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

ii

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.

iii

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

iv

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

v

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 ........................................................................................101.1 Background and Context .............................................................................. 11

2 Technology Transfer..........................................................................162.1 Socio-Technical approaches ........................................................................ 172.2 Aspects of culture and technology................................................................ 182.3 The technology transfer process .................................................................. 202.4 Technology transfer initiatives ...................................................................... 22

3 ANT – Actor Network Theory.............................................................263.1 Introducing ANT............................................................................................ 273.2 Approaches to Technology Transfer............................................................. 283.3 Forms of TT: Diffusion vs. Translation (ANT) ............................................... 293.4 Using the ANT approach to explore TT process........................................... 30

4 Project Analysis .................................................................................324.1 XTRAN.......................................................................................................... 33

4.1.1 ANT analysis ................................................................................................................344.1.2 Conclusions..................................................................................................................37

4.2 PET............................................................................................................... 384.2.1 ANT analysis ................................................................................................................39

vi

4.2.2 Conclusions..................................................................................................................444.3 CICLOPE...................................................................................................... 45

4.3.1 ANT analysis ................................................................................................................454.3.2 Conclusions..................................................................................................................48

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

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

vii

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

viii

List of Tables

List of Tables Table 4.1. PET project partners ............................................................................................................41Table 5.1. Diffusion vs. Translation .......................................................................................................51Table 5.2. Positive and Negative actors ................................................................................................52

ix

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

10

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

11

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

involved R&D institutes (INESC1 and INOV2) 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

12

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

associates the university education sector (at the time IST and UTL3) and the industrial sector (at the

time CTT4 and TLP5). 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

13

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

14

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.

15

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.

16

Chapter 2

Technology Transfer 2 Conclusions

17

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.

The neoclassical economic models and approaches, strongly influenced by the work of Keynes6 and

Samuelson7, 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

18

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.

19

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.

20

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

21

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.

22

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

called “Bayh-Dole Act”8 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

23

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.

24

In the last decade the European Union developed a framework program for research and

technological development to support the creation of the European Research Area – ERA9, 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.

The agency is controlled by the national foundation for science and technology (FCT10) 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

25

organizations. The main current initiatives are the QREN11, IDEA12, NITEC13 and DEMTEC14

• 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

26

Chapter 3

ANT - Actor Network Theory 3 ANT – Actor Network Theory

27

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.

28

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

29

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

30

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

31

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

orders to cannon balls)15.

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”

32

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

33

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

In 1988 INESC centre of personal and mobile communications (CCMP16), one of the technology

16 Centro de Comunicações Móveis e Pessoais

34

transfer centers of INESC, started to develop a system for the inspection of fishing activities using

geographical positioning (GPS) and satellite communications (Inmarsat17). 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

(PEDIP18). 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

35

partners: a mobile communications GSM operator (TELECEL – later acquired by Vodafone), a

geographic information system company (Geovisao19) 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

36

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.

37

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

38

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

39

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

radioactive isotope present in the liquid emits positrons20, which rapidly recombine with electrons21.

The collision of a positron with an electron results in the destruction of both particles. The collision also

generates, between others, two photons22 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

scintillating materials which would be suitable for use at the LHC23 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

40

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 –

Investigação em Consórcio24).

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

41

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

Taguspark Technology and science park Project promoter and industrial

valorization Oeiras

LIP

Technical and scientific association

laboratory in the area of experimental

physics

Scientific coordination, simulation and

radiation detectors Lisboa

INESC-ID R&D academic organization from the

INESC group ASIC and FPGA Lisboa

INOV

R&D and technology transfer

technological infrastructure from the

INESC group

Electronic systems Lisboa

Hospital

Garcia da

Horta

Hospital Specification and clinic tests Almada

INEGI Mechanics and industrial

management institute

Mechanical and electromechanical

systems Porto

IBEB Biophysics and biomedical

engineering institute

Algorithms and image reconstruction

software Lisboa

IBILI Biomedical light and image research

institute Online software and radio-isotopes Coimbra

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.

42

Figure 4.4. Illustration of PET equipment

After the second project (PET-II) the consortium decided to startup a private technology based

company called PETsys25 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.

43

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

44

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

45

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

46

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

47

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

48

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

49

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.

50

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.

51

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

(Diffusion)

Actor Network Theory

(Translation)

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

Identification of factors that contribute or inhibit

technology

Identification of actors and their network

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

52

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

(Not aligned)

Positive actors

(Aligned)

Human actors develop an ownership sense over

artifacts

Financing and support Programs and Initiatives

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

53

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.

55

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