انتقال فن آوری: یک طبقه بندی متقابل انضباطی

Transfer of technologies (TT) takes place among various kinds of players, takes on various kinds of modalities and is done for various motivations. Its literature is very disjoint and disparate. It transcends several academic disciplines and professions. This paper presents a taxonomy defining the field in its entirety and delineating all of its facets in a manner that is parsimonious yet discriminating. Many potential uses for the taxonomy are identified. These include more effective teaching of TT subject matter.

1.1. Background Technology transfer (TT) is an emerging field of knowledge in which institutional interest is rapidly expanding. Using the two key words in any web-based search engine will quickly attest the fact that it is key to the development and competitiveness. Firms use it to improve their competitive advantage [1]. It is used to enhance the competitiveness of an entire industry, a region within a nation's boundaries and an entire nation-state [2]. As in the case of the Caucasus and Central Asia it can enhance development of a multi-nation geographic region. It is a means toward economic progress, social development, quality of life, and even of culture and of value systems [3]. As is often the case in an emerging area or discipline, its descriptive as well as normative theories and data available are fragmented and disjointed. There is no general theory, model or structure for the field; people merely string information and insight on an invisible thread and hope that the thread continues to hold. This is especially so because TT is of concern, to several major professions, in addition to several basic social-science disciplines. Moreover, it is of concern to policymakers in the public, private, and the not-for-profit sectors, and to decision-makers at the company or institution, community, regional, and national levels. It is also of interest to the multinational economic communities, some of which are established (e.g., EU), some of which are emerging (e.g., the Istanbul based, Black Sea Economic Cooperation Business Council), and some that have been relegated to history (e.g., the COMECON) [4]. Although there is at least one professional society dedicated to TT and the Journal of Technology Transfer 1 is now through its 28th volume year, economists, sociologists, anthropologists, engineers, and management theorists have established an interest in TT over a much longer period and yes they have contributed to TT knowledge albeit within their own disciplinary confines. Not surprisingly, the very definition of TT differs across the many disciplines addressing this subject. The scope of TT has rarely been delineated or systematically analyzed. Though several (limited) taxonomies of TT have been published, currently, TT can be understood only in a limited way from a strict disciplinary framework and/or a specific aspect. 1.2. Previous TT taxonomies Because of TT's multifaceted and multidisciplinary nature, a cross-disciplinary meta approach is needed to study it as a subject area. Reddy and Zhao [3] did an extensive review of TT literature as viewed from different perspectives by some disciplines. Reisman [2] offers a generic TT taxonomy base categorizing the various TT “players” e.g., the providers, or transferors and the receivers, transferees, or users. Zhao and Reisman [5] offers a synthesis of TT taxonomies transcending all the disciplinary approaches. That synthesis incorporated interdisciplinary dimensions much broader in scope and having a wider variety of potential uses/objectives than any TT taxonomy existing as of 1992. Kumar et al. [6] and [7] created a taxonomy of TT motivations while this paper presents a TT meta-taxonomy incorporating or subsuming all of the above. 1.3. Motivations and uses for this taxonomy As will be shown in Section 3 there are no fewer than 182 fairly independent TT attributes. Thus the number of distinct and meaningful combinations of these attributes is staggering.2 That number represents distinctly different potential TT modalities.3 This fact alone is pregnant with meaning. Because of the enormity of this subject it is no wonder then the very mention of TT conjures different meanings to different people and different meanings at different times to a single individual. This taxonomy offers a framework for classifying papers published in the various academic disciplines’ literatures concerned with TT. Because it furthers our understanding of TT at both the conceptual and the operational levels it is intended for the researcher who chooses to study TT in an interdisciplinary manner. While the educator can use this taxonomy to present the TT subject matter in a comprehensive, comprehendible manner, the novice can grasp the wide spectrum of transactions possible in technology transfer. The seasoned worker can use it to pinpoint a market niche and the structural, operational and other characteristics of his or her involvement in TT in the context of the overall realm of possibilities. Corporate or institutional managers and/or directors can use it in developing TT strategies for growth/expansion, mergers, acquisitions, and/or divestitures. Policy makers can use it to formulate meaningful technology and/or TT policies. The taxonomy facilitates seeing the forest while at the same time knowing the exact size, shape, color, and texture of any tree. It allows us to identify the wide spectra of TT practices and of TT related theory and findings and allows for a systematic classification of any and all papers published irrespective of the author(s)’ disciplinary base. Moreover, the taxonomy can facilitate marketing of TT curricula or courses through its efficient description of the field's diversity, richness, importance, relevance, and the richness of aspects that need to be understood and managed. It can be used as an organizing framework in collecting and/or collating TT related data at the company/institution, region, economic sector, and/or national levels for purposes of: • Doing meta research (MR) on TT: • Adoption of an integrative approach—an interdisciplinary approach, • Development of new concepts. • Describing the extent of the practice: ∘ By design. ∘ By diffusion. • Pinpointing voids/weaknesses in transfer mechanisms: ∘ In institutions. ∘ In policies. • Pinpointing “ports of opportunity”: ∘ To companies, institutions, communities, states, geographic regions and to countries. ∘ To professions. ∘ To scientific disciplines. ∘ To individual researchers [5]. It can also serve as a vehicle for collecting data to describe the profile or mix of transfer practices in and/or by an enterprise, a community, state, or region for purposes of: • Stating job creation and/or employment levels. • Stating wealth generation. • Stating dollar expenditures. • Justifying financing. • Setting priorities for: ∘ Public fund allocations. ∘ Philanthropic giving. ∘ Philanthropic fundraising. • Identifying voids in the services provided. If such data were compiled in a uniform manner across companies/institutions in a given industry, community, and/or region, researchers, planners, policy analysts, and policymakers would have a better grounding for their efforts. In primary [social science] research, data are collected by asking people questions or observing their behavior. In research synthesis, data are collected by conducting a search of reports describing past studies relevant to the topic of interest, Cooper [8]. Both undergraduate and graduate OR/MS curricula do provide various methodologies for collecting “primary research” data. However, instances concerned with formal teaching of research synthesis data collection methodologies are few, Reisman [9] and [10]. Yet, the need for taxonomic research in any but especially in an emerging field of knowledge or practice is well documented as in Cooper [11] and [12], Goffman [13], Reisman [14] to mention but a few. The methodologies for doing such work are also well established e.g., Cooper [11] and [12], Reisman [14], [15] and [16], as are some of its uses Reisman [17] and [18], Reisman and Buffa [19], Reisman et al. [20] and [21], Reisman and Xu [22] and [23], Taft and Reisman [24] and Gattoufi et al. [25].

2.1. MR and taxonomies It is clearly important to publish the results or findings of good research in a given field of knowledge. Having said that, it is also important to systematically review the totality of such publications on some periodic basis. The literature concerned with history and philosophy of science is replete with admonitions to that effect. Such systematic reviews represent research on research or what is sometimes called MR. MR serves many objectives, Reisman et al. [21]. At times MR is dedicated to consolidating a given knowledge domain as in Reisman [18]. There are at least two efficient and effective ways of consolidating knowledge. One of these is to create a taxonomy and the other to create a generalized framework (a general model or theory) that subsumes all existing models facts or theories within that field. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are complimentary. Taxonomies display the subject's domain in terms that are easy to understand, to communicate, to teach, to learn, and to work with. More specifically taxonomies can be used: 1. To efficiently and effectively classify any and all contributions/publications for purposes of storage, recall, sorting, and or bibliometric/statistical analyses. Because such classification results are meaningfully machine readable they, in turn, clearly enable further MR [18] and [26]. 2. To identify voids in the literature and hence directions/specifications for research to be performed [15], [16] and [27]. Classification of papers based on a taxonomy makes similarities and differences among studies very clear and it does so in a most efficient and effective manner. This in turn vividly displays the similarities and the differences among the various contributions, thus demonstrating the relationship of all contributions and the practical applications. It provides a framework by which all of the existing knowledge can be systematically filed and therefore efficiently and effectively recalled. Providing what amounts to an aerial view—a picture of the territory—helps to identify the voids in the literature. Stated differently: Knowledge consolidation is a means to various ends, and it is also an end itself. It is a means toward the end of more efficient and more effective teaching and learning of new or existing knowledge. It is a means toward the end of more efficient storage and more effective recall and/or retention of knowledge. It is a means toward a more efficient and more effective processes of research leading to the yet unknown, to the design of the yet unavailable, and it is means toward more efficient problem solving... Reisman [26, p. 29]. Moreover, the key to taxonomy effectiveness rests on criteria of comprehensiveness, parsimony and usefulness. Obviously, to be effective, a taxonomy must represent the full spectrum of the research chosen for categorization. Thus, comprehensiveness is a necessary condition for effectiveness. It is, however, not sufficient. To be further effective, a taxonomy should be parsimonious. It should not include unnecessary categories. Finally, to be considered effective, the taxonomy should be robust and generally useful. The categories should be reasonably if not mutually exclusive, i.e., non-overlapping, reasonably distinct, meaningful, commonplace, and descriptive to allow utilization by a wide variety of interested persons [27]. The current attempt to create a taxonomy for TT may have its own disadvantages but it does not suffer from ambiguity. It proceeds in an arborescent way [18] as illustrated in Fig. 1.