ELSEVIER EXECUTIVE FORUM MAPPING THE UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER _PROCESS BRIAN HARMON ALEXANDER ARDISHVILI RICHARD CARDOZO TAIT ELDER JOHN LEUTHOLD JOHN PARSHALL MICHAEL RAGHIAN DONALD SMITH University of Minnesota Transfer of technologies from the universities to the private sector is increas- EXECUTIVE ingly regarded as playing a significant role in new business starts, growth SUMMARY of existing businesses, and new job creation. Further, there are numerous —————— _ models describing the process of technology transfer. Some of the existing models represent this process as a linear progression of steps: from idea gen- eration and technology development at the university, to patenting the tech- nology and then establishing a university-private firm link through a formal search process. The process culminates in patent rights transfer. Other models describe technology transfer in terms of networking arrangements and emphasize not so much formal search as the role of long-term relationships between the nwo parties, Still other studies indicate that itis possible to combine the two approaches—formal search and informal networking arrangements—to ensure successful transfer. Business firms involved in transfer also may be classified into several groups. Transfer could occur between the university and an established firm, between the university and a recently created new venture, or transfer could resultin the creation of a new company. Technology, for example, could be transferred to a large company that uses the transferred technology as a basis for just one of many product lines, or to a small firm that makes the transferred technology a cornerstone of its product strategy. Are there any differences among the transfer processes used when large or small firms are involved, or when technology is transferred to an existing company, or results in the creation of a new firm? To ‘Address correspondence to Richard N. Cardozo, Director, Carlson Entrepreneurship Program, Carlson, ‘School of Management, University of Minnesota, 1235 Management and Economics, 271 19th Avenue South, Minne- polis, MIN 55455, Journal of Business Venturing 12, 423-434 © 1997 Elsevier Science Inc, All rights reserved. 883-9026:07/8:7.00 {695 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010 IT SO883-9026(96)00064-X424 B. HARMON ET AL. address these questions, we mapped the technology transfer processes of 23 different technologies devel- oped at the University of Minnesota from 1983 to 1993. More than half of the technologies studied went to large companies and were used either to upgrade existing products or to extend existing product lines. In eight cases technologies were transferred to small firms. In three cases technologies were transferred to venture capital firms or intermediaries and had not been commercialized at the time the study was completed. In the rest of the cases new firms were created by the inventors/university scientists themselves and served as vehicles for marketing their inventions. None of the firms of the latter group have grown beyond a part-time employment opportunity for the inventors, and only one firm provided evidence that additional hiring would be necessary in the near future. Only four cases involved transfers of technologies that have been developed and patented by the university to firms that did not have any relationships with the university prior to the transfer. In these four cases the firms used some form of search strategy to find a needed technology. However, there is no evidence that any of the firms had a well-developed formal search procedure. In the overwhelming ‘majority of cases some form of relationship existed between the university (or individual inventors) and the private firm prior to the transfer. These relationships ranged from long-term friendships and/or coop- eration to such less involved forms as interaction at research seminars and university-sponsored events. Further, in four cases, the technologies were initially developed by private companies, whereas the univer- sity’s role was to assist in refinement or testing of the technology The research yielded a number of additional findings that deserve further investigation and discus- sion. Specifically, the study did not provide any evidence that the successfully completed technology trans- fers made any substantial contribution to either new business creation or the generation of new jobs. This finding suggests that scholars and policy makers should proceed with caution before accepting a notion that new or high technology firms will have any direct economic impact. The study findings hold specific implications for entrepreneurial behavior and public policy. The “formal search and shopping” for a technology model suggests that both business and academic/govern- ‘ment laboratories publicize, respectively, their requirements and offerings, and that opportunities for cre- ative brokerage ought to exist. We found that in the majority of cases technology was transferred not through formal search, but through some prior relationships among individuals. This observation sug- gests that the ability to build extended networks of relationships not only within the business world but also with the university community is an important skill that owners and managers of the technology- based businesses need to possess. Entrepreneurs seeking to start businesses based on new technologies may need to reevaluate how much of their limited time to allocate to build and maintain networks and cooperative relationships, and how much time to shop for new technologies through formal channels. Further, public policy and the efforts of the university transfer agencies intended to facilitate transfer may need to shifitheir emphasis from facilitating “shopping” by organizing and/or paying for “publicity” (which is currently the major emphasis) to providing assistance in network building and relationship marketing efforts. © 1997 Elsevier Science Inc INTRODUCTION Transfer of technologies from the noncommercial to the private sector is increasingly regarded as playing a significant role in new business starts, growth of existing busi- nesses, and new job creation (Matkin 1990; Parker and Zilberman 1993; Proctor 1993). The assumption is that technology transfer into the private sector will contribute sig- nificantly to new business growth and new job creation and, by promoting major techno- logical advances, will lead to the increase of social wealth ‘A number of recent studies directly addresses the issue of the economic impact of technology transfer (see, for example, Baron 1993: Parker and Zilberman 1993). Most, of the studies, however, do not analyze this impact but. rather, start with the assumption that the impact is significant. The majority of studies reported in the literature describes processes of technology transfer from universities to the private sector (Matkin 1990; Samsom and Gurdon 1993;UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 425, Proctor 1993; Bell 1993; Parker and Zilberman 1993), transfer from government labs to the private sector (Cole 1992; Scott 1993), and transfer between and within private sector companies (Leonard-Barton and Sinha 1993; Chakrabarti et al. 1993; Palanis- wami and Bishop 1993). These studies fall into one of two different philosophical perspectives. The first regards technology transfer as an “arm’s length,” buy-sell transaction between univer- sity labs and private companies. The second perspective considers technology transfer as a collaborative activity occurring within an established network of formal and infor- mal relationships. Perspective 1 In this model, inventors and future users of technology function independently, without coordinating their efforts until the first negotiations occur regarding a specific technol- ogy. The two parties find one another usually through a formal search process that is often mediated by a transfer agent. The technology in this model moves in one direc- tion—from the university lab to the private buyer. The transfer process is seen asa linear sequence of steps from development to negotiations and then to transfer proper (see, for example, Zhao and Zilberman 1992; Cole 1992). Within this perspective, technology transfer is a “process . . . bridging the disparate cultures of the donor and recipient organizations . . . involving steps of adaptation and utilization that may change the technology into something quite different from that issu- ing from the source” (Goldho! and Lund 1983). The transfer agency is seen as “the key- stone to a solid technology transfer bridge” (Goldhol and Lund 1983, p. 144). Further developing this perspective, Parker and Douglas (1993) describe two types of innovation. The first, “unshielded innovation,” involves basic research, which creates innovations that then undergo further development. In the second, “shielded innova- tion,” a university office of technology licensing assesses the innovation’s commercial potential and seeks licenses for promising inventions. In both cases the transfer agency plays a major role: first by mediating the patent rights transfer and second by actively searching out technologies to be transferred and by finding potential technology buyers. Large and Barclay (1992) view the process of technology transfer from publicsector R&D to private sector businesses from a marketing perspective, analyzing business firms as industrial “buyers.” They analyze criteria used by buyers in selecting technolo- gies. Among those factors that have the major influence on buying decisions are such characteristics of the technology proposal as user value, patent/proprietary position, prototype efficacy, and strategic fit. They consider such characteristics of the transfer agent or inventor, as business empathy (profit orientation, reasonable expectations about the magnitude and timing of remuneration, communication and interpersonal skills) and credibility. Perspective 2 The next major group of studies takes a different perspective on the technology transfer process and emphasizes the relationships/collaboration aspect of it. Some of the studies of this group address the communications aspect of the problem—patterns of informa- tion exchange—for example. Other studies concentrate on the patterns and nature of relationships between the participants in the process of technology transfer or on factors that facilitate or hinder these relationships.426 B. HARMON ET AL. For example, the communications perspective presumes that multiple participants are involved in technology transfer. The efficiency of transfer depends on the efficacy of information flows between a set of individuals or organizations within a complex net- work of communications paths (Rothwell and Robertson 1973). Lambricht and Teich (1976) argue that barriers to transfer can be reduced by alli- ance building. They advocate that the public sector inventors should develop alliances with lead users to demonstrate a need in the marketplace. Next, this alliance develops into a relationship with a manufacturer. Lambricht and Teich argue that, because the user has already adopted the idea, it will be easier to demonstrate to the manufacturer the benefits of adopting the technology. McDonald and Gieser (1987) studied the processes of cooperation between the parties involved that make the transfer easier. Among the facilitating processes identi- fied are open communication, mutual interdependence, respect and trust, willingness to compromise, ete. Network analysis (Auster 1990) attempts to elevate the relationships perspective to a higher level of analysis. Network analysis examines the whole web of relationships in which the transferring organizations (or individuals), transfer agents, and recipients of technology are embedded. The imagery changes from a focus on pairs of partners to systems of relationships; from the analysis of communications to the description and quantification of network boundaries, numbers and strengths of linkages, and net- work density. Hybrid Perspectives Some authors address both the structure of relationships between university lab and private sector and the activities of the process itself. For example, Padmanabhan and Souder (1994) proposed a “Brownian” approach to technology transfer. The model at- tempts to account for numerous factors involved in the process and views successful technology transfer as a process of managing a portfolio of interacting facilitators, barri- ers, and mass elements in such a way as to steer the dynamics of the process toward the successful transfer. The model demonstrates that the speed of transfer is a function not only of the efforts to increase the technology's critical mass but also of the efforts to offset the barriers with facilitators. ‘There are studies demonstrating that in some cases businesses successfully use both formal search and networking skills to identify a right technology and to complete the transfer transaction. For example, cases of technology transfer analyzed by Rogers (1983) fall into this category. ‘A major question, then, is which perspective—arm’s length, network. or hybrid— most aptly describes technology transfer? And how well can these perspectives describe a variety of situations when companies of different sizes and stages of development are involved? METHOD To explore which perspectives might best describe technology transfer in different situa- tions, we interviewed companies that had obtained the rights to new technology devel- oped at the University of Minnesota. Minnesota is a fertile ground for such a study, in that it consistently ranks in the top 10 among research universities in the United StatesUNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 427 in patents received. The University’s Office of Research and Technology Transfer Asso- ciation (ORTTA) supplied an initial list of 36 companies for possible study who met the following criteria: © They had acquired a technology from the University of Minnesota within the period 1983-93; * They had paid royalties or licensing fees to ORTTA during that period: and * Informal and anecdotal information gathered by ORTTA staff led them to per- ceive that the company had a reasonable probability of at least limited commer- cial success. From this initial list of 36 companies who had acquired 39 different technologies, 19 (encompassing 23 technologies) agreed to be interviewed. Of the 17 companies that not participate, 12 simply refused, two had gone out of business, and three no longer employed the principal individuals responsible for the transfer. As a result, 53% of the companies contacted (representing 59% of the technologies in question) participated in the study We opted for a series of questions that encouraged respondents to provide a broad ranging, yet highly detailed descriptive narrative of the process in which they engaged to be able to acquire the technology in question from the university. Each interviewer was given an interview form with a number of questions/areas to cover and was asked to follow the format as closely as possible. The questionnaire included the following major areas and questions: description of the technology; recipient company demo- graphics (industry sector, ownership, number of employees, when founded, key prod- ucts, major customers); the company’s search for new technologies (is there a formal process?, how is the search organized?, goals of searches, sources of information used, channels used, who is involved in the search?, decision-making?); payment structure, royalties; patent issues; current state of the company, and status of the technology transferred. Interviews averaged about 45 minutes apiece and were supplemented in some in- stances by the provision of written materials made available by the companies that de- scribed their business and the technologies they were developing. Analysis of completed interview schedules and relevant supplementary materials was performed by several researchers independently, with subsequent iterative development of common themes and observations. FINDINGS More than two-thirds (15 of the 23) of the technologies studied went to large companies and were used either to upgrade existing products or to extend existing product lines. In eight cases technologies were transferred to small firms. In three cases technologies were transferred to venture capital firms or intermediaries and had not been commer- cialized by the time of the study. In the rest of the cases new firms were created by the inventors-university scientists themselves to serve as vehicles for marketing the inven- tion. None of these firms had grown beyond a part-time employment opportunity for the inventors, and there was only one that provided evidence that any additional hiring would be necessary in the near future. Only four cases involved transfers of technologies that had been developed and428 B. HARMON ET AL. "ABLE 1 Prior Ré ‘Technologies Companies ___(Number) (Number) Factor Prior relationship? Yes 7 4 No 6 5 Recipient? Existing company 18 15 New start-up 5 4 Origin of idea? University laboratory 18 is Recipient company 5 4 patented by the University of Minnesota to a firm that did not have any relationships with the university prior to the transfer. In these four cases the firms used some form of search strategy to find a needed technology. However, there is no evidence that any of the firms had a well-developed formal search procedure. In the overwhelming major- ity of cases there was some form of relationship between the university (or individual inventors) and the private firm prior to the transfer. These relationships ranged from long-term friendships and/or cooperation to such less involved forms as interaction at research seminars, university-sponsored events, and presentations. In four pertinent cases the ideas for products/technologies were generated at the companies and the uni- versity assisted in further development/refinement of the technology. These findings are summarized in Table 1. Transferees Thirteen of the technologies studied (56.5%) were transferred to 10 large companies. Eight of these companies each had over 1,000 employees worldwide, and two others had several hundred. Of the 13 technologies transferred to these 10 large companies, only two led the companies who purchased them to try to produce products that were in a decidedly different direction from existing product lines, Of these two, only one had succeeded at getting a product to market and even they had yet to make any appre- ciable sales at the time the study was completed. The other 11 technologies transferred to large companies were extensions of existing product lines. Nine of the technologies (39.1%) ended up in the hands of very small companies. Two of these companies had 14 to 20 employees; six others had fewer than five each. Of these eight small companies, five were created by the inventor(s) of the technology for the exclusive purpose of trying to market their invention. Two acquired technologies ‘as a means of venture capital activity, and one used the technology to completely shift the focus of their business. There was also one business involved in the study whose size was uncertain from the data collected. Types of Technology Transferred Table 2 shows the breakdown of the technology transfers included in the study by type of product. Knowledge products (including computer software, videos, and the like) make up the largest group of technologies whose transfer process was studied, followedUNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 429 TABLE 2 Technologies Transferred by Type and Size ‘Type of Technology PCT Company Size Knowledge products (9) including: 39.1% Software (6) 26.1% 3 large, 3 small Videos (2) 8.7% 1 small ‘Traffic trackingicontrol (1) 43% Medical devices (5) including: 21.7% Performance enhancement (3) 13.0% small Testing (2) 8.7% large Horticultural (4) 17.4% large Pharmaceuticals/nutritional supplements (3) 13.0% large Chemical processing/measuring (2) 87% large Total (23) 100 by medical devices, horticultural products, pharmaceuticals, and chemical processing products. It is also worthy of note that four of the knowledge products (both videos and two of the computer programs) deal with health and/or nutrition, and one of the chemical processing technologies has potential medical applications. When added to the medical devices and pharmaceutical products, this suggests that well over half of the technologies transferred (13 of 23, 56.5%) were in the area of medicine, health, or nutrition. Five Types of Transfer Processes We found that it was possible to classify the transfer of each of the 23 technologies in the study into one of five different categories of transfer process. These categories were devel- oped using the following questions: * Was the technology initiated at the university or by a private company? ‘© Was the technology transferred to an existing company or was a new company formed for the expressed purpose of marketing the new technology * What was the nature of the contact and/or relationship between the inventor and the purchasing company that facilitated the transfer? The five types of transfer processes are: 1. The technology is invented in the university lab and sold to an already existing company. The connection between the lab and the company was made prior to the development of the technology, and the relationship between the two was not exclusively devoted to the new technology. Nine of the technologies (39.1%). involving seven of the companies (36.8%), were transferred in this manner. This set can be broken down further into two subcategories. a, Six of the technologies (involving four companies) involved instances where the inventor had an ongoing working relationship with the company in question, a relationship that had many more dimensions than just new technology. For exam- ple, all four horticultural products fall into this category. In each instance, the hor- ticultural companies have an executive who visits the University of Minnesota (as well as several other midwestern universities) at least twice each year to keep up ona variety of research activities, of which new plant development is only one. The relationships have persisted for years and remain important even when no430 BL HARMON ET AL. new products were developed that might have commercial potential. In the remaining cases. the faculty inventors had ongoing informal relation- ships (the inventor was characterized as a great friend of the company), or formal relationships (one company employed a faculty member asa part-time consultant, from which they learned of his invention) with the firms to whom they would eventually sell their technologies. Alll of these cases involved transfers to large companies. b. The other subcategory includes three technologies (and three companies) where a previous contact and/or relationship was specifically exploited to facilitate the particular transfer. These did not involve an ongoing relationship, but rather were instances where a relationship or contact initially made for other reasons was acti- vated specifically to produce the transfer. In two cases, inventors contacted com- pany representatives whom they had met previously at a professional conference. In the remaining case the company had employed a former graduate student of the inventor, who subsequently contacted his mentor when learning that his com- pany had a need that could be filled by that faculty member s invention. The gradu- ate student/mentor case involved a large company. The conference cases included one small company and the company of indeterminate size. 2. The technology is invented in the university lab and sold to an already existing company. A relationship between the inventor and the company did not exist prior to the develop- ment of the technology. This situation characterized three of the technologies (13%) and included three of the companies (15.8%). In all three of these cases, a representative of the company contacted the university about the invention after having learned about it from a formal search of relevant journal articles or conference proceedings or a formal request for possible new produets. In two of these cases, the companies were solely in the distribution business. The other involved a large company that never got the product to market and eventually attempted to sell the rights back to the university. 3. The technology ity lab and sold to a venture capital company. Two of the technologies (8.7%) involving two companies (10.5%) engaged in this type of transaction, Both instances involve very smal] companies that purchased the technol- ‘ogy in the hope of creating new companies around the particular technology. Both compa- nies discovered the technology through a formal search (and hence had no prior relation- ship with the inventor), and neither had successfully formed new companies for the technology or had developed a marketable prototype at the time the study was completed. Both, however, were continuing their efforts and hoping to get products to market in the very near future. 4, The technology is invented in the university lab and a new company is created specifically to sell it. Five technologies (21.7%), involving five companies (26.3%), made transfers in this manner. In all five instances, the inventor was a member of the start-up team in the company that was created to sell the technology. In three of these, the inventor created the company in partnership with someone from outside the university. Two brought in partners specifically to provide general business skills, and one brought in a partner for additional skills substantive to the business, One of the remaining two cases was a sole proprietorship, though this particular inventor did not really form a company; he merely sold a few units of his invention on the side and shared the proceeds with the university ‘The remaining instance involved a unit of the university that had produced a software program as a result of a series of federal grants. After a number of years of existenceUNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 431. on federal subsidies, the unit was instructed to become self-funding, which it has done largely through sales of its computer program. Hence. an independent company was never really created around the new technology; rather a unit within the university was able to continue to exist beyond its years of external funding by selling its new technolo; There are some important similarities among these inventor-created companies. First, every inventor who helped create a company around their invention did so on a strictly part-time basis; none of them left their jobs at the university to devote full-time to their new company. Only one of these companies has to date hired a full-time employee: that company now has almost 20 employees. Three of the others have two or fewer, and the special case of unknown size has at best been able to retain past employees as a result of their efforts 5. The technology isinitially developed by a private firm, but the firm seeks out the university toassistin areas where it has needed expertise. Four technologies (17.4% ), involving three companies (15.8%), can be accurately described by this process. One of these companies bought its first technology from the university from a prior relationship and then turned to the university a second time for joint development of a subsequent technology that it had begun to develop on its own. This particular company has only two employees. The remaining two companies in this category were quite large, and in two of the instances (involving one company) commissioned the university to participate in further development of the products they had initiated. The other company exploited a prior relationship with a university faculty member to provide needed expertise to complete the development. It should be noted that whereas much of the literature focuses broadly on the role of the transfer agency in facilitating the process, the data in our cases were quite inconclu- sive in this area. Responses to the transfer agency role were broad and emotional, running the full gamut from high praise to frustration. Consequently those responses are not a primary factor in our analysis. DISCUSSION The “relationships” perspective describes more than 80% of the transfers we observed. The remainder fit an arm’s length or an extended/hybridized version of the “relation ships” perspective. Our modest set of descriptive data suggests that a significant proportion of transfers of new technologies from universities to private firms flows to large. established corpora- tions. Transfers occur principally through relationships between inventors and contacts in the business community, and those contacts exist prior to the transfers. Thus, universi- ties’ advertising of their available technologies may offer a very modest return. These observations hint at a minimal role for formal “searching” for new technolo- gies by both large and small companies. Our data suggest that what formal searching ‘occurs does so in companies with internal R&D departments. We speculate that those “searches” may simply represent an outgrowth of the research staff's efforts to keep current in technical developments within their fields. If, in the course of reviewing jour- nals, attending professional conferences, and the like, they come across an invention disclosed by a university, they may pursue that invention if it appears related to current or prospective projects in their organizations. Such pursuit may in retrospect appear432 B. HARMON ET AL. al sources, but in fact results from a less to result from a formal search through techni formal, perhaps even happenstance, process. Economic Impact of Technology Transfer Whereas large companies appear to be a primary outlet for the commercialization of new technologies developed in public labs, our study provided no evidence that such technologies are in and of themselves a major source of job creation. We saw no in- stances of a technology that, once commercialized, provided such a plethora of sales that new employees needed to be rushed in to meet the demand, or that a new division was created within the company, or that any other such major organizational and/or economic change occurred. Given that almost all of the new technologies studied here were only minor extensions of already well-established product lines within these firms, it is unlikely that the organizational or economic impact of these products will increase dramatically with the passage of time. It seems much more fruitful to hypothesize that for large companies, new technol- ogy acquisition is only one of a wide portfolio of activities that taken together might lead to modest amounts of job creation. It is likely that when most new technologies are brought into such firms, the tasks of bringing them to market are absorbed by ex- isting staff; the same is true of a multitude of other changes that are occurring daily within the organization. It is only when this absorption process reaches a saturation point that new staff is likely to be added to the firm. Thus. job creation is modest, depen- dent upon a series of other changes beyond the introduction of a new technology, and not apt to be centered around functions specifically created by that technology. For small and/or entrepreneurial firms, the cases studied here provide no evidence that technologies transferred from a university create—over a period of years— anything but the most minimal levels of job creation or economic impact. Most of the small companies in this descriptive sample were created by the inventors themselves as a means of selling their new developments in their spare time. In no cases did these inventors leave their university positions to devote more time to growing these new businesses, and in only one case was at least one person employed full-time to run that business. Only the two venture capital attempts appear to hold any serious hopes of building new businesses with future growth potential out of their technologies, and iron- ically these were the two cases having the most trouble getting any product to market at all. This observation does not diminish the importance of technology transfer to the economy. After all, the history of science proves that thousands of small, incremental advances are necessary to set the stage for major advances in scientific thinking and discovery—Einstein spoke often of standing on the shoulders of giants. It is likely that the commercial and economic benefits provided by the advancement of science appear in a similar pattern. Thousands of small companies, selling products based on modest technological advances, may be necessary to create the conditions conducive to a smaller number of companies expanding into large firms based on more revolutionary technological advances. The evidence provided here, however, advises that scholars and policymakers should proceed with caution before accepting a notion that new or high technology firms will create significant numbers of new jobs or have substantial immedi- ate economic impact. The study findings give rise to an interesting series of problems. If the goal is toUNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 433 increase steadily the flow of new technologies from the public lab to the private sector, in the hope that a proliferation of modest advances properly sets the stage for the intro- duction of major ones, encouraging the development of collaborative networks and co- operative relationships between disparate individuals and organizations is crucial. For both large companies and small, this study suggests that most successful transfers are based on strong prior connections and relationships between those in the lab and those in the business community. In this sample, only the venture capitalists and distributor- ships appeared to employ the formal search, “arm’s-length” model with any success, and in the case of the venture capitalists, success can still only be measured in potential. REFERENCES Auster, E.R. 1990. Network theory, tools, and applications. In F. Williams and D.V. Gibson, eds., The Technology Transfer: A Communication Perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Baron, J. 1993. The small business technology transfer (STTR) program: Converting research into eco- nomic strength. Economic Development 11(4):63-66. Bell, E. 1993. Some current issues in technology transfer and academic-industrial relations: A review. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 5(3):307-321 Chakrabarti, A. Dror, I., and Eakabuse, N. 1993, Interorganizational transfer of knowledge: An analy- sis of patent citations of a defense firm. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 40(1):91-94. Cole, B. 1992. Conversion: DOE labs: Models for technology transfer. /EEE Spectrum 29(12):53-S7. Copulsky, J.R., and Wolf, M. 190, Relationship marketing: Positioning for the future. Journal of Busi- ness Strategy July/August:16-21. Faber, B., and Wycoff, J. 1992, Relationships: Six steps to success. Sales and Marketing Manage- ‘ment April:50-58. Goldhor, RS.,and Lund, R.T. 1983. University to industry advanced technology transfer: A case study. Research Policy 12(3):121-152. Hutchinson, 8.G., and Gibson, D.V. 1990. University and industry linkages: The Austin, Texas, study. In F, Williams and D.V. Gibson, eds., The Technology Transfer: A Communication Perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lambricht, W.H., and Teich, A.H. 1976. Technology transfer as a problem in interorganizational rela- tionships. Administration and Society 8(1):29-54, Large, D.W. ,and Barclay, D.W. 1992. Technology transfer to the private sector: A field study of manu- facturer buying behavior. Journal of Product Innovation Management 9(1):26-43. Leonard-Barton, D., and Sinha, D. 1993. Developer-user interaction and user satisfaction in internal technology transfer. Academy of Management Journal 36(5):1 125-1139 Matkin, G. 1990. Technology Transfer and the university. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. McDonald, D.W.,and Geiger, S.M. 1987. Making Cooperative Research Relationships Work. Research Management 30(4):38-41 Newness, T.M., Summe, G.E.,. and Uttal, B. 1990. Commercializing Technology: What The Best Com- panies Do. Harvard Business Review 68(3):154-163. Padmanabhan, V.,and Souder, W.E. 1994. A Brownian motion model for technology transfer: Applica- tion to @ machine maintenance expert system, Journal of Product Innovation Management 112):119-133. Palaniswami, Sh., and Bishop, R, 1993. Operational technology transfer: Can we calculate the behavior costs? International Journal of Production Economics 30(31):323-330. Parker, D.D.,and Zilberman, D. 1993. University technology transfers: Impacts on local and U.S. econ- omies. Contemporary Policy Issues 11(2):87-99. Proctor, P. 1993. Universities seek role as technology transfer catalysts. Aviation Week and Space Tech- nology 139(19):55-56. Robbins, M.D., and Milleken, J.G. 1976. Technology transfer and the process of technological innova- tion: New concepts, new models. R&D Management 6:165-170.434 B. HARMON ET AL. Rogers, E. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd ed, New York: The Free Press. Rothwell, R., and Robertson, A.B. 1973. The role of communications in technological innovation. Re- search Policy 2(3):204-225. Samsom, K.J.,and Gurdon, M.A. 1993, University scientists as entrepreneurs: A special case of technol- ogy transfer and high-tech venturing. Technovation 13(2):63-71 Scott, W. 1993. Tech transfer leadership falls to industry, not labs. Aviation Week And Space Technol- ogy 139(10):32. Souder, W.E.. and Sherman, D.J. 1994. Managing New Technology Development. New York: McGraw-Hill. Zhao, L.. and Reisman, A. 1992. Toward meta research on technology transfer. /EEE Transactions on Engineering Management 39(1):13-21.