Factors Governing the Success or

Failure of Technology Transfer: State Sector Experience of Sri Lanka

Muditha P Liyanagedara, Kushani Jayaweera, Ranil D Guneratne

National Science and Technology Commission, Sri Lanka

Nastec@sltnet.lk

NASTEC 2

Purpose The purpose of this exercise is to identify the factors

governing the success or failure of technologies developed and transferred by the government sector R&D institutions. Because identifying factors affecting the destiny of technologies transferred is a vital requirement for a successful commercialization of technologies.

NASTEC 3

The Approach

A survey was conducted to test out the existence of predetermined factors that may affect the fate of the technologies transferred

Institutions surveyed Arthur C Clarke Institute for modern technologies, Atomic Energy

Authority, Coconut research institute, Tea Research Institute, National Engineering Research and Development Centre, Department of Agriculture, National Building Research Organization, Rubber Research Institute, Veterinary Research Institute, Industrial Technology Institute, Universities

Mainly considered technology Fields Agriculture/Plantation, Engineering, Food and Herbal

NASTEC 4

Predetermined Factors Surveyed

Transfer mandate Technology type Transfer fee Transfer mode Barriers at institutions’ end and receivers’ end Transfer methods Financial support for receiver Post-transfer involvement

NASTEC 5

Direct Outcomes of the Survey

Transfer mandate - yes for all institutions Technology type

Improvement to the existing technologies - 69.3% New technologies 36.7%

Transfer fee Free of charge - 69.5% For a nominal fee - 21.7% Market value - 8.8%

Transfer mode Know-how only - 79.5% Know-how & Financial support - 8.1%

NASTEC 6

Direct Outcomes of the Survey ( contd.)

Main Barriers at institutions’ end Inadequate human resources - 51.7% Inadequate financial resources - 38.7% Lack of organizational infrastructure – 18.4% Inflexible regulations – 18.4% Lack of management support – 10.2%

Main barriers at receivers’ end Poor communication - 34.6% Lack of Interest - 18.3%

Transfer methods Training Programmes - 85.7% Field trials/proto type pilot plant demonstrations – 71.4% Workshops/Seminars - 61.2% Personal contacts with individual receivers – 61.2%

NASTEC 7

Direct Outcomes of the Survey ( contd.)

The common order of the transfer methods that worked well for many transferors

workshops = field trials>training programmes>brochures>handouts>news letters>websites

The common order of the transfer methods that many transferors preferred to follow

training programmes>workshops/seminars = field trials/prototype pilot plant demos>handouts>…>websites

Financial support to receiver Did not assist - 63.2%

Post-transfer involvement Only when a problem is referred to - 57.1% Continuous monitoring - 48.9%

NASTEC 8

Inferences

Factors increasing success rate Transferring for a nominal fee Transferring technical know-how with financial support Using brochures,newsletters & TV programmes for dissemination Monitoring continuously

Factors decreasing success rate Inadequacy of institutional finance resources Inflexible institutional regulations Lack of interest of transferee Monitoring only when a problem is referred to

NASTEC 9

Mainly highlighted reasons for success or failure

Success Cost effectiveness Fulfills receiver’s urgent need Interest of transferor and

transferee Easy to adapt

Failure Poor communication between

transferor and transferee Inadequacy of financial and

human resources Later invasion of the market by

cheaper alternatives Practical difficulties inherent to

the technology itself Lack of producers

NASTEC 10

Other Reasons

Success Existence of technology transfer centres Effectiveness of a technology as a new approach to a

traditional method

Failure High cost Lack of media publicity Low purchasing power of the producers/end users Small domestic market (difficult to achieve economy of

scale)

NASTEC 11

Conclusions & Recommendations

To transfer a technology to producers having potential to commercialize, it should be provided at least for a nominal fee

The difference in the order of the transfer methods that worked well for transferors and that of they preferred may negatively affect the success of the transfer

Transferor should identify the most effective transfer methodology for each technology

Continuous monitoring is a key to a successful transfer

Transferor should get involved in Continuous improvements of the technology to face the market competition by smart alternatives

NASTEC 12

Conclusions & Recommendations (Contd.)

There should be an effective technology advertising mechanism

Establishing a repository of Government developed technologies

It is better to do a market study before developing a technology

Supply push approach preferred The country should have a proper transfer policy and

mechanism

NASTEC 13

Technology to Improve Kithul Sap Yield: Factors Governed the Success

Effectiveness of the technology as a new approach to a traditional method

Interest of transferor and transferee Easy adoptability Cost effectiveness Assistance (both financial & technical) provided to

increase production capacity and to find the market for produces

Personal contact with individual receivers

NASTEC 14

Thank You

NASTEC 15

NASTEC 16

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.