese academics (Tribolet, Fonseca de Moura and Lourenço
Fernandes) recently returned after finishing their doctoral studies in the USA and England took their
tenure at Instituto Superior Técnico (IST), the biggest and oldest engineering school in Portugal. With
some experience in relationships between universities and industry and inspired by some American
models for university-industry relations (MIT and Bell Labs), they decided to launch a new organization
to link the university with industries [Graça, 2005].

Designing INESC as a private non-profit organization these three academics brought together as
3
associates the university education sector (at the time IST and UTL ) and the industrial sector (at the
4 5
time CTT and TLP ). INESC began its activity based in contracts with industry partners, passing by
the development of research infrastructures very close to the Universities. With this simple model,
INESC was able to rapidly expand all over the country (Lisboa, Porto, Coimbra, Aveiro and Braga) and
also abroad (Macau).

Taking advantage of Portugal becoming a European Union member in 1986, INESC created a
foundation for the development of teaching in electro-technical, electronics and computer engineering
and technology (FUNDETEC), extending the university-industry relationship to reform the university
education system. With these new developments INESC committed the Portuguese government to
redevelop certain university buildings in IST and to convert them into laboratories, attracting, in the
following years, more companies. At that time Siemens, Data General, Olivetti, Philips, IBM, Hewlett
Packard, Bull, Microsoft, etc. became associated to the foundation.. In parallel INESC launched a
business incubator (AITEC) to promote entrepreneurship in information technology and technology-
based projects, promoting and providing typical incubation initiatives such as seed/risk capital, first
placement and formulation of the initial business plan.

Having started in the academic world INESC rapidly became a reference model for the university-
industry relationship, proving that in the social-economic activity of a country with a development
degree like Portugal, there was place for technological state of the art R&D (Research and
Development). This contribution to a national improvement leaded INESC to the declaration of Public
Utility in the year 1987 by the Portuguese Government (7 years after starting its activity). The acquired
know-how and experience and the privileged position in the university-industry relationship led INESC
to start developing technology transfer centers. In 1990, ten years after it started, INESC changed its
own organization and started a new set of activities based on the work performed in these technology

3
Universidade Técnica de Lisboa – Technical University of Lisbon is a state university that comprises
several faculties in science, engineering (IST) and economics
4
Correios e Telecomunicações de Portugal – The state-owned national post office company
5
Telefones de Lisboa e Porto – The state-owned national telecommunications operator

12
transfer centers.

INESC´s activity was branched through these centers, each one having its own administrative and
technical support and organization that led to the development of their activity independently. These
centers created their own reality within a branch of the new organization model with each one
managing their professional objectives and their own budget. The existence of a central nucleus for
coordination and control ensured the institutional interaction with the government, universities and
industry and enhanced the development of a coherent image of the infrastructure.

The high dispersion of activities in the scientific and technological knowledge areas restrained the
adequate capacity of intervention close to the market with INESC starting in 1998 a wide strategic
restructuring process with the goal of creating new organizations specialized in different activities
areas and located in different geographic regions. The main objective of this restructuring was the will
to fulfill a superior response capacity aligned with the actual market challenges. INESC adopted an
organizational structure of holding, creating autonomous organizations specialized in different
activities areas, from the more fundamental technological and scientific areas (INESC-ID, Coimbra,
Porto) to activities more related to technology transfer or even market offer (INOV, Link S.A.,
Taguspark), with each organization assuming a different legal and corporate entity (Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1. INESC holding (structure)

INOV emerged from this restructuring as an institute of new technologies and started its activity in
January 2001 as a non-for-profit scientific and technical association, concentrating in its structure a
very significant parcel of several INESC technology transfer centers, focusing the activity in the
following domains: Information Technologies, Electronics and Communications. The incorporation of
the technology transfer centers enabled the optimization and segmentation of the business areas and

13
enhanced the building of an adequate model for managing several products and services, placing
itself in the market as the biggest national technological infrastructure, inheriting an important capital
provided by the several experiences and synergies underlying its incubation, innovation, R&D and
technology transfer environment, creating a very strong group with strong expertise at equipment, staff
and technological level.

INOV supports its activity in cooperation with Universities, performing partnerships with industry,
companies and other national and international centers, and monitoring the application of R&D public
policies (state and European Union funds). By pushing interactions between these three vectors,
INOV develops its activities: technological development, systems integration, technical consulting,
technical and technological support and technology transfer. By developing competences centers and
technological nucleus, INOV produces technological output directly exploited by the economic
environment, supporting the economic activity and raising competitiveness, through technological
demonstration and development (the actuation model is described by Figure 1.2).

Figure 1.2. INOV actuation model

The effort and specific resources concentration in a structured, coherent and professional way enables
INOV to be an autonomous technological infra-structure, to exclusively focus in its central abilities and
to enhance its external visibility and recognition from the enterprise world. The result of the
accumulated body of know-how, experience and ability to promote synergies turns INOV into a key
player for transferring technology to already existing companies or to emergent ones, start-ups of spin-
offs.

14
Developing the research and development activity in several technological areas (Figure 1.3) INOV
presents itself as a technology transfer institution, offering a wide range of solutions and opportunities
focused in technological entrepreneurship, licensing, selling and transferring, and finally using the
economic results to finance technology transfer activities.

Figure 1.3. INOV Technology Transfer activity

This model of linking universities with industry and producing knowledge, strengthen a whole set of
relations that makes part of a never-ending process of organizing the participants of the link -
networking. Being a technology partner enables INOV to assist enterprises in the search of new
business opportunities, through the development of innovative technology solutions, allowing its own
participation in the national socio-economics development process, becoming a central player in new
technology business. With a direct intervention in the economic domain rather being at the other side
of the link, its own activities are contributing to blur the distinction between academic and industry.

15
 Chapter 2

Technology Transfer
2 Conclusions

16
 2.1 Socio-Technical approaches

The theoretical understanding of the technology development process can be found in a variety of
disciplines and nowadays is widely recognized as an important source of economic growth and
development. With the technological systems evolving and rapidly becoming more complex,
understanding the evolution of these systems, the knowledge supporting them and the knowledge
emerging from them (innovations occurring) is reflected by studies on innovation.
6
The neoclassical economic models and approaches, strongly influenced by the work of Keynes and
7
Samuelson , characterized by a mechanistic and deterministic view treats technology as exogenous
only analyzing the impacts of technology choices and not explaining its construction [Estók, 2003]. To
consider knowledge or knowledge-based production as an exogenous factor does not focus the
analysis on the real cause of economic growth, just considers that in the long term markets and
technology reach a final equilibrium and freeze (becoming static).

New factors were then considered for the technology development process analysis, namely the
special state of technology, work production factors and the concept of knowledge. One of the first
(theoretical) frameworks to understand science and technology and its relations with the economy has
been the “linear model of innovation”. The logic behind this model is that scientific discovery leads to
innovation in applied sciences and then to production and marketing of the invented product of
process. This model has been very influential and postulates that innovation starts with basic
research, then adds applied research and development, and ends up with production and then
diffusion (Figure 2.1) [Godin, 2005].

Figure 2.1. Linear mode of innovation

The stages are strictly separated in space and time, and the model is thus ideal for the analysis of the
impact of a new scientific theory or new knowledge and for the description of innovation within and
among separate institutions. This model is still a little remnant of the industrial age mindset and does
not allow the analysis of the construction of technology. The traditional cost-benefit analysis cannot
measure the entire impact of the diffusion of the innovation answering only how technology is diffused
but not why it is diffused or how it is created, not allowing prediction for innovation, which makes it
again mainly static and descriptive.

6
John Maynard Keynes (5 June 1883 – 21 April 1946), economist
7
Paul Anthony Samuelson (born May 15, 1915), economist

17
In the latest years and with the rise of social networks, collective and even heterogeneous subjects
are increasingly put together through the assemblage of people (and artifacts) through networks rather
than being constituted as teams created through organizational planning and structuring. These more
recent theories started noticing that knowledge transfer is effective only when all the actors involved
have the same final goal in the understanding of the crucial and unique needs and specifications and
the role that their organization plays in the whole network system. With technological systems
becoming more messy and complex and with the success of technology transfer being defined by the
degree of the institutions or firms, mastery the technology, the main motivation became not purely
economic but a mix of economic, diversity, applicability, load factors and human problem solving.
These aspects of technology construction and its impacts cannot be strictly separated from each other
because technology processes depend heavily on the ability of the people involved to co-ordinate the
acquisition, generation, absorption and diffusion of knowledge.

2.2 Aspects of culture and technology

With technology being considered as a social construction and as a process of developing practical
application from scientific research results evolving over time through negotiations at different stages
of the process, different configurations of expertise may be appropriate. Three main aspects should be
considered in these processes and in knowledge development: cultural, organizational and technical.

Technology transfer processes typically requires some sort of modification in human behavior and
“cultural” difficulties arise from the differences between the so-called “academic culture” and
“enterprise culture”. With distinct attitudes, communication problems and different rhythms, but with
both sides recognizing that it’s not possible to build a knowledge society without these two worlds
acting together, it is crucial to build interaction bridges between these cultures. Mechanisms must be
found to bring the two parties together in ways that facilitate a productive exchange of relevant
information, facilitating smooth transitions from the academic to the enterprise world, constructing
processes and artifacts together. Goals, values and ethical codes must be negotiated so that belief in
progress, awareness and creativity can emerge from both cultures.

No single form of organization may be optimal throughout the lifetime of the technology transfer
processes, with participants having a major role in balancing different organizational forms, and
managing transitions between them. Sometimes the choice of the best business model or the best
enterprise structure is more important than being the first to discover or invent something, constituting
the link between the strategic policies and the market. There are three basic types of organization
structures: functional structure, divisional structure or matrix structure.

18
 Figure 2.2. Functional organization structure

Functional structure (Figure 2.2) splits the organization activity through specific functions (e.g.,
production, sales, finance, etc…) with each function having its own manager. Within a functional
structure to give a project to the engineering division or the accounting area, for example, depends
mainly on which function is primarily concerned with completing the project. With this structure,
decisions and planning are more collegial oriented and produced within a medium term perspective.
The major advantage of this structure is the concentration of resources with a high level of
specialization and control. However this type of structure doesn’t provide diversification strategies and
leads to conflicts of interests between distinct areas. Besides, the scope of projects is usually limited
to the boundaries of the function, or the effort to surpass the boundaries increases complexity and
communication decreases effectively.

Figure 2.3. Divisional organization structure

Divisional structure (Figure 2.3) handles management in a decentralized way, with different lines of
products or several activity groups organized in individual divisions each one assuming an
independent management, with each division devoting exclusively to the project or product. In this
context, planning is normally developed with a long-term perspective with the objective of guarantying
the integrated development of the organization activities. This organization structure promotes a
strategic market-product expansion and increases the vertical integration degree without
compromising the operational efficiency. However this structure tends to increase management
complexity with negative effects in the integrated coordination of the entire organization and in the
difficulty to manage the conflict of interests between distinct divisions. Another consequence is the
increase of the operational costs due to the duplication of functions in each division or group. With this
structure the boundary effect is also something that must be taken care and synergies among product
lines must me managed.

19
 Figure 2.4. Matrix organization structure

Matrix structures (Figure 2.4) tend to be adopted by larger organizations that can offer a wide range of
solutions and technical areas, in which control rests with a project or product manager but the bulk of
the human and other resources, are “borrowed” from a range of functional areas. By combining each
functional area with the range of solutions or products the organizations are better prepared to absorb
strategic synergies. The main advantages of this structure are the facility in sharing resources and
information and the capability to conciliate the organizational flexibility with a high operational stability.
However this structure can lead to a longer period in the adoption and implementation of strategic
orientations, making difficult the operational control and the attribution of responsibility, with the best
results being achieved when the participants have a very high level of education and can execute their
tasks with autonomy.

The design of organizational structure must not be static, risking sooner or later a lack of adaptation to
the activity-involving context and to the organizational strategy. Developing a dynamic vision of the
organization activities is essential, as it is to adjust the structures to the demands (internal and
external). Regardless of the form of an organization assume, problems of knowledge and technical
management remains.

2.3 The technology transfer process

The technology transfer process is very complex and when a new technology emerges from the
knowledge generation process many steps have to be accomplished to put into use, which is to
commercialize it: develop the technology, create prototypes, test its applications, etc… From the
creation to the moment that one or more enterprises considered that technology innovative and useful
to their own activity there is a long path to cover. In a schematic way, described by the following figure,
we can say that technology transfer includes three fundamental steps: Invention, Transition and

20
Development.

Figure 2.5.Technology transfer three steps

The first step, invention, represents the achievement of research creating new “things”, which can be
protected with mechanisms of intellectual property registration or patents.

The second step, transition, represents the transfer of the organization rights from the organization
that invented it to the enterprise or organization that will explore it commercially. The participants in
this transfer have many alternatives to choose from, with the choice of technology transfer mode being
based on knowledge needs. Some of the commonly modes are [Movahedi, 2003]:

• Turnkey agreements: something supplied, installed or sold by a party in a condition ready for
immediate use, occupation or operation by other party.

• Licensing agreements: License to use, occupy or operate something granted by a part

(“licensor”) to another party (“licensee”) as an element of an agreement between those
parties.

• Joint ventures: Is a non-definitive profitable association of organizations to explore a product

or to undertake economic activity. The parties agree to create a new entity by both
contributing and then sharing revenues, expenses and control of the enterprise. The venture
can be for one specific project or product only or a continuing business relation.

• Investment: When a business company or enterprise invest money, time or resources in a

specific R&D group or organization expecting the research and development of new products
or projects to be exploited commercially.

• Royalties, Intellectual property registration and patents: Is a set of exclusive rights granted by
a state to an inventor of his assignee for a fixed period of time in exchange for a disclosure of
an invention.

• Know-how transfer: Is the transfer of tacit, non-proprietary, technological knowledge, where

technological knowledge refers to knowledge related to the research aspects of an R&D unity
and is based upon individual or collective concrete know-how, often referred to as a skill or
competence. Non-propriety knowledge is not easily owned, unlike patents or trade secrets.
This kind of technology transfer requires the investment of time and resources by both the
source and the recipient. Knowledge transfer processes are construction processes in which
knowledge emerges as a result of interaction and negotiation among different actors.

• Spin-off and startup: Consists of a new organization or entity formed by a split from a larger
one or a new company formed from an university research group, or business incubator.

21
The third step represents the development of a business model for the new product or service and its
commercial exploitation.

During the three steps of the technology transfer process there are difficulties associated with the
process itself, such as the existence of different cultures (scientific vs. enterprise, for example, and to
address only one), construction of partnerships, the complexity of the processes and the fact that
during the process it cannot transfer just technical ideas – there are always organizational and cultural
factors included. No specification is fully technical. To mitigate these difficulties a great effort must be
spent on effective communication, mutual understanding and level of personnel interaction, conflict
resolution and finding mechanisms for problem solving so that the working relationship can stabilize
and improve in quality. With technology processes evolving over time with the different stages
requiring different configurations of expertise and comprising complex undertakings, technological
competence is used to measure the success of the technology transfer, with technological capability
considered to be the most determined factor. The most common technological capabilities that
contribute to the success are the availability of engineering and technical personnel, tools and
resources, training and experience of the participants, characteristics of structural organizations,
management capabilities, activity of management and of course the mechanism of technology
transfer. The effectiveness of the process depends a lot on the effort spent on the development of the
relationship between the participants in the process and on the knowledge base capabilities.

A special attention must be paid to the external critical factors that can lead to success in a technology
transfer process: government role (legal framework and incentive policies), market and economy.

2.4 Technology transfer initiatives

Until 1980 North American universities obtained an average of 250 patents per year and the
government of the USA had accumulated 30000 patents, with only 5% of those patents being
commercialized. In 1980 two senators (Birch Bayh and Robert Dole) introduced a new legislation
8
called “Bayh-Dole Act” that promoted a radical change in the knowledge diffusion strategies followed
by many of the USA universities [UCPT, 2005]. The legislation dealt with intellectual property giving
universities, research institutes and small business the intellectual property control of their own
inventions by accessing federal funding and other intellectual property that resulted from such funding.
Basically the universities retained the ownership of the inventions developed in the context of the
programs financed with federal funds. Collaboration with enterprises and industry was encouraged (to
promote their inventions) and universities were encouraged to give preference to small business
companies. Patent registration was encouraged with the government retaining the licensing rights for
the non-exclusive worldwide patents. The success in the technology transfer from the universities to

8
Bayh-Dole Act or University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act

22
the enterprises and the resulting benefits for the economy influenced other countries to initiate
substantial changes in the same way.

In Portugal, in 1980, INESC pioneered in establishing some of the first universities-industry relations,
promoting and bringing together the university education sector and the industrial sector. After
becoming a European Union member in 1986, Portugal started to adopt the European directives by
implementing a national innovation system. Other countries also started to implement national
innovation systems identifying universities and organizations that have a crucial paper in the effective
technology transfer processes. Several success cases in Canada, United Kingdom, Finland, Holland,
Germany and Sweden present models with high coordination at national level with the technology
transfer having a well-defined action plan. The organizations within this national knowledge system
are recognized as credible by the industry, receiving inputs from the market, industry and government,
and their existence supports the planning of sustainable financing programs, based in long-term
strategies.

In Canada, the NRC Industrial Research Assistance Program (NRC-IRAP) is the Government of
Canada's premier innovation and technology assistance instrument that provides a range of both
technical and business oriented advisory services along with potential financial support to growth-
oriented small and medium-sized enterprises. An extensive integrated network of 260 professionals in
100 communities delivers the program across the country. Working directly with clients, NRC-IRAP
supports their innovative research and development and helps them become commercialization-ready
with their new products and services. Recognized globally for research and innovation, NRC is a
leader in the development of an innovative, knowledge-based economy for Canada through science
and technology.

In Finland the government launched TEKES, the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and
Innovation, which is the main government financing and expert organization for research and
technological development. TEKES finances industrial R&D projects as well as projects in universities
and research institutes by promoting innovative, risk-intensive projects.

In United Kingdom the Government created Research Councils that are public bodies charged with
investing tax money in science and research. Each Research Council funds research and training
activities in seven different areas: Arts and Humanities, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences,
Engineering and Physical Sciences, Economic and Social, Medical, Natural Environment and Science
and Technology Facilities. In 2002 a strategic partnership between the seven UK Research Councils,
RCUK (Research Councils of United Kingdom), was formed to enable and facilitate the working
together of Councils in a more effectively way, and to enhance the overall impact and effectiveness of
their common research, training and innovation activities, contributing to the delivery of the
Government’s objectives for science and innovation. RCUK adds value to individual Research Council
activities by promoting dialogue, collaboration and partnership, articulating coherently the activities,
visions and opinions of the Research Councils, working jointly with the academic community and other
funders and improving Councils’ operational performance by sharing best practices and providing
efficiency gains to release more resources for research.

23
In the last decade the European Union developed a framework program for research and
9
technological development to support the creation of the European Research Area – ERA , a unified
area all across Europe that should enable researchers to move and interact seamlessly, benefitting
from infrastructures and work with networks of research institutions. By sharing, teaching, valuing and
effectively using knowledge for social, business and policy purposes the goal is to optimize and open
European, national and regional research programs in order to support the research throughout
Europe and coordinate these programs to address major challenges together.

The Seventh Framework Program (FP7) of the European Union bundles all research-related EU
initiatives together under a common roof, playing a crucial role in reaching the goals of growth,
competitiveness and employment; along with a new Competitiveness and Innovation Framework
Program, Education and Training programs, and Structural and Cohesion Funds for regional
convergence and competitiveness, the FP7 was designed to support a wide range of participants:
from universities, through public authorities to small companies and researchers in developing
countries. The broad objectives have been grouped into four categories: Cooperation, Ideas, People
and Capacities. For each type of objective, there is a specific program corresponding to the main
areas of EU research policy. All specific programs work together to promote and encourage the
creation of European poles of scientific excellence with each member state being responsible to
adopt, promote and apply to the several program and initiatives of the framework.

Recognizing the importance of these innovation initiatives, Portugal is involved in a strong and
widespread effort to produce initiatives such as:

• COTEC Portugal, Enterprise Association for the Innovation, started in April 2003 as a
sequence of an initiative of the Republic President supported by the Government. Constituted
by several companies with a global brut value about 18% of the national GDP promotes the
competiveness increase of the national companies, through the development and construction
of an innovation culture and innovation best practices. Established as a non-profitable
association promotes several initiatives with all the participants in the Portuguese knowledge
system (universities, companies, organizations, government, etc…)

• AdI – Innovation Agency: This agency promotes the innovation and the technological
development facilitating the relations between the scientific world and the enterprise world.
10
The agency is controlled by the national foundation for science and technology (FCT ) and by
the economy ministry. Working in network with several public administration departments,
technological centers, enterprise associations and other participants in the national knowledge
system, the agency supports an incentive policy to promote international cooperation, acting
as a bridge with the European Union, Asia, Latin America and several international R&D

9
ERA was one of the initiatives of the European Sixth Framework Program (FP6)
10
FCT – Fundação para a Ciencia e Tecnologia, Science and Technology Portuguese Foundation

24
 11 12 13 14
organizations. The main current initiatives are the QREN , IDEA , NITEC and DEMTEC

• Excellency Centers Initiative: Pretends to stimulate industrial or regional cluster logics, the
creation of projects putting together several competitive economic activities and the
cooperation between scientific organizations and companies. The major targets are the
universities, companies, enterprise associations, technological centers and public
organizations.

11
QREN, National Strategic Reference Board – Supporting companies innovation projects
12
IDEA, Enterprise Applied R&D – Supporting and funding partnership projects
13
NITEC – Creation of research nucleus and R&D communities
14
DEMTEC – Funding system that supports the realization of demonstration projects

25
 Chapter 3

ANT - Actor Network Theory

3 ANT – Actor Network Theory

26
 3.1 Introducing ANT

Actor-Network Theory, abbreviated as ANT, was originally developed by two French scholars of the
Science and Technology Studies, Michel Callon and Bruno Latour, and the British sociologist, John
Law, in the late seventies beginning of the eighties, to understand and explore the growth and
consolidation of innovation, artifacts and knowledge in science and technology. Its grounding in
science and technology was reflected in an intense commitment to the development of the theory
through qualitative empirical case studies and in the analysis of some large-scale technological
developments. After 1990 the theory became popular as a tool for analyzing a range of fields beyond
science and technology, with the authors picking up a wider range of fields such as organizational
analysis, informatics, health studies, geography, sociology and economics. In 2006 ANT is already
widespread in the analysis of heterogeneous relations and is interpreted and used in a wide range of
alternatives ways, blending together different approaches.

The starting point of the theory is to consider negotiations of heterogeneous actors (people, machines,
things, laws, rules) in a networking process of alignment. Following our previous description we can
say ANT results in an enhanced combination of the neoclassical and linear tools with the concepts of
interaction network constructed around specific real life (heterogeneous) examples. While the
neoclassical and linear concepts look ideal for defining, measuring and evaluating static assemblies
(organization, competence, processes, etc…) the actor-network concept look promising for modeling
and evaluating novelties in the system, i.e. for indentifying R&D competences and eventually
innovation triggers. With the inclusion of actor-network concepts ANT contributes to a view of
organizations and technology as a bundle of heterogeneous resources supported in the interactions
between material and human (actors), allowing to bridge the resource-based and motivation
perspectives on entrepreneurship and innovation.

The basic element of the theory is the existence of human and non-human actors (actants) and how
they are tied together into networks, which are built and maintained to achieve a particular goal
(alignment). The theory strengths that we should not give a priori definition of the actors or of the roles
of human (people, organizations, groups of scientists, engineers, companies, etc…) and non-human
actors (documents, competences, money, technological objects, machines, rules, software, etc…). In
other words, entities are supposed not to have inherent qualities [Akroyd, 2001]. The actor is
“something” autonomous (unpredictable) that act or to which others grant activity, and can literally be
anything provided it is granted to be the source of an action.

These actors interact between themselves in heterogeneous networks, the heart of the ANT, with the
theory stating that actor and network cannot be separated in that an actor cannot exist without a
network and there would be no network without actors. We must precise that the concept of network is
not being used in the sense of infrastructure (technical network: computer, telephone, etc…) but as a
“space” of relationships, interactions, negotiations and translations among actors.

27
Arguing that knowledge and innovations result from translations upstream and downstream the value
chain, as output of negotiations among actors, the theory follows the processes performed by the
actors in the actor-network. The term translation has a double meaning relating to the way of
describing changes on different forms of knowledge and practices and also changes in socio-
technological assemblies and artifacts. Because this knowledge is seen as a product or an effect of
the translation in the actor-network, we can say that knowledge and innovation emerges from
translation processes.

Considering that all phenomena is the result of heterogeneous actor-networks when a set of actors
and their relations (network) gets stable we have a black box. This ”operation” of turning an actor-
network into a black box, called Punctualisation, views black boxes as (new) actors (or networks). In
these operations the black boxes contents becomes indifferent, and only the inputs and outputs are
important. Punctualisation is always precarious; it faces resistance, and may degenerate into a falling
network. On the other hand, punctualised resources offer a way of evolving quickly on the networks
without having to deal with endless complexity. And, to the extent they are embodied in such ordering
efforts they are performed, reproduced in and ramify through the actor-networks.

The core of the actor-network approach concerns about how actors and organizations mobilize,
juxtapose and hold together the bits and pieces out of which they are composed; how they are
sometimes able to prevent those bits and pieces from following their own inclinations and making off;
and how they manage, as a result, to conceal for a time the process of translation itself and so turn a
network from a heterogeneous set of bits and pieces each with its own inclinations, into something
that passes as a punctualised actor. [Law, 1992]

3.2 Approaches to Technology Transfer

With the process of translation being iterative and dynamic, it can be endlessly repeated within the
evolving ANT analysis, and punctualision occurring, Network ordering, or calculation, can then be
used to approach technology transfer processes.

As seen before technology transfer process are complex and they evolve and modify over time, and
its success depends a lot on the knowledge produced during the process and the capacity to surpass
adversity. ANT addresses these problems with the four moments of translation being directly
transposed to the technology transfer process:

1. Problematisation: During problematisation a group of actors identifies the problem to be

solved or defines an issue as problematic. It is like in the discovery phase of the technology
transfer process, in which discovery and research are developed, actors try to find answers
to specific problems or in which new solutions or products are searched. In this phase the
nature of the problem is defined and some roles of actors are proposed. We need to
understand that sometimes the very existence of a problem is not known, or is not easily

28
 accepted in the community.

2. Interessement: This step is characterized by getting the actors interested, negotiating the
terms of their involvement. It consists on the deployment of devices aimed to impose the
roles and identities addressed during problematisation. If successful, interessement directly
leads to an actual enrolment.

3. Enrolment: Networks grow and stabilize through what actor network theory call enrolment,
or the translation of interests. Processes in which actors are persuaded or obliged to play
particular roles within the network characterize this step. With the actors establishing a
stable network of alliances, the interessement and enrolment steps describe perfectly the
technology transfer transition phase, where each actor participating in the process assumes
its position within the negotiated technology transfer mode.

4. Mobilization of allies: Is the moment in which the actors in the network adequately represent
the masses, the enrolment becomes actively supported and the technology solution the
actors (network) proposed gains wider acceptance. This is exactly what happens in the
development phase of the technology transfer process, in which the new product or process
is created and/or commercialized, with the actors being mobilized and enrolled in the final
goal.

Traditional theories consider power to be a cause to events and actions, whereas ANT takes it to be
an effect or result. ANT describes power as something emerging through the actor-network. This is the
main aspect that is applied to analyze the technology transfer processes, where the building of
knowledge and the actors’ relations are the heart of the process. If the network is too poorly
connected, that is, their connections did not hold in the face of adversity, the network would fall apart
not producing relevant output. In other way if the connections of the network are well connected
knowledge will emerge with the network, producing important and relevant responses and solutions.

3.3 Forms of TT: Diffusion vs. Translation (ANT)

Diffusion of technology is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain

channels over time and among the members of a social system, considering that it is a matter of time
for the innovation to become widely accessible and accepted. This linear mode of innovation (see
section 2.1) refers to an idea, practice or technology that is perceived as new by an individual or an
organization. Diffusion theories describe technology transfer as a process in which three main sets of
factors influences the decision to adopt or to reject an innovation: cultural, organizational and
technical. Certain configurations of these factors contribute to a successful adoption of the process
while other combinations are seen as less favorable. Diffusion theories try to determine the “settings”
of certain key variables and once they are known, the outcome follows with casual inevitability.

Translation (ANT) sees technology transfer as the alignment of a powerful enough actor-network to

29
create a required technology (carried through the innovation). In ANT terms the process of Technology
Transfer is viewed as a bundle of heterogeneous resources supported in the interactions between
material and human (actors), allowing bridging the resource-based and motivation perspectives on
entrepreneurship and innovation. When actors successfully create and evolve through actor-networks
consolidated and rendered reliable and stabilized with the aid of documents and technologies, then
these actor-networks extend control over the process of technology transfer.

The diffusion approach to technology transfer and innovation is concerned with the identification of
factors that contribute to or inhibit it, with technology transfer becoming abstracted and generalized
and of little practical value since although it might explain success and failure after the event there is
little evidence that it could provide predictive power over the course of action. ANT on the other hand
requires that we throw away our naïve belief in cause and effect and focus on understanding how
actor-networks are created, strengthened and weakened. [McMaster, 1998]. When technologies are
transferred within and between actor-networks, they make sense in different ways, depending on the
setting, on the way they are translated by the actors, and on the way they are used to sustain or
challenge the network. This means that in an ANT perspective, technology transfer processes
document the translations rather than providing reasons to justify actions after the facts have
occurred.

3.4 Using the ANT approach to explore TT process

Due to the genesis of ANT using it to explore technology transfer processes seams obvious but the
approach is innovative, with the literature only recently approaching this issue. This view unifies
'society' and 'technology, shows technology as socially dependent on actor-networks. Technologies
only 'make sense' when used by actors, and these actors will always have their own interests and
roles. When technologies are transferred within and among actor-networks, they make sense in
different ways depending on the way they are translated by the actors, and the way they used to
sustain or challenge the network.

From an ANT point of view successful technology transfer processes are a matter of creating,
maintaining and strengthening heterogeneous networks so that they create durable connections, so in
order to understand how project progress (or fail to progress) we need to “follow the actor” and
observe how they extend (or fail to extend) the actor networks in which they are involved [Garrety,
2001]. Following the actor, main approach used to explore technology processes, means that the
analysis must be done interviewing the actors, making ethnographic research, examining the
inscriptions (texts, images, databases, journal articles, conference papers, presentations, patents,
etc...) and analyzing the products of scientific work. That is, the researcher itself is part of the action,
an actor at the research process and not only a passive observer.

The longitudinal process in which actors are enrolled in actor-networks as well as how they affect the

30
creation of new actor-networks is almost empirically approached by ANT with translation being almost
contingent, local and variable. However, four general findings emerge as the strategies of translation:
Durability, Mobility, Anticipate and Scope [Law, 1992].

Durability has to do with the fact that some materials are more durable than others and so maintain
their relational patterns for longer. Thus a good ordering strategy is to embody (inscription) a set of
relations in durable materials. Consequently, a relatively stable network is one embodied in and
performed by a range of aligned durable materials. Durable materials may find other uses with their
effects changing when they are located in a new network of relations, but despite of the merit of this
notion, it needs to be handled with caution.

If durability is about ordering through time, Mobility is about ordering through space. In particular, it is
about acting at a distance, exploring materials and processes of communication (writing, electronic
communications, methods of representation, etc.), exploiting translations that create the possibility of
transmitting any kind of information or artifacts that can be ranged (from letters of credit, military
15
orders to cannon balls) .

Translation is more effective if it anticipates the responses and reactions of the materials to be
translated, treating them as relational effects and exploring the conditions and materials that generate
these effects and contain the resistance that would dissolve them. The argument is that under the
appropriate relational circumstances innovations result of calculation sequences, which in turn
increases network robustness.

Finally there is the scope of ordering. ANT claims that it is possible to impute general strategies of
translation to networks, strategies that ramify through and reproduce themselves in a range of network
instances or locations. Since no ordering is ever complete, we might expect a series of strategies to
coexist and interact.

The technology transfer process may be seen as a set of such strategies, which operate to generate
complex configurations of network durability, spatial mobility, systems of representation and
calculability. Identifying these strategies and their patterns enables the analysis to bring the actors
together in ways that facilitate a productive exchange of relevant information and knowledge to
understand people and technology changes and produce new knowledge. With this changes occurring
together, understanding them constitute the learning components of a technology transfer process

15
Bruno Latour calls it “immutable mobiles”

31
 Chapter 4

Project Analysis
4 Project Analysis
In this chapter we study three technology transfer processes using the ANT terminology and follow the
actor methodology. In each project three vectors were adopted and followed: ethnographic research,
examination of inscriptions (texts, images, presentations, proposals and major products of scientific
work) and informal interviews with some of the participants in the processes.

For each informal interview a script was used to conduct the dialog and to achieve the pre-defined
lines of action. For the Technology Transfer subject the following objectives were predefined:

• Identify the technology transfer type (institution to company, company to company, etc…) and
mode (joint venture, investment, spin-off, etc…)

• Identify some relevant organizational actors: Who is interested in the outcome of the project?
What do they want from it? How can their needs and preferences be fulfilled?

• Identify critical factors (legislation, market, etc…), difficulties (process complexity) and what
was made to overcome them

• Identify the culture of technology aspects (cultural, organizational and technical) and if

32
 changes were performed

• Identify some important phases of the technology transfer: Invention, Transition, Development

For the Actor Network Theory subject the following objectives were predefined:

• Identify actors: people, developers, events, documents, technological entities

• Check for heterogeneous relations and generalized symmetry (social and technical), what
actors do and how they do it (mechanism of communication)

• Try to identify in the technology transfer process an ANT translation: Problematisation,

Interessement, Enrolment and Mobilization of Allies

• Understand how the actors engage in a network (due process)

• Check how the network is punctualised and stabilized. Check for alignments and miss-
alignments in the network

• Identify processes adopting translation processes: Durability, Mobility, Anticipation and Order.

For each of the three projects, a holistic diagram is drawn with a representation of the various actors
and the connections between them. The diagram uses the notation suggested by John Steen [Steen,
1992]: Personal actors are shown as circles, the organisations are shown as ovals and the non-
personal actors as rectangles. Actors that are seen as negative or constraints are shown shaded (see
Figure 4.1):

Figure 4.1. Actors diagram reference

4.1 XTRAN
16
In 1988 INESC centre of personal and mobile communications (CCMP ), one of the technology

16
Centro de Comunicações Móveis e Pessoais

33
transfer centers of INESC, started to develop a system for the inspection of fishing activities using
17
geographical positioning (GPS) and satellite communications (Inmarsat ). In 1993/1994 and based on
that project, the idea of using the same concept applied to the context of terrestrial fleets emerged.
The goal was to present several terrestrial fleet management applications and services using the ARM
processor, a 32-bit RISC processor architecture used in embedded designs. To develop this idea
INESC applied to a European R&D project (CARGOTRACK) as a partner in a consortium having the
responsibility to develop a communication board to incorporate in the fleet vehicles. The project
successfully achieved the goals by demonstrating and making the proof of concept, creating the hype
within the CCMP centre that the idea was worth enough to be adopted and developed in Portugal.
CCMP wanted to apply the acquired experience in the European project to develop the complete
solution (onboard hardware, personal telecommunications, control centre and back-office client
integration) exclusively based on national technology.

4.1.1 ANT analysis

TECMIC, a microelectronics technology start-up company, was born in 1988 inside the INESC
business incubator (AITEC) with the administrative and engineering staff migrating from INESC to
TECMIC. At the beginning the links with INESC were very close and strong, with TECMIC
commercializing products and developing projects in partnership with INESC technology centers. At
the end of the 1990s with the ASICs and microelectronics market entering a crisis phase, TECMIC
needed to diversify, exploring new areas to develop its activity. At the time, Prof. Vidigal was
simultaneously president of TECMIC and director of the electronics area of INESC (where CCMP was
integrated) and the idea to transfer XTRAN technology to TECMIC was the most natural step, with
TECMIC appearing as a natural partner to develop the XTRAN project with CCMP.

In 1994 INESC and TECMIC signed a collaboration protocol to study and develop a terrestrial fleet
control system and to apply to a funding programming for the development of the Portuguese industry
18
(PEDIP ). The XTRAN project was born from this collaboration protocol and the goal was to develop
an industrial prototype that could be used as a pre-commercialization product.

The XTRAN prototype consisted of onboard units with several electronics sensors (GPS positioning,
distance, temperature, etc…) with the capacity of collecting and processing information and sending it
to a control centre at almost real-time, depending on the mobile communication medium. In the control
centre the information was stored on a database, displayed within a geographic information system
(GIS) and processed for back-office integration.

For the development of the industrial prototype TECMIC and INESC chose three crucial commercial

17
An international organization founded in 1978 that provides satellite telecommunication services, as
well as distress and safety communication services
18
Programa Específico de Desenvolvimento da Indústria Portuguesa

34
partners: a mobile communications GSM operator (TELECEL – later acquired by Vodafone), a
19
geographic information system company (Geovisao ) and a transporter company (Grupo Luis
Simões). The project proposal, developed with the aid of external consulting, included not only the
technical system but also a market and competition analysis with the PEDIP funding program
providing mechanisms to explore the future commercialization of the project.

The project enrolled the capacity, tools and knowledge to develop an industrial prototype but after this
first step a limbo installed between INESC and TECMIC. Having the perception of the existence of a
demand (market) and feeling the project as its own “child”, INESC tried to approach companies and
made several proposals, with the CCMP group making an effort in the attempt for commercializing the
product. This behavior brought organizational tensions because TECMIC didn’t understand why they
were being left apart and of course communication, misunderstanding and power problems arose
between the collaborators of both organizations. Without having a clear strategy for the
commercialization of the product, INESC and TECMIC activities starting to clash, with the
management not achieving to successfully pass a clear message to the teams, creating tension
relations and conflicts between both teams. Besides TECMIC moved to new installations in Tagus
Park, 20 kilometers away from INESC, which became a disruptive factor. The distance, the
accessibility problems, the difficulty to organize meetings, the communication and the lack of human
“touch” contributed a lot to the aggravation of the relations between INESC and TECMIC.

INESC management realized that they could and should not go on with the project when they lost the
commercial opportunity to explore the project with the business partner (Grupo Luis Simões). INESC
mission wasn’t the commercialization, industrialization and maintenance of products in a continuous
form and long-term basis. The crucial moment for that perception was the opportunity to sign a
contract with one of the INESC associates, the national owned post-office company CTT.

CTT at the time was one of the associates of INESC with a member of the company sitting in the
board of directors of INESC and with several projects (some of them of big dimension) already
developed between INESC and CTT. The dialog was natural and easy and the XTRAN concept was
explained to the company representatives that successfully brought the idea to CTT management,
with INESC realizing that it was time to transfer the technology and TECMIC realizing that they could
start to commercially explore the business around XTRAN. By management decision, TECMIC led the
conversation process, the solution definition and the development for commercializing the product with
the contract being signed with CTT at the end of 1996 (Figure 4.2 shows the holistic diagram).

19
This company was also borne from AITEC incubator

35
 Figure 4.2. XTRAN technology transfer diagram

With TECMIC absorbing the XTRAN technology several attempts to negotiate the technology transfer
were made between INESC and TECMIC. Royalties negotiations, licensing or selling were explored
but with no success. There was the idea between them that in a near future they would charge
royalties for each sold unit but they never formalized it. The project with the CTT took three years to
develop and at that time INESC was already conformed to the idea that they would never be able to
formally transfer technology, with all the plans for the technology transfer model falling apart without
being repaid. It’s only in 2000 when TECMIC makes an interesting contract with the former
commercial partner, Grupo Luis Simões, that INESC and TECMIC relations were stabilized again. At
this time the GPS usage was already common and TECMIC found that they could sell commercial
products and solutions based on XTRAN. With this contract they developed a professional solution for
Terrestrial Fleet Management and automatic location of vehicles with visualization in electronic maps
providing managers the tools to improve real-time management processes, optimizing results and
taking decisions based on reliable data.

36
 Figure 4.3. XTRAN translation process diagram

Through the six years this project went on (translation, negotiations, etc…) both organizations and
their networks suffered from structural changes: INESC adopted a holding structure with the creation
of INOV, Prof. Vidigal died, private bank BPI became a shareholder of TECMIC, TECMIC enhanced
its commercial and marketing activities and renewed its board of directors with the newer president of
the administration council (Eng. Fernando Moreira) becoming president of INOV. A new delegated-
administrator coming from outside the INESC universe is the key person responsible for the
normalization of the relations and for pushing the cooperation contract between INOV and TECMIC in
2001. Through the contract both organizations agreed in a partnership for enhancing in an organized
way the collaboration in project development, technical consulting, software development and training,
with the agreement constituting an important technology transfer cooperation for both parties (Figure
4.3) [Contract, 2001].

4.1.2 Conclusions
The initial idea that triggered all the XTRAN process was born from the participation of INESC at the
CARGOTRACK project. These kind of projects financed by the European Union represent a good
melting pot and very important opportunity to establish and develop network relations with other
international organizations and companies. In this case INESC team took advantaged of their

37
participation to develop the idea in Portugal. In ANT terms, this was the moment of problematisation.

It is obvious the importance of INESC organization and the way it is able to create and maintain
networking with universities, other state organizations and private companies. For this project it is
crucial the existence of a company (TECMIC), that was born in the INESC incubator, and the very
close link between them. In this case the cultural aspects that could be a problem are precisely an
advantage with both organizations speaking almost the same “language”.

The network interessement was automatically achieved with all the actors naturally assuming their
roles but problems started with the enrolment in the transition of technology. The factors that were
crucial for the network initial alignment were now causing tensions and disturbance in the relations. In
the middle of these miss-alignments was the technology itself with both actors not dealing very well
with the fact that they had to translate it into use. From the ANT point of view, the problem was that
personal and non-personal actors were not maintaining their symmetric relations with personal actors
developing a superior role over technology.

The advantage of the proximity between INESC and TECMIC was now causing disruption in the
network relations with the enrolment and mobilization being forced by the management. Because
translation was not an effect of the network interactions (like ANT explains) but was the cause itself,
the technology transfer process failed and almost destroyed the relations between INESC and
TECMIC.

We can say that the technology transfer process was a flop, but using ANT we shall observe that was
not like that and this can be considered a translation process with the network evolving and
reconfiguring itself.

After the problem between INESC and TECMIC, both organization evolved and suffered restructuring
processes but always maintaining their institutional link. From the network point of view a translation
occurred with the new configuration of the organization causing a new alignment in the network. With
new actors interacting with the network (BPI, Eng. Fernando Moreira and the new delegated
administrator) it was possible to develop new relations and to develop the network enrolment and
mobilization culminating in the signature of a technology transfer cooperation contract between INOV
and TECMIC.

4.2 PET

Positron Emission Tomography, PET, is a project for developing equipment for breast cancer
precocious diagnostic. The main goal is the design and development of equipment using high
resolution Positron Emitter Technology, which allows the precocious detection of breast cancer
tissues, through light detection electronics. PET technology in not a new technology but what is
innovative in this project is the way in which the detection is made. Using APD (Avalanche Photo
Diode) that can detect light particles at quantum level instead of old technology like PMT (Photo

38
Multipliers) that could only detect light at the electron level, it can provide higher resolutions enabling
the detection of smaller and compact tumors (1 to 2 mm) against the current available technology (8 to
10 mm).

The principle behind the PET detection is based on the injection in the patient of a radioactive liquid,
denominated marker, which covers the entire organism via the sanguineous veins. It is known that this
liquid, mainly composed of glucose, is more absorbed by the cancer cells than by the normal ones,
due to the faster metabolism of the firsts. During the natural decomposition of the liquid, the
20 21
radioactive isotope present in the liquid emits positrons , which rapidly recombine with electrons .
The collision of a positron with an electron results in the destruction of both particles. The collision also
22
generates, between others, two photons with the same direction but in opposed ways. Two detection
crystals boards placed face-to-face that detect and amplify these emitted signals basically compose
the PET detector. After the detection, specific advanced software algorithms output a three-
dimensional image that is used in the medical diagnosis.

4.2.1 ANT analysis

In 1990 CERN, the European organization for nuclear research, creates the Crystal Clear
collaboration, an interdisciplinary network involving world experts in different aspects of material
science (crystallography, solid state physics, luminescence, defects in solids) and experts in
instrumentation for the detection of high energy photons and electrons with the goal of developing
23
scintillating materials which would be suitable for use at the LHC collider. The Portuguese members
that participated in this collaborative network are IBEB (institute of biophysics and biomedical
engineering), LIP (technical and scientific association laboratory in the area of experimental physics)
and INESC-ID (R&D academic organization from the INESC group). Coordinating the Portuguese
members is João Varela, a Physics professor at IST, who has, for the last 15 years, been working in a
service commission at CERN.

The Crystal Clear group was researching crystals denser than the existent ones that were good for
detecting photons. These new crystals were the bases for the creation of the avalanche photo diodes.
With the development of the APDs the idea for using them in the cancer detection with PET
technology was born. The three organizations IBEB, LIP and INESC-ID were already networking

20
Subatomic particle with the same mass as an electron and a numerically equal but positive charge
(electron anti-particle)
21
Stable subatomic particle with a charge of negative electricity, found in all atoms and acting as the
primary carrier of electricity in solids
22
Particle representing a quantum of light or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy
proportional to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass
23
The world’s largest and highest-energy particle accelerator complex

39
together in this project, which was a value-added for starting building the project to make a proof of
concept.

Due to the complexity of the project the consortium leaded by João Varela (technical director) needed
more partners to fulfill the project needs. They brought together a partner to develop mechanical
systems (INEGI) and another to develop the software (IBILI). Through the network links and
institutional relations of the INESC group, INOV was brought to develop the electronic systems. To
specify the system requirements and performing the clinical tests they brought into the project a public
hospital, HGO (Hospital Garcia da Horta, Almada). LIP, IBEB, IBILI and INESC-ID are all
organizations with a strong academic culture and a strong background on university environments.

With the goal of demonstrating the know-how and the ability of the technology developed for the new
generation of PET detectors, the consortium applied to a state initiative that promote projects between
the scientific world and the enterprise world in a national and international cooperation (AdI –
24
Investigação em Consórcio ).

One of the requests of these projects is the existence of a business company as a promoter.
Taguspark was the choice. Taguspark is a private limited company which main activity is the
establishment, development, promotion and management of a Science and Technology Park as well
as to provide all supporting services deemed necessary to this activity. Taguspark was design to
implement innovation incubators for companies devoted to the commercialization of scientific
investigation results and distribution of new technical skills into the labor market. The choice of
Taguspark was highly motivated by the fact that INESC is one of its shareholders and because of the
fact that at the time the director of Taguspark was João Varela’s brother.

A management council composed of a technical director and one person representing each partner
leads the project. Each partner has a technical responsible that makes the bridge between the internal
team staff and the other partners’ teams. The project consortium involves around 40 persons (the
INOV team involved five to seven persons).

The consortium main partners were centralized in Lisbon (INESC-ID, INOV, IBEB and LIP) but other
partners were geographically separated and placed outside Lisbon: Hospital Garcia da Horta in
Almada (10Km), Taguspark in Oeiras (20Km), IBILI in Coimbra (200Km) and INEGI in Porto (300Km)
(see Table 4.1) [PET-PPT, 2003]. Regarding INESC-ID and INOV this was not a problem because
both organizations exist in the same building but to the project in general this was a problem that was
overcome by recurring to a good definition and management of responsibilities and assigning well
defined tasks to each partner, permitting that the project could evolve seamlessly with communication
technical solutions overcoming the distance (anticipation).

Another factor contributing to the stabilization of the network was the creation of a facility in Taguspark
called TAGUS-LIP, a laboratory of medical instrumentation. Here the consortium installed a “hot area”

24
See chapter 2.4 - Technology transfer initiatives

40
 where they performed the research, tests with radioactive sources, performed the integration of
technology and developed the project prototype.

With this choice of bringing together partners that already had worked together in network and others
that somehow were already socially networked, the consortium congregated all the factors for the
project approval by the agency and for the successful conclusion of the project, achieving the proof of
concept.

Partner Object Responsibility Local

Project promoter and industrial

Taguspark Technology and science park Oeiras
valorization

Technical and scientific association

Scientific coordination, simulation and
LIP laboratory in the area of experimental Lisboa
radiation detectors
physics

R&D academic organization from the

INESC-ID ASIC and FPGA Lisboa
INESC group

R&D and technology transfer

INOV technological infrastructure from the Electronic systems Lisboa
INESC group

Hospital
Garcia da Hospital Specification and clinic tests Almada
Horta

Mechanics and industrial Mechanical and electromechanical

INEGI Porto
management institute systems

Biophysics and biomedical Algorithms and image reconstruction

IBEB Lisboa
engineering institute software

Biomedical light and image research

IBILI Online software and radio-isotopes Coimbra
institute

Table 4.1. PET project partners

With the success of the PET project the consortium applied for a second project funding, PET-II. The
goal of PET-II was to develop a laboratory prototype and prepare the technology for commercialization
by performing clinical and practical tests. Maintaining the same structure and the same network
alignment this project was a continuation of the first one, also finalized with success.

41
 Figure 4.4. Illustration of PET equipment

After the second project (PET-II) the consortium decided to startup a private technology based
25
company called PETsys with the goal of adding value to the previous projects results and to attract
investment that could guarantee the continuity of the R&D activity. The consortium partners created
the new company as owners pretending with the exploitation of the project results to build prototypes
and provide technology licensing. The transition of the technology is achieved by the creation of the
startup company with the consortium celebrating a contract for exclusively yielding the intellectual
properties rights to PETsys. With PETsys assuming a minimal commercial-oriented structure, the
model represents for INOV (and for the other partners) the less disruptive way to transfer technology.
The teams can continue to develop their research without any organizational changes or personal
transfer, with the output of their work being integrated with other partners in the consortium context,
guarantying the return of the investments through the licensing contract.

PETsys started its activity by assuming the promotion of the PET-IIB project, with Taguspark leaving
the consortium. The Taguspark role and contribution was very important and crucial for the
development of PET and PET-II projects but its mission ended at this stage. With this new consortium
configuration they applied for a state-funding program with the creation of a third project (PET-IIB).

This project will construct a commercial/clinical prototype (Figure 4.4) to be used in hospital clinical
tests estimated to be launched at the end of 2009 (holistic diagram described by Figure 4.5).

25
PETsys – Medical PET Imaging Systems, S.A.

42
 Figure 4.5. PET translation process diagram

At this moment the participants in the consortium fell no need of a process evolving people transfer.
With the majority of the partners being academic institutions and with PETsys assuming the business
activity the idea for the medium term is the subcontracting by PETsys of the consortium or more
specifically organizations from the consortium. The company guarantees its stability through the
licensing contract and by the participation of the consortium organizations guarantying that there is
technology and a pool of people insuring their involvement and mobilization.

With the market where PET is inserted being dominated by some big companies (GE, Philips,
Siemens, Hitachi) there is a perception in the consortium that they cannot compete with this

43
companies and that their strategy would be to sell or license the technology, or build prototypes for
research centers, hospitals with research centers or organizations with a similar role to these two.
Sooner or later one of these big companies will be interested in PETsys technology and probably then
they will consider the possibility of acquiring (people and technology) from PETsys.

4.2.2 Conclusions
The idea behind the PET project arose from a network activity and collaboration group (Crystal Clear -
CERN). This collaboration work was not only responsible for creating network relations between the
participant organizations (IBEB, LIP and INESC-ID) but also for translating the research and
development performed in the group context. The participants translated the research of new crystals
and photo detection to the field of medicine by having the idea to apply the new technology to breast
cancer detection. We can say that PET project was originated from a translation process within an
already existent network.

The network relations brought from the Crystal Clear collaboration where the main setting in building
the initial project consortium. For INOV, once again, the importance of being linked to the INESC world
(INESC-ID and TAGUSPARK) was the cause of being brought to the project consortium. We can
observe that the initial project consortium constitution is based on already existent relationships
(academic, organizational, social and personal).

The experience of the project coordinators in international projects was an important factor to the
organization of the project partners and their tasks and activities. The complexity of the project, that
could be a problem for the translation process, was in this case an advantage, with the project
management breaking down the partners responsibilities and activities and the existence of a common
laboratory (TAGUS-LIP laboratory), where all the project integration was performed, minimizing a lot
the problems related with geographical distance.

The cultural aspects were also alleviated because almost all consortium partners are academic
organizations with the non-academic organizations being very close to universities activities or being
born from the university world.

It is crucial to emphasize the importance of the public and state funding policies and initiatives.
Without them it was impossible to build this consortium and to develop the proof of concept and the
pre-commercialization projects. TAGUSPARK also played and important role by creating conditions
for network stabilization and alignment during the execution of the project and by stimulating a private
company start-up to build and explore a commercial prototype (PET-sys).

The transition phase was well prepared with the development of marketing analysis and
commercialization strategies being crucial for the success of the process, with the consortium
choosing the technology transfer mode that was best adapted to the characteristics of the technology.
In this process the strategies of translation (durability, mobility, anticipation and ordering) are well
defined and identified with the obvious results observed by the success of the process itself.

We can now look to the network as a black box observing that the translation process was well

44
concluded (closure). With PET-sys starting to commercially explore the technology it is suggested that
INOV and thus the other consortium partners start to perform the mobilization of allies (the last
moment of the translation process) by preparing their teams and the key actors to a possible directly
participation in a future translation process in the actor-network.

In conclusion, the PET project is a good example and case study where a successful technology
transfer process was conducted and where ANT patterns are observed as the success of the
translation.

4.3 CICLOPE

CICLOPE is a surveillance system developed in the area of monitoring and remote control providing
night and day video surveillance, using infrared or visible spectrum cameras. The system was
developed with a special focus in forest surveillance, namely remote fire detection (manual or
automatic) and was conceived for remote operation in very inhospitable places, provided with
autonomous power supply systems and communication equipments, and acting as a stand-alone
independent system, usually in isolated places. Started as a series of national R&D projects with
proven results, rapidly became an innovative solution and exploration system not only for the forest
surveillance and fire detection but also for other areas such as:

• Urban surveillance

• Coast surveillance

• Intrusion and access control

• Traffic Control.

Being currently supported by INOV, a commercial infrastructure and a professional structure more
enterprise-like is a growing demand, making this project/system a strong candidate for a technology
transfer process.

4.3.1 ANT analysis

In 1994 INOV signs a collaboration protocol with the national institute for the preservation of nature
(ICN) which is the state organization responsible for proposing, following and assuring the execution
of policies for the nature preservation, biodiversity and the management of the natural protected areas
(natural parks, natural reserves, etc..). The protocol aimed the collaboration between both
organizations for the development of an experimental prototype for forest surveillance and the
development of software algorithms for remote fire detection (manual or automatic) with the prototype
testing being performed in the national park of Peneda-Gerês (PNPG) [Protocol, 1994]. The
experimental prototype was considered a proof of concept and a first step for the future development

45
of an integrated forest surveillance system composed by observation and detection towers connected
to a central coordination system.

The contact and the proximity with INESC arise from the contacts and social relations between Prof.
Jorge Marques, professor at IST, investigator at INESC in the area of image analysis and patterns
recognition, and PNPG director. At the time this was a new research area even at INESC and the
prototype development involved several internal groups: Communications, Video Acquisition,
Mechanical (pan-tilt positioning), and Control and Coordination application, thus mobilizing a lot of
people. The development consisted on a camera for acquiring the video image, a pan-tilt system for
moving and positioning the camera, a communication uplink for video transmission, a communication
downlink for data and control and a central application for video monitoring and camera control.

Under the collaboration protocol they applied for a project (project AÇOR) financed by the national
state agency for the scientific and technological research (at the time, JNICT). PNPG supplied all the
equipment and INESC supplied the manpower with INESC taking advantage of its proximity to the
university using several students’ research projects to integrate in the prototype. This project gave
continuity to the signed protocol serving as a financing source allowing the development of a
demonstration prototype, which was installed in a watchtower in the middle of the Peneda-Gerês Park
in 1996, giving a great visibility to the project and causing that other park directors developed an
interest in the project. In 1997 another demonstration prototype (CONDOR) was installed in Vila Nova
de Poiares in cooperation with the national fireman service. These prototypes were operational till
1999.

It was after these projects, in 2000, that INESC looked at this technology from another perspective
and the management decided that this was an important and strategic area to invest and they took the
technical decision to develop a new system with other premises. With the acquired know-how and
experience a study for an installation in the natural park of Arrábida was made, the system was
redesigned to be independent of the communication medium, the central application was enhanced
with geo-reference systems and all the system architecture was redesigned for modular expansion
(several cameras, towers, etc…).

With the 2000 INESC restructuring process the CICLOPE team was naturally integrated in INOV.
Without having to change geographically and maintaining the same team organization this was a
natural transition and non disruptive to the activity that was less academic and more commercially
oriented. From that moment on, the goal was to develop and explore a commercial product.

From 2001 forward INOV collaborated with the national authority for civil protection applied for several
funding programs to install and run demonstration systems in several places (natural park of Arrabida,
Esposende and Castelo Branco). They also installed a solution in Portucel, a pulp and paper private
company.

In 2004 COTEC Portugal (a professional association for the innovation) developed an initiative for
studying and preventing forest fires in Portugal. By constituting a connection between the state
ministries, public organizations, forest companies, associations of forest producers and organizations

46
from the scientific and technological system the initiative involved three projects: benchmarking,
prevention support and surveillance, detection and alert. INOV was chosen to integrate this initiative
and to take advantage of its own knowledge and know-how. The case studies, market research and
methodologies studies performed stimulated the commercial approach and the fine-tuning of the
product.

With the development of the commercial activity INOV adapted its organizational structure to
accommodate and support more commercially oriented projects like CICLOPE. It was necessary to
develop a commercial strategy, to enhance the commercial and business contacts and to provide a
maintenance and post-sell assistance service. Nowadays there are three internal teams involved in
the system development and support: one for research and develop the detection algorithms, one for
analyzing, proposing and installing the system, and the last to perform the systems maintenance,
prevention and support (the translation process illustrated by Figure 4.6).

Figure 4.6. CICLOPE translation process diagram

47
Nowadays CICLOPE is a modular system composed by the video capture components, the
communications components (independent of the medium used), the control center responsible for
controlling and managing all the system, an automatic detection component based on images from the
visible specter and optional components for infrared and laser detection. The system is now
considered a wide area video surveillance system (forests, harbors, boarders, pipe-lines, gas-lines,
etc…) with other uses behind fire detection: people surveillance, traffic control, objects detection, etc…

In 2007 INOV sold a solution to two Portuguese city councils, Castelo Branco and Idanha à Nova, and
to Greece by winning an international public proposal. At the moment INOV is, in collaboration with
Securitas and Prossegur (two private security companies), preparing a commercial proposal to sell
CICLOPE to monitor a pipeline in an industrial facility.

4.3.2 Conclusions
The collaboration protocol between PNPG and INESC was an incentive to technology advancements
in a new field by joining together the need for effective fire detection, prevention programs and a
national reference in technology research and development organization. This problematisation
created the conditions for an invention and innovation. Aiming for the development of a demonstration
prototype this collaboration brought together two main actors and functioned as the initial network
alignment. Being very close to the universities was a very important factor to the INESC development
of the project because it was possible to align the research with students’ research projects so that the
resulting know-how could be applied in the demonstration prototype (interessement and alignment).
Also a state funding program allowed the construction and the onsite installation of the prototype
enabling in this way a practical application for the demonstrator. This demonstration site was used
also to enroll new organizations and interest them in this new technology.

By management decision this was an area that INESC was interested in investing on (the opportunity)
and with their restructuring and the creation of INOV the conditions for building a commercial
prototype were created. Transition happened with the teams and technology seamlessly translating
from INESC to INOV without any kind of culture problems or difficulties.

Participating in the COTEC fire prevention initiative gave INOV the tools to start exploring the product
and to initiate a commercial activity by widening the network and by bringing new actors (important
contacts for the commercial exploitation) to the actor-network. With all the commercial support
infrastructures being developed from scratch enrolment happened naturally and development started
quickly with the first commercial business contract and sales.

In this case study although a development phase is observed we can say that technology transfer
never happened. With INOV teams handling themselves the commercialization and marketing
exploitation of the product means that technology transfer never happened. By handling the
commercialization INOV didn’t allow the network to expand and the possible mobilization of allies
never happened.

Management looks back and says that an entrepreneur spirit didn’t develop during that time and

48
probably this was the reason that a spin-off or startup (effective technology transfer) didn’t happen.
From the ANT point of view this effect is explained by the fact that people and artifacts (INOV team
and CICLOPE technology/product) negotiations didn’t evolve symmetrically causing miss-alignment in
the network and consequently not allowing a network expansion. Without this network expansion a
black box was achieved around INOV but without further translations. Of course there were some
factors that could have contributed for that ”failure”. During the latest years the only possible client for
the product was the state or state dependent organizations. This could be a major factor to justify the
defensive behavior of the INOV teams.

With the latest social problems and security issues there is nowadays among society a strong feeling
that video surveillance and monitoring systems are needed and welcome. With modern societies
available to trade privacy for security there is now a big hype around these line of products and a great
demand from the market. Of course this is a big opportunity and INOV management is looking for it,
because they already feel that the commercial activity is moving them away from their mission.
Translation processes are now quite desirable and needed.

49
 Chapter 5

Conclusions
5 Conclusions
Today INESC has an organization that is considerably different from the one that characterized the
beginning of its activity, revealing a notable capacity to reinvent itself. INESC today contains different
realities and responds for several autonomous institutions, each one with its own specificities, but all
of them endowed with knowledge and resources cumulated by the synergies resultant from the
technological network always in construction (university and industry). This network is alive, as an
ongoing result of the negotiations, restructurings and translations. With a flexible structure and a
network vision, INESC constructs its own reality playing roles that sometimes were not planned, but
always adapting to the changing realities of the university (mainly local) and industry system (mainly
global).

Born from the fusion of several INESC technology transfer centres, INOV creation was a result of this
negotiations, restructurings and translations within the network. INOV creation process was not a
transmission, or a simple adaptation, but was in itself the result of translations in which the
accumulated body of knowledge and know-how was constructed within new contexts and users. INOV
inherited a very important asset: the capability to construct and align a technological network, placing
itself in a privileged position between the University and Industry.

50
Technology transfer processes approaches also evolved over time. In the beginning, the neoclassical
models presented a merely static and descriptive vision, analyzing only the impacts of technology
choices and not evaluating its construction. The adoption of socio-technological approaches
developed dynamic and flexible views by mixing technological, economic and human factors to explain
how technology is diffused. The diffusion approaches still do not answer to how technology and
innovation are created.

By including time in the analysis and interpretation of technology and innovation, the Actor Network
Theory claims that the technology transfer processes evolve over time and that people and their
networks change with time. These changes (actors negotiation) represent the positive and negative
network alignments with technology transfer becoming the result of these interactions (translation).

While other models are good for describing and evaluating static relations (organization, skills,
processes), Actor Network Theory is promising for explaining and evaluating novelties in a system,
R&D competences and eventually innovation triggering processes (Table 5.1).

Socio-Technological Approaches Actor Network Theory

(Diffusion) (Translation)

Power is the cause of events and actions Power is the result of events and actions

Identification of factors that contribute or inhibit Identification of actors and their network
technology interactions

Registers the transfer results Registers the translation process

Results analysis through cause-effect phenomena Results analysis trough network interaction and
alignment phenomena

Table 5.1. Diffusion vs. Translation

Translation looks at technology transfer as an actor network alignment sufficiently strong to create a
necessary technology (through innovation) and as a series of interactions between materials and
humans that builds bridges between resources and motivations.

Analyzing the studied projects we concluded that the power of socio-technical relations couldn’t be
omitted because these relations construct the alignment and stabilization of networks. Promoting
these relations it’s like promoting the network itself. Sooner or later these relations evolve to a process
of translation. The process of translation and therefore the technology transfer and innovation process
cannot be seen just like linear processes but as displacements, therefore technology transfer and
innovation evolve (is constructed) from the network activity (translation).

Using ANT we observe that the problematisation in the three analyzed projects was constructed over
the pre-established network of relations and contributed for the never-ending process of ordering a
multitude of actors and artifacts, evolving them in a series of translation processes. By following the

51
actors and observing how they extended (or failed to extend) the network in which they were involved,
our research tracked associations and was driven to subsequent translations and incorporations. The
fact that the author was involved in INOV constituted an important factor to the analysis and brought to
the study an internal view incorporating the cultural, organizational and motivation factors at stake
(ethnographic research).

Another alert we tracked from our project analysis is the importance of programs and initiatives that
promote the collaboration and interaction within a space that overflows the national borders. Our
space university-industry should be European or even worldwide. The cases addressed in this study
are a proof that knowledge and relations promotes translation processes that are crucial and
mobilizing factors for innovation and technology transfer.

Analyzing the projects we can observe that INESC and consequently INOV had problems dealing with
technology artifacts. The symptom observed (especially in XTRAN and CICLOPE projects) was that
personal actors consider the technology artifacts as their own feeling they own them. And sometimes
technology was taken by itself and not in network including its use. From the ANT point of view
personal actors only take relevance over the artifacts by assuming inherent qualities (inscribe),
causing eventual miss-alignments to the network. With some actors assuming inherent qualities they
develop asymmetric network relations, with the weaker links falling apart jeopardizing the whole
translation.

We also observe that the organization doesn’t invest (or forgets to invest) in the “mobilization of allies”.
This important step of translation can make the difference between the failure and the success of a
technology transfer process. Also some actors in the networks were inadequately representing their
sponsors ending up by weakening their participation in the process of transferring technology. This
behavior can be related to the safety feeling that personal actors tend to develop over the artifacts
(Table 5.2).

Negative actors Positive actors

(Not aligned) (Aligned)

Human actors develop an ownership sense over Financing and support Programs and Initiatives
artifacts

Technology faced as a network external element Sharing knowledge and relationships promotes
translation

Lack of investment in mobilization Privileged position between University and

Industry

Table 5.2. Positive and Negative actors

The three projects we visited in this study are related to the translation processes of INOV itself, proof
how technology transfer processes inherits from the construction and alignment of these kind of

52
networks. INOV privileged position, assessing universities and industries were the key factor for
translating (people, knowledge and technology). This configuration underlies the fact that almost
exclusively their technological base supports technology transfer in a networking process that
translates needs and uses, specifications and deliverables through an R&D effort.

With INOV (and also INESC) activity highly dependent of the relations that they can establish between
university and industry, they have in the future to continue to invest in constructing and aligning their
networks. Using ANT we can say that in the future INOV personal actors have to start to face
technology transfer in a little differently way. Apart from the technology, they need to invest in this new
paradigm. Not only by training but understanding the role of the different factors in the process. The
ability to address these factors as heterogeneous actors (things, people, machines, artifacts,
organizations) enrolled in the process is a key success factor to fulfill their mission: bring together
university and industry by being the key player in technology transfer.

After observing ANT genesis and its usage in analysing technology transfer processes we can say
that ANT vision unifies society and technology. From the ANT point of view the successful technology
transfer processes are the ones that are able to create, maintain and reinforce heterogeneous
networks in a way that they create durable networks.

53
 References

References
[Figueiredo, 2008] José Figueiredo, 2008, Reviewing the Actor-Network Theory, edited by Putnik and
Cunha, Dep. Engenharia e Gestão, Instituto Superior Técnico
[Graça, 2005] Manuel Graça, 2005, Translating university-industry relations – The development of a
knowledge link in Portugal, Faculdade de Economia, Universidade do Porto
[Estók, 2001] Eva Estók, 2001, Innovation Based Economic Models – Or how technology and
technological change can be contextualized, Yearbook 2001, Institute for Advanced
Studies on Science Technology and Society
[Godin, 2005] Benoît Godin, 2005, The Linear Model of Innovation: The Historical Construction of an
Analytical Framework, Project on the History and Sociology of STI Statistics, Institut
National de la Recherche Scientifique
[Movahedi, 2003] Bahar Movahedi, 2003, Identifying the key factors influencing the mode of
international technology transfer in Iranian manufacturing industry, School of Business,
Carleton University
[UCPT, 2005] Unidade de Coordenação do Plano Tecnológico, 2005, Transferência de Tecnologia,
Documento de Trabalho nº5, Portuguese National Technological Plan
[Akroyd, 2001] Chris Akroyd, 2001, The Role of Management Control Systems Within Actor-Networks
During New Product Development, The University of Auckland
[Law, 1992] John Law, 1992, Notes on the Theory of the Actor Network: Ordering, Strategy and
Heterogeneity, Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University
[McMaster, 1997] , T. McMaster, R. T. Vidgen and D.G. Wastell, 1997, Towards an understanding of
technology in transition – Two conflicting theories, Information Systems Research in
Scandinavia - IRIS20 Conference,University of Oslo
[Garrety, 2001] Karin Garrety, Paul L. Robertson and Richard Badham, 2001, Communities of
Practice, Actor Networks and Learning in Development Projects, Centre for Change
Management, Department of Management, University of Wollongong
[Steen, 2006] John Steen and John Yencken, 2006, Use of Actor-Network Theory to develop a holistic
view of new technology-based small firm development, Australian Graduate School of
Entrepreneurship, Swinburne University of Technology
[Contract, 2001] Contrato de Parceria INOV – TECMIC v1.7, 2001, Contract for Strategic Partnership
[PET-PPT, 2003] Pedro Lousã, 2007, Projecto PET Mamografia - Presentation, III Jornadas de
Inovação
[Protocol, 1994] Protocolo de Colaboração INESC-PNPG, 2004, Colaboration Protocol

55