T55.4
.W2
,10.
?6
<?3
An Asset-Based View of Technology
Transfer in International Joint Ventures
Eric S.
Marco
February 1993
Rebentish
[.*•«",
(^W^
Ferretti*
WP
# 86-93
INTERNATIONAL CENTER
_
FOR RESEARCH ON
HE MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Sloan School of Management
Cambridge, Massachusetts
The International Center for Research
on the Management of Technology
An Asset-Based View of Technology
Transfer in International Joint Ventures
Eric S.
Marco
Rebentish
[/wC, fceUf^
Ferretti*
WP
February 1993
# 86-93
Sloan WP#3537-93
*STOA', Ercolano (Na),
Italia
1993 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Sloan School of Management
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
38 Memorial Drive, E56-390
02139-4307
Cambridge,
MA
Acknowledgement
We would
like to thank professors Thomas Allen, Ralph Katz, Marcie Tyre, Jim
Utterback, and Eleanor Westney (in alphabetical order, but not necessarily in the
order of their contribution) for their helpful comments. We would also like to
acknowledge the MIT International Center for Research on the Management of
Technology (ICRMOT) and Gruppo IRI for their funding support. Finally, we would
like to acknowledge the support of the scientists, engineers, and managers of the
research
sites.
Abstract
An asset-based framework of technology transfer is proposed, illustrated by examples
from studies of two international joint ventures. The framework depicts the organization
as a collection of embodied knowledge assets. Differences between firms result from the
different combinations of embodied knowledge types that are used to accomplish the same
ends.
Technology transfer is the transfer of embodied knowledge assets between
organizations.
Four concepts, Transfer Scope, Transfer Method, Knowledge Architectures, and
Organizational Adaptive Ability describe important aspects of the transfer process. Transfer
scope describes the extent of embodied information being transferred. Transfer method
describes the approaches used to transfer the technology. Knowledge architectures describe
types of knowledge assets the firms possesses, and the relationships
organization's ability describes
its
ability to
change
transfer involves selecting the proper transfer
its
between them. The
architectures over time. Technology
method given the demands of the
transfer
scope, working within the constraints of the existing organization's architectures, and
adaptive
ability.
its
Increasingly, firms are turning to cooperative agreements with other firms to share
knowledge, develop products, exploit markets, or concentrate power, (Friedman, Berg,
al.,
1979;
Hamel, Doz,
et
al.,
et
1989; Harrigan, 1988; Kogut, 1988; Ouchi and Bolton, 1987).
This trend has been accelerated with increasing global competition. With cooperative work
inevitably
comes the
another.
This
is
necessity to transfer technologies or knowledge
challenging
when
to
technological bases.
transfer
technologies
A framework
is
to
the technologies being transferred are part of the
on-going operations of a firm, such as production technologies.
problem of how
from one place
This paper addresses the
between firms with
different,
mature
yet
developed which explains important considerations
the technology transfer process, and implications of the
in
framework are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
Technology transfer from one organizational unit to another can be broadly
characterized as being either vertical or horizontal in nature (Zander, 1989).
technology transfer occurs
for instance,
Keller, et
1977).
al.,
when a technology moves along
its
Vertical
natural development lifecycle,
from research and development through production within a firm (Cohen,
1979; Ounjian and
Came,
1987; Souder and
Horizontal technology transfer occurs
firm to a similar group in another firm.
Padmanabhan, 1989; White,
when technology moves from a group
This type of technology transfer
be important in mature industrial markets, or in markets where there
most
is
is
because of competition for market share. Firms competing in such markets
in
one
likely to
overcapacity
may merge
as
the industry concentrates, or seek to strengthen their position by combining complimentary
expertise
from several
NUMMI
joint venture (JV)
players.
An
example of such a pooling of
between General Motors
(GM) and
seeking to develop production expertise using the Toyota method.
between horizontal and
vertical technology transfer
must bridge differences between units within a
is
talent
is
found
Toyota, where
in the
GM
is
An interesting distinction
that while vertical technology transfer
firm, horizontal technology transfer
must
bridge differences between organizational, and possibly national cultures. Because of
horizontal technology transfer
For the purposes of
social, in
this
may be
paper, technology
considered to be any form, material or
is
which knowledge has been embodied. This includes hardware, software, products,
rules, procedures, organizational structure,
reasoning here
is
that
and know-how or technical
knowledge about repetitive actions
processing effort or cost in the future.
A
is
that can be used repeatedly by non-experts or
many
different forms of knowledge.
expertise.
this is the
is
computer expert
captured in a program
even machines. The same principle applies
For instance, a tool might be designed which
performs processes done previously in several steps or perhaps by skilled
Rules of thumb become operating procedures, hand tools become machine
craft workers.
tools,
organizational groups are created to perform specific functions done previously
basis.
make
All of these forms constitute knowledge that has
more
effort
efficient or less costly.
A broad
is
necessarily hardware.
In
fact,
is
transferred
and new
on an ad hoc
into forms
been codified
definition of technology
discussing technology transfer because not everything that
JV
The
codified into forms which reduce
good metaphor of
system, where the knowledge of experts or experienced workers
to
this,
very challenging for the firms involved.
is
which
important in
between two firms
our observations of technology transfer
activities
between
partners suggests that the transfer of physical hardware constitutes only a fraction of
all
the different forms of embodied information that are shared.
The
different types of technology discussed
the Transfer Scope.
information,
to
above are grouped
in
a category called
Transfer scope ranges from minor transfers like exchanging general
relatively
more
extensive transfers like
implementing new operating
procedures which can ultimately influence several different areas within the organization.
The range
in transfer scope
is
meant
transferring different technologies
How
a technology
are several rich lines
literature.
is
to capture the variation in difficulty
from one place
to
in
to another.
transferred from one firm to another
of research from which
encountered
is
also important.
draw guidance. One of them
is
There
the diffusion
In this paradigm, technology or information spreads through a population of
potential adopters only after they have
new
technology
can
take
place
somehow come
when
in contact
people
with
function
it.
Contact with a
information-
in
or
enthusiasm-transferring roles such as champions or opinion leaders (Chakrabarti and
Hauschildt, 1989; Dean, 1984; Ounjian and Carne, 1987; Souder and Padmanabhan, 1989;
Rogers, 1983), gatekeepers (Allen, 1977; Allen and Cooney, 1971), or other organizational
and Drazin, 1986; Roberts and
roles that facilitate the spread of information (Kazanjian
Fusfeld, 1981; Jervis, 1975). Personnel transferred
form of linkage between organizational
al.,
1983; Ettlie, 1990; Roberts and
from one
units (Allen
Frohman,
1978).
site to
another serve as another
and Cooney, 1971; Allen, Hyman,
Finally, linkages
et
can also be formed
by creating special technology transfer groups, standing committees, or procedures which
facilitate the sharing
of technology between different organizational units (Roberts and
Frohman, 1978; Roberts, 1979). The methods and
grouped
activities
used in the transfer process are
a category called Transfer Method. Implicit in the transfer method category
in
a range in the effort expended by using the various methods, since
require
more
some methods
is
naturally
effort than others.
Often, the physical relocation of a technology from one place to another does not
mean
necessarily
that
into play to determine
technology.
The
it
has been successfully transferred.
whether or not a firm
first is
is
At
least
two factors
successful in transferring
related to the degree of similarity
will
come
and adopting a new
between the technologies both
currently existing in the adopting organization, and those being adopted. This factor relates
to the inherent compatibility of the
new technology with
the Knowledge Architectures of the
adopting organization.
Complex technologies are often aggregated systems of smaller sub-components. The
way the sub-components are organized and
architecture of the system (Clark, 1985;
embodied
in various
interact
with
Henderson and Clark,
one another defines the
1990).
Knowledge
that
is
forms constitute the knowledge architectures of the organization.
These architectures include the technologies, operating procedures,
relationships, or organizational structure.
social
and organizational
Knowledge architectures have both
aset
and
Architectures are like assets because they are the firm's inventories of
structural qualities.
embodied knowledge.
Architectures are structural because the
The
organization are interdependent.
the systems in the
all
organization's various systems interact like a jig-saw
puzzle and determine the specific (and perhaps tell-tale) approach
it
uses to solve design
problems, interact with a certain type of customer, or produce a specific product.
organization's knowledge architectures
organization meets
new
assume
The
their distinctive patterns over time as the
challenges in the market, develops
new products
or procedures to
cope, or adapts to changing conditions (Kogut and Zander, 1992; Orlikowski, 1992). Such
knowledge architectures are sometimes referred
to as organizational routines
(March and
Simon, 1958; Nelson and Winter, 1982), and in the context of an organization's
ability to
implement new technologies, the organization's absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal,
1990).
The importance of knowledge
when an
architectures to technology transfer
organization tries to implement a
new
technology.
becomes apparent
Like substituting one piece of
a jig-saw puzzle with a piece from another puzzle, trying to substitute a radical
new
technology into the existing architecture of an organization often meets with failure because
the necessary relationships are challenged, or do not exist at
1986;
Henderson and Clark,
has too
much
1991).
More
techniques over time that allow
more
ineffective (Katz
and Levinthal, 1990).
the emphasis
it
it
(Tushman and Anderson,
A common explanation for this
specifically,
to
is
and support
inertia in the current systems that define
(Nelson and Winter, 1982).
all
that the organization
its
current technology
however, a firm develops problem-solving
be more effective (Tyre, 1991; Orlikowski, 1992) or
and Allen, 1982)
An organization's
at acquiring certain technologies (see also
problem-solving approaches
places on specific areas of expertise in
have cultural philosophies that influence their
its
ability to
staff
may be a
Cohen
reflection of
members. Organizations
also
adopt new technologies (Kedia and
Bhagat, 1988; Tezuka, 1991; Aoki, 1990). Finally, every
new technology implementation
subject to a political process which affects the decisions
and outcomes of
1991; Dean, 1989; Barley, 1986)
and contributes
to or detracts
efforts
is
(Thomas,
from an organization's
ability
to successfully
adopt new technologies.
new technology must
with which any
The adoption
adaptations
interact in the organization.
new technology
of a
take place
All of these elements constitute the architectures
to
some modifications
usually requires that
or
both the adopting organization and the new technology
(Leonard-Barton, 1988; Pelz and Munson, 1982; Rice and Rogers, 1980). The second factor
affecting
an organization's
ability to
implement new technologies
adopting organization to marshall resources to
adopted. This second factor
is
make
relates to the ability of the
adaptations as a
new technology
is
connected with the Organizational Adaptive Ability of the
An important distinction should be drawn between the organization's
adopting organization.
adaptive ability and the organization's knowledge architectures.
Knowledge
architectures
are relatively static structural relationships in the organization (in the short term, at least).
The
organization's adaptive ability
For instance, a new
architectures.
architectures
in
is
to use
ability
its
technology
may
resources to change those
its
not interact well with the existing
an organization, but the organization may be able to re-deploy
its
engineering or production staff to engage in engineering problem-solving and adaptation.
In essence,
it
it
may
not have the architectures necessary to support the
has the resources available to create
that argued by
abilities
new
Cohen and Levinthal (1990) where an
do not change during the time
much
While
it
is
in the short term,
operations
if
it
will
be successful
also important to recognize that
able to assign people to
relatively
a rare occurrence
problem-solving or implementing
skills that
technology, but
at
new
technology,
implementing the new
important to recognize that an organization can only change so
it is
an organization has
(admittedly
new
a different concept than
organization's pre-existing set of
it
Several elements determine an organization's adaptive
previously,
is
scale elapsing in the adoption of a
and therefore determine whether or not
technology.
This
architectures.
new
can
still
ability.
change somewhat.
As was mentioned
more people than are required
these
days),
technology. Perhaps
work on new technology adoption
are required to solving the problem. This
is
is
they can be
for
normal
redeployed for
more important than just being
the ability to direct the specific
not referring directly to the
skill
mix
of an organization's employees, per se (that would be considered
abilities in the short term, so
architecture), but to the
it
way
would be better
new product development,
in a certain technological area, but
they might be of
little
help in
new
Finally, firms that experience strong production pressures
available to
1991).
The problem
to introduce
its
is
that
is
an organization may be unable
new technology because
commitments
production capacity
For instance,
they are engaged
process implementation.
may not have
the resources
to customers.
its
to stop
production capacity
On the
production long
may be
close to or
other hand, an organization with excess
trial runs.
four categories just discussed are summarized in Table
along with supporting data, follows.
Table
I
Framework Categories and Descriptions
Category
its
able to stop production from time to time for equipment replacement,
modifications, experimentation, or
The
if
implement new process technologies (Souder and Padmanabhan, 1989; Tyre,
enough
exceeded by
of
an element of the organization's
that people are deployed for problem-solving.
an organization might have experts
in
classified as
more of an inventory
I.
A elaboration of each,
Two
including interviews, archival data, and longitudinal survey data.
currently being investigated.
One
is
a newly-formed joint venture (JV), Polychem, involving
three companies in a chemical-related industry.
is
The product manufactured by
who
sold to technically-sophisticated industrial customers
before
U.S.
it
partnerships are
the partners
process the product further
goes to final consumers. The companies are located in Germany, Japan, and the
The German and American
partners had been involved in mutual technology transfer
The
prior to the formation of the present joint venture.
objective of this joint venture
is
to
establish regional manufacturing capability for potentially all of the product types currently
offered by each partner.
will
Each
be a lead research center
site will also
in the
JV
maintain an
place for
German and Japanese
much
longer,
and
is
center of excellence which
for certain areas of product
product
lines.
and process technology.
new production
Germany
to
The second partnership has been
in
Part of the present effort includes the creation of a
support both
R&D
line in
a collaboration between two steel companies, one located in
and the other
Japan (Japan Steel and Foundry, or JSF).
In this
agreement, JSF has provided process technology and organizational expertise to
Italsteel.
Italy
(Italsteel)
The data were
Germany, and
hours.
Italy.
in
collected through interviews and visits to sites in the United States,
The
interviews were open-ended and lasted between one and four
Informants were interviewed
transfer of technology or information
Fourteen engineers,
scientists, or
if
they were involved or had been involved in the
from one
site to
another. For the Polychem project,
managers were interviewed
in
Germany, including two
from the Japanese partner and one from the American partner.
scientists,
or managers were interviewed at the
managers were interviewed
American
at Italsteel in Italy. Several of the
more than once over a period of more than a
site.
Nineteen engineers,
Sixteen engineers or
people have been interviewed
year.
OBSERVATIONS
The
four categories defined in the introduction are further described using the data
collected thus far.
Transfer Scope
The scope
of technology transfer
is
determined by how much and what type of a
The "what
technology a firm seeks to acquire from another source.
portion of transfer scope
is
form
really the
"how much" portion of transfer scope
The two
technology.
in
how much
is
type of technology"
which knowledge has been embodied. The
information
is
embodied
in the
are actually related since a form of technology such as a piece of
manufacturing equipment
will
almost always embody more information than could a fax
communication. Transfer scope
itself
or operational choices, the extent of
may be
its
influenced by factors such as a firm's strategic
resources and assets, or the relative power of the
various stakeholders involved in the transfer process. These relationships will be discussed
in greater detail
on other
The purpose
sections, however.
of this section
is
to define the
which are explained below.
different categories of transfer scope,
General Knowledge The most simple form of knowledge transferred between organizations
is
The
general knowledge about a technology, process, or capability.
transfer of a general
awareness of another partner's capability would not allow the recipient to reproduce for
itself its
partner's capability, but
relationship
it
would allow
it
to determine
whether or not a cooperative
would be appropriate, or what type of technology
available for transfer.
is
Typical questions that might be asked to acquire general knowledge might be: "What type
of technology do you use to accomplish this task?",
compare with the technology
that
we
"How
effective
is it?",
or
"How does
Acquiring general knowledge about a partner's technological capabilities
first
step in transferring a technology from one site to another.
create a
wanted
new Polychem production
to begin
it
use?".
line in
Germany was
started
producing some of its products in Europe.
is
For instance, the
when
often the
effort to
the Japanese partner
An investigation of the German
operations revealed that an existing production line there did not have sufficient capacity
or capabilities to produce both the
knowledge,
it
was decided
German and Japanese product
to construct a
since taken place in the design process
new
line there.
Much more
lines.
Based on
that
detailed analyses have
and several technologies have been transferred into
8
that production line. In other cases, gaining a general
in certain areas has
showed
technology at the other's
that
knowledge of a partner's
would be gained by
little
trying to
transfer of detailed or specific
form of transfer observed
at the firms. Specific knowledge
a firm the ability to reproduce (although perhaps with
Specific
knowledge
is
an accurate codification,
knowledge underlying the technology
production line in
in the
implement one partner's
site.
Knowledge The
Specific
capabilities
Germany
is
to
in question.
knowledge
is
the most frequent
knowledge which provides
that
some
is
effort) another's capabilities.
to the extent that
is
it
possible, of the
The goal of the design of a new Polychem
employ the best of the partners' technologies
production process, so extensive efforts have been
made
to
understand
at
each step
who
has the
superior technology. In the process, volumes of detailed drawings and production data have
been exchanged through the mail by fax transmission, and compared and contrasted
in joint
meetings. Detailed analysis of the exchanged data produced a hybrid of two of the partner's
technologies. General knowledge of the types of processes used at each location, and their
gross performance characteristics was not sufficient for this stage of the equipment design
process. In instances involving very
detailed specification
is
the only
complex technologies,
way
specific
knowledge which involves
to accurately assess the capabilities of a particular
technology. In most cases, however, the transfer of specific information
is
the backbone of
a technology transfer effort.
Hardware Hardware
embodied
is
knowledge or experience
into a tangible artifact.
in
production or products that has been
This includes machine sub-components, parts, software,
the machines themselves, products, and entire production lines or plants.
hardware has an advantage over other forms of knowledge
physically re-located
and
its
The
transfer of
hardware can be
operating characteristics generally remain the same in different
environments (unless some modification
Transfers of hardware
is
made by
the recipient).
may be accompanied by manuals
they are not covered in this category.
already
in that
The reason
for this
have that operating knowledge, gained through
or operating procedures, but
is
its
that a recipient firm
own
operations,
may
and
is
transferring hardware merely to parallel a partner's capability.
already have hardware similar to that of
its
Conversely, a firm
partner, and just seeks to adopt
may
new operating
procedures without also transferring hardware.
There are several examples of hardware transfer
JVs.
The
first
stage of the collaboration
plant technology from Japan to Italy.
identical at each site, exact copies of
installation. In cases
where a
were shipped. In either
two plants were designed
to
Italsteel
many
Japan
lines.
In cases
and JSF involved transferring
machinery could be shipped from Japan
little
or no modification to the hardware was
be similar.
to Italy for
site,
physical hardware
where physical hardware has been transferred,
Often, however, attempts are
made
since the
At Polychem, where there are somewhat
Germany, some modifications have been necessary
to
Italsteel
of the hardware designs were to be
differences between the technologies in place at each
less frequently.
both the Polychem and
producer could fabricate the equipment, only the designs
local
case,
between
Since
in
made
to preserve as
to
is
larger
transferred
for instance
from
adapt to existing production
much
of the original design as
possible.
Behaviors represent knowledge that
Behaviors
interactions.
they
Many
seen as a potential
are
is
embodied
in people's actions
and
of the sites studied are very enthusiastic to transfer behaviors because
source
of significant
improvement
in
manufacturing
performance.
One American Polychem manager estimated that fifty percent of the potential
improvement
in his
production yields could result by transferring operator behaviors from
the Japanese partner.
For instance,
about one half the time to
Italsteel
from
its
is
start
it
takes the operators at the Japanese Polychem facility
up a production
trying to transfer Total Quality
Japanese partner.
purpose of learning
TQM
It
line as
it
does their American counterparts.
Management (TQM) problem-solving
expertise
transferred several engineers to Japan with the express
problem-solving techniques so that they could teach them to
colleagues and subordinates
upon returning
to Italy.
10
Transfer Method
There are three basic approaches
communication
The
of organizational integrating mechanisms.
amounts
to little
embodied knowledge, and
physical transfer of
more than shipping an item from one place
discussed at length.
They are through
to transferring information.
in various forms, the physical transfer of
The communication methods
will
the use
embodied knowledge
to another, so
won't be
it
be discussed under the headings of
Direct/Indirect Communication, and Personnel Transfers. Integrating mechanisms will be
discussed under the headings of Roles and Bridges.
The
selection of a specific transfer
method
will of
course be determined by a variety
of factors, including the scope of the transfer, the nature of the technology involved, and the
relative expertise
and resources of the organizations involved
The
in the transfer.
of these factors will be discussed after they have been introduced
more
influence
formally.
Direct/Indirect
Communication Direct and
basic types of
communication behaviors, which include telephone conversation, mail
indirect
communication encompasses the most
correspondence, video conferences, and electronic mail and fax transmissions.
Direct
communication uses the spoken medium and may include telephone conversations or video
conferences. Direct communication occurs in real time and allows for immediate feedback
between the participants so that understanding of concepts can be assessed. Unfortunately,
direct
communication
limited in the
is
amount of information
it
can communicate. Indirect
communication, on the other hand, takes place through the written word, graphic
representation, or a material object.
"picture
able to transfer a lot of information
It is
feedback to indicate whether or not the receiver understands what
Indirect
communication
quantifies
identifying
communicate
also
is
is
in
real
helpful
time.
is
one
being communicated.
especially useful in conveying information
characteristics
of
where there
Direct
technology.
a
is
a second language better than they speak
respond
(its
worth a thousand words" of direct communication), but has no immediate
is
a difference of language.
it,
especially
communication
11
is
when
which measures or
Using written
Many
language
to
engineers read
they aren't under pressure to
somewhat
better
than
indirect
communication
at building interpersonal relationships
people, although
it is still
an arm's length relationship
and conveying enthusiasm between
that
is
being encouraged.
At the Polychem joint venture, much of the technical information flows between the
sites
Once two
by direct/indirect communication methods.
exchange around a specific technology, detailed
lists
exchanged between the partners. The respective experts
The
these questions for their overseas colleagues.
partners have agreed to an
of questions about the technology are
at
each
facility
provide answers to
detailed answers are traded, and
follow-up questions are then asked, usually by fax or mail. All of this activity
in a visit to a partner's site for intense discussion
information
and by
is
(at
may culminate
which time some
transferred through the exchange of hardware, products, or materials samples,
However, a large amount of preparatory communication
joint problem-solving).
takes place prior to one of these
American Polychem
fax has
visits.
to the Japanese
documents was exchanged by
The
about the technology
For example, for one
site,
trip
by a delegation from the
the equivalent of a large notebook
full
of
between each partner beforehand.
fax
become a preferred method of communication
at
Polychem because of
the three different languages spoken by the partners. Another important advantage of using
fax transmissions
is
that they can be sent at
the local time of the destination.
all
hours of the day or night without regard for
The advantage
offered by the fax
is
that text can be
replaced by numbers and figures, which have universal interpretability to those
the
common
technical language.
The Polychem
conference technology, which potentially offers
all
partnership
is
who speak
beginning to use video
the advantages of the short-term
visit
(including a walk through the plant with a portable camera) but at a fraction of the cost.
One American manager
is
very excited about the potential of the system to facilitate
inexpensive technology transfer.
However, a German
He
probably better for managers than for specialists like him
says that a video conference
is
scientist
is
somewhat
less sanguine.
because the characteristics of the system allow one to cover issues with breadth much better
than with depth.
12
Personnel Transfers
When
using direct or indirect communication methods, one must
choose between having feedback or being able to communicate a large volume of precise
of information. Transferring people from one
site to
another overcomes that tradeoff, albeit
at a greater cost. Site visits allow face-to-face interaction with others
characteristics of a piece of
its
performance
and
may
several different forms of information. For instance, an engineer
direct contact with
discuss the operating
machinery with another engineer, inspect documents detailing
characteristics,
and observe
face interaction at meetings like this
is
it
in
operation
all at
also associated with the
relationships which can facilitate future interaction
the
same
Face-to-
time.
development of interpersonal
(De Meyer,
1991). Short-term visits
may
range from a few days to a few weeks, and they are oriented towards accomplishing a
specific goal.
On
the other hand, a long-term transfer
may
last several
months or years and
the goals are less well-defined.
Partners in the Polychem
sites for
JV have found
that engineering
between a week and a month can be very
teams transferred
effective at learning
to other
about a partner's
technology. First, these teams are very focused in their objectives and generally quite a bit
of preparation has gone into the
visit to
maximize the learning during
their stay.
They can
observe also the technology at a level of detail impossible using arm's-length communication
methods. This
is
especially important because
if
the partners have similar capabilities to
begin with, the advantages gained by cooperation will be found in the details of operations.
More
it
importantly, while there the teams can observe the technology in the context in which
operates, and
its
interaction with other systems in the organization. This
the technology must be modified before
will
be more discussion of
this in
their colleagues at the other site
on
results so that efforts
it
can be implemented back at the
a later section).
on
The teams
are able to
specific technical problems, with
can be re-applied
in other areas
if
is
important
home
work
if
site (there
closely with
immediate feedback
necessary.
This method also
helps to form relationships between technical experts, and transfer enthusiasm for specific
technologies across boundaries.
Since
this
method
is
generally less expensive than
longer-term transfers (lasting a year or more) of a single expert, more of the people
13
who
work with the technology on a day-to-day
setting,
and they can gain a more
basis can experience
first-hand in the other
it
in-depth and objective understanding of
its
strengths and
weaknesses.
The Japanese Polychem partner was able
expertise to
knowledge
its
German
itself
was transferred
to transfer
partner through short-term
was embodied mostly
However, the
readily.
in
some of its polymer formulation
and
visits
indirect communication.
The
chemical formulae and process parameters, and
direct interaction gained through site visits allowed
the Japanese partners to emphasize cleanliness in the production environment rather
In one case, one Japanese engineer found that
forcefully.
entire day demonstrating to
handling
employees
equipment and the
demonstrations would be
levels
difficult to
at the
German
of cleanliness
communicate by
it
was necessary
to
spend an
the cleaning of the polymer
site
required
in
the
Such
process.
and the working conditions would
fax,
probably have gone undetected had the Japanese engineer not been there to observe them.
Long term
transfers are defined here to occur
when an employee
abroad for an extended period to learn about another's operations.
is
transferred
Sending a student
abroad accurately describes the engineer or manager on a long-term transfer. Often, long-
term transfers are a step
the
have to spend
engineers
to
in the
management development
or training process. For instance,
American and German Polychem partners have had a
at least a
who were
to learn
and
managers
The
Italsteel
identified as high-performers,
their return.
This approach allows the
about a partner's or subsidiary's operations abroad so that there can be
more coordination
of efforts, as well as allowing
knowledge
home
in their
R&D
year abroad in other operations in the company.
sent abroad were carefully selected
be given operations manager positions on
managers
policy that all
them
implement
that
operations. People working together for an extended period also
are able to form personal, trusting relationships.
the rest of his colleagues
to be in a position to
were denied access
One
Italsteel
engineer found that where
to certain information or plant operations at
JSF, he was able to gain access to that information and those areas because of his personal
friendship with one Japanese engineer there. Personal relationships also lead to continued
14
communication once the transfer assignment
Polychem manager who spent one and a
contact with his colleagues there and
though he returned
One
to the U.S.
still
is
completed (see Allen, 1979).
Germany
half years in
has a considerable
some time
One American
maintains regular
still
amount of influence
there even
ago.
disadvantage of long-term transfers
that they are expensive.
is
Additionally,
arrangements must be made with foreign governments for work permits, and meaningful
work must be found
for the
person being transferred
at the
new
site.
Housing, language
training, and assigning a "guardian angel" (a local employee entrusted with helping the
newcomer)
to help that
person adapt to a new culture
potential disadvantage with long-term transfers. That
all
is
add
and capture benefits from the learning experience back
Polychem and
involving both
significant
back
There
at
home
is
another
employee
operations.
In cases
sending managers abroad has not resulted in
Italsteel,
technology transfers
to the costs.
in trying to repatriate the
the
to
sending organization.
Managers have
complained about returning from an assignment abroad with ideas about how their own
operations could be improved, but were unable to
given for
this.
to others,
First,
some could not
responsibilities
from
technologies.
the
is
their
The
sometimes
German
new jobs
latter
left
lost as
it
to
is
will
for
little
new
technologies
has transferred
is
its
losing
key
Finally,
the
time to worry about implementing
be discussed in depth
later.
One
final
that the technical experience of the engineer or
they are promoted into
assume a management position
happened
them with
two points
partner in Polychem
area because
will
Several reasons were
had
radical for the existing organization to accept.
disadvantage with long-term transfers
scientist
changes.
because they were the only ones to have seen them. Or, the types of changes they
recommended were too
new
make
transfer the enthusiasm they
management
foremost
its
scientist in that
in the
positions.
For instance,
R&D expertise in a specific product
area to Japan, and on returning he
corporate offices.
The same has
already
an American engineer who was transferred to Germany. Even when returning
engineers are not promoted into
management
15
positions, the technology at their
home
site
will likely
have evolved
current with
it
in their absence,
and
it
may
some time
take
for
them
to
become
again.
A potential solution to the problem of capturing benefit from long-term transfers was
observed by
Italsteel
tracks for line
engineers at JSF. They noted that JSF has a dual career ladder, with
managers and the technical
for meeting production demands, while
staff.
staff
Line managers are primarily responsible
engineers act as internal process engineering
consultants and are concerned primarily with process improvement.
ladder has a higher status than does the line
management
At JSF, the
staff career
who have been
ladder. Engineers
sent abroad to learn are rewarded by being assigned to the staff career ladder
This way the knowledge they gain in other organizations
return.
to divert their attention to
meeting production demands.
is
when
they
not lost by them having
Nevertheless, at Italsteel the
majority of engineers sent abroad have been promoted to line management-type positions.
Roles
An employee
functions in a technology transfer role
if
any of the transfer methods
described here are part of his or her designated work routine.
transfer
methods on an ad hoc
facilitate the
to
basis
These
a technology transfer role.
People employing those
would not be considered to be functioning
roles
form
links
explicitly in
between organizations or groups and
flow of technology or other forms of information, and so they are considered
be an integrating mechanism.
The most common
transfer role observed
is
that of the
communication node or
Gatekeepers are the focal points for much of the communication that flows
gatekeeper.
between the
sites.
Factors which determine whether or not
someone
functions as a
gatekeeper include managerial or project responsibilities, technical expertise, or superior
language
abilities.
Japanese
sites.
The
latter factor
Engineers in Japan
which most of the communication
The second
bridgehead
is
role observed
someone who
is
transfer) to serve as the eyes
is
especially cogent in
who speak
communications to and from the
the best english are often the nodes through
flows.
is
what
is
referred to at Polychem as a bridgehead.
A
transferred abroad for an extended period (a long-term
and ears of the home organization abroad,
16
to serve as a
gatekeeper for communications flows, to engage
assist
is
teams from the home organization during
in
engineering problem-solving, and to
their short-term visits.
The bridgehead
role
distinguished from the long-term transfer in that these responsibilities are a specific part
of the objective of the transfer, rather than just learning about the other organization's
operations or developing future
management
between two organizations than
is
away from
All of the engineers transferred
Polychem and
Italsteel
in
their
home
as filters to
to
is
a more active link
operations in both the
communication. For instance,
Germany, Japanese engineers working there use
Japanese operations
their
answer questions before they are sent on
question can't be answered completely,
In the past, the
properly.
A bridgehead
cases reported that they functioned as communications nodes
between the organizations. They also serve
Polychem
abilities.
the "student" in the long-term transfer.
German
it
can be reduced to
its
own knowledge
to Japan.
Even
essential elements
at
of the
if
the
and posed
engineers and scientists reported having problems
framing questions properly so that they and their Japanese colleagues were working with the
same understanding.
This
is
not a
trivial
problem.
One Polychem
engineer noted that
behaviors he and his colleagues originally attributed to being a strong case of "not invented
here syndrome" or rigidity on the part of their partner was in fact due in part to different
(and somewhat incompatible) styles of interacting and sharing information.
Since bridgeheads take an active role in the
window
into the expertise of the partner.
work
at their
new
site,
they offer a
Japanese engineers in Germany spend several
hours each day working directly with design engineers there on detailed component and part
design for the
new production
line.
The bridgehead
links
two organizations together by
transplanting the knowledge and understanding of one organization (as
embodied
in the
employee) into the environment of another.
Bridges Bridges are procedural or organizational mechanisms which facilitate the flow of
technology.
Like a bridgehead, a bridge places knowledge or technology from both
organizations in a
because
common
organizational
environment.
Bridges are more complex than a bridgehead
procedures or structures are set up to form that
17
common
environment, instead of simply transferring a person to another
common
has established
so that direct yield comparisons can
process technologies used.
became evident
site.
For example, Polychem
product quality measurement standards between
all
three partners
be made between the different production
The need
especially in the early
lines
common performance measurement
for a
Polychem
efforts to
improve output
quality.
and
system
While
each partner has similar process equipment, they have different ideas about what factors
influence product quality. Consequently, they also have different process measurements at
each
site
which impedes troubleshooting
efforts. In
some
traits,
production lines are unique.
Comparing one with another sometimes requires that chemical feedstocks be transferred to
another
be processed allowing the output of the different lines to be compared.
site to
These integrating procedures ensure
common
partners and a
basis for
Italsteel engineers
that a
common
language
comparison and evaluation
is
spoken between the
exists.
observed that JSF engineers have regular meetings in which they
describe their solutions to problems they have encountered.
They use a standardized
engineering reporting system to form a bridge between the different engineering groups.
In
it,
engineering reports follow a standard format that emphasizes brevity, conciseness, and
the graphic display of data.
library, so that
problems
solving
is
arise.
These reports are collected and catalogued
engineers from throughout the organization can access them
This
is
is
if
future
opposite to the system used at Italsteel, where engineering problem-
often not well-documented or
information
in a centralized
not available
if
problem
becomes
arise again.
lost
in
someone's
Even when
files,
so that the
reports are available to
others, the Italsteel reporting format produces reports that are very long
and
difficult to
read
(and seldom read).
Important bridges are the organizational groups whose express role
information from many
sources and re-route
has standing committees composed of
planning and
R&D work
on a global
it
where appropriate. For
members from
basis.
all
is
to integrate
instance,
Polychem
three sites that coordinate strategic
The committees meet
regularly to review and
coordinate product development efforts, with the goal of trying to spread the benefits of
18
research done at each
site
to the other sites
if
Individual partners also have
possible.
standing technical councils in specific areas, that integrate information from different
functional disciplines, business units, or
as
sites.
In this latter case, the committees function
a gateway through which information from the other partners can flow into the
organization and be routed to appropriate functional disciplines or business units.
American Polychem partner
formed a committee
also recently
information that has been collected through several different
first
efforts, so that
Many
coordinated and disseminated within the organization.
about partners' technologies, but they were amazed
it
can be better
of the people attending the
meeting of the technology transfer committee knew that several
to learn
were underway
efforts
at the extent of the learning
thus far, and the potential for spillover benefits to different operating groups.
because there had previously been no
common forum
The
specifically to integrate
This was
for sharing that information.
Knowledge Architectures
One
of the Japanese Polychem engineers working in
difficult to transfer
in
Japan
is
attitudes.
technology from Japan to
Germany commented
Germany because
that
it
was
the approach to production
designed around Japanese workers with their particular work behaviors and
He
found the
German Polychem workers were
sufficiently different
from
Japanese workers that technology couldn't be transferred without some modifications. This
is
an example of the interdependencies
(which
we
refer to as
that exist
between different organizational systems
knowledge architectures), which
affect the transfer of technology.
Architectures are the forms and functional relationships between the structures and artifacts
in
which knowledge has been embodied
been codified
into technology, rules
in the organization.
They are knowledge
and procedures, or organizational
that has
structures.
Architectures have a dual nature, one stock-like, the other structural. Architectures
are stock-like because they are the firm's inventories of
definite quantities or levels relative to other firms.
embodied knowledge and
technological capability in a certain manufacturing area, as represented by
19
reflect
For instance, a firm might have a
its
production
performance
Architectures are structural because the
levels.
the systems in the
all
organization are interdependent. For instance, a firm's production performance levels are
approach
closely linked to that firm's
technologies used, and
changes a firm's architectures because
straightforward, but
systems.
will
and
training, job design, the types of
its
it
Technology transfer inevitably
changes both the inventories of knowledge and the
In essence, the physical transfer of a piece of hardware
relationships with other systems.
may be
to hiring
past experience in that area.
its
ultimate success depends on
its fit
with the rest of the firm's
Several of a firm's architectures can influence technology transfer, 'our of which
be covered below.
The more
Hardware
between
transfer technology
hardware
similarities in the
sites.
at
Technology transfer
each
partner's technology shares a
from one
site
can
visit
common
another
technical ancestry.
facility for
The
similarity
same reason, hardware can be
components
in a piece of
similar, then
more
effort
means
in
to
that teams
a period of just a few days and gain a
Rather than having to describe the technology
equipment and processes can be described
be
will
it
mature technology and that each
detailed understanding of what technologies are being used and
characteristics.
the easier
Polychem has been made much
at
easier by the fact that all the partners are working with a
site,
how
fairly
they affect product
about
in detail, details
terms of differences between them. For the
transferred readily and
equipment or a segment
may
in a line.
only
amount
Finally,
if
to replacing
the hardware
is
can be put into learning about a partner's operating procedures
or problem-solving behaviors.
An extreme case
The
of a clone plant.
JSF. During
from Japan
its initial
in the
visits
construction,
was designed
to
be a
sister plant to
one operated by
much of the technology was either transferred
form of hardware, or was produced
case, the technology
short-term
of compatibility or overlap between sites would be found in the case
Italsteel plant
locally
under
was transferred using blueprints and technical
and long-term transfers from JSF
nearly identical to that operated by JSF,
many
20
license.
physically
In the latter
specifications, with
engineers. Since the Italsteel plant
some
is
now
of the problems that develop at the Italian
works can be solved by telephone or fax communication with engineers
usually without the need for travel.
The opposite
The German and Japanese polymer production technologies are
American
quite different from the system used by the
at the
Japanese
some technologies
true for
is
at
site,
Polychem.
similar to each other, but
Many
partner.
of the other
production technologies have been designed around the specific core polymer production
technologies used at each
engineers have
to their
own
made
to the
site.
This means that some of the suggestions that Japanese
Americans on how
improve product quality depend indirectly
to
To
type of polymer production system.
use that advice would require changing
several systems in the production line, at great expense.
partner
is
limited in the type of assistance
it
Consequently, the American
can receive from the other partners in
this
specific area of technology.
Procedures Procedures are the formal or informal rules of operations that define the way
routine effort takes place in and
is
coordinated throughout an organization.
a source of significant competitive advantage
and technology,
for instance,
more
if
they
For
efficient.
make
between people
the interactions
this reason, all
They can be
of the sites visited so far
have been trying to transfer procedures from their partners. But procedures also have an
architectural nature because they are often closely related to the technologies,
or other architectures that differ from organization to organization.
procedures being transferred from another
site
may
For
new
conflict with the
worker
skills,
this reason,
organizational
environment unless either the organization or the procedures themselves (or both) are
modified. For example, an Italsteel engineer
that he
had trouble implementing JSF
differences
who had been
transferred to
JSF commented
TQM procedures at Italsteel because of fundamental
He
between the two organizations.
said that the people at
JSF view
their
organization as an information generating and processing structure, where people at every
step in the operations produce and process information,
organization.
for
Production employees at
Italsteel don't
and then furnish
producing and using information. Furthermore, information that
shared with others, nor
is it
sought after
when
21
it is
it
to others in the
have similar procedures or training
is
produced often
produced elsewhere
in the firm.
isn't
In this
case, the
base,
JSF procedures were
in direct conflict with existing procedures, the
and the power structure of
Italsteel engineers also
and writing of
approach.
difference
engineers).
observed that JSF workers were involved in the formulation
The Japanese Polychem partner uses
their operating procedures.
between the Japanese procedures and
The procedures
relevant information.
They were
expertise that
is
clearly written to
in the
typically are written
relies heavily
on worker expertise
operations, relatively
On
the other hand, at the
workers have relatively
less expertise to contribute to
Adopting a new procedure may mean making changes
difficult
and time-consuming process.
log sheet to record production process data.
Italsteel
The JSF
not used to logging process data on a regular basis.
Even
manager had
to strictly enforce that
workers
Polychem
manager had
to
site
when a new product
procedure formulation.
to existing architectures in
were noticeably clearer and
workers were
so, the Italsteel
For the space of a few months, an
fill
in the log sheets in
consistent manner, before the workers finally began to comply.
at the U.S.
The same
quality database
an accurate and
thing
One
conduct several workshops with operators and rejected incorrectly
operating routines are too engrained in existing employees.
significant success that Italsteel engineers
has been
happened
was implemented.
completed log sheets for several months before operators began to comply.
Italsteel
role of
Therefore, at
skills.
engineers adopted a JSF data
log sheets
easier to use than the ones used previously by Italsteel.
to
lot of
American and
more emphasis has been placed on the
technology to attain quality and output targets, and less on employee
what can be a
by
be used. But they were also written by
production process, so the workers have a
relevant for writing procedures.
German Polychem
own (which
their
The Japanese Polychem partner
and output targets
Italsteel
same
written by the workers were short, concise, and included only
attain quality
sites,
the
In both cases, engineers from other sites observed that there was a dramatic
experienced users.
these
experience
Italsteel.
among
Sometimes,
For instance, the only
have had in implementing
TQM
procedures
at
newly-hired interns from a technical program that teaches those
22
In each of these cases, existing procedures
techniques.
to
Experience Base
transfer
an
and employee experience have had
be modified to successfully adopt new procedures.
asset,
that the
and
organization's experience base can have a strong influence on the
company downsize
move,
swift
At
in other cases a liability.
to begin with the
one
An
and adoption of new technologies. In some cases an experienced workforce can be
dramatically.
Italsteel,
a downturn in the steel industry required
The union agreement
most senior workers and proceed though
Italsteel
lost
stipulated that layoffs had
to the
more junior workers.
most experienced workers.
its
This has
meant
In
that
sophisticated process control automation equipment had to be installed to compensate for
the lack of operating experience. This lack of experience
must diagnose and solve problems, or
technologies.
Ironically, as
implement quality and
assist in integrating
the Italsteel engineers
statistical
have met with resistance from
becomes a burden when operators
new
technologies into the existing
who worked
at
JSF have
tried to
process control procedures back at the Italian plant, they
all
but the newest employees.
employees have operating experience-experience operating
in a
This
is
because the older
manner very
different
from
that at JSF.
The
U.S. Polychem partner has a similar problem with continuity of experience, in
that frequently,
promoted
when people demonstrate competence
to a higher position in the firm
experience where
it
can be best used.
seniority-based system
or
skill
and they are not
Polychem
in
in their
in position to apply that
Germany and Japan
where experienced workers are
still
work, they are
relies
more on a
involved with production. This
ensures that experts are available to diagnose problems, and that younger, less-experienced
workers are taught the nuances of the production process by knowledgeable mentors. This
also
means
that different production approaches are used at each site.
For instance, with
a steady and knowledgeable workforce, the Japanese Polychem partner relies relatively
on human- and experience-based problem-solving.
hand, with
its
less-experienced workforce has
come
The American
partner,
to rely relatively
more on automated
production technology (the same parallel could be drawn between JSF and
23
more
on the other
Italsteel,
That means that the U.S. Polychem partner has very sophisticated process
respectively).
control technology, relative to the Japanese partner.
The
transfer are interesting, however.
The
implications for technology
U.S. technology and hardware can be transferred
whereas the Japanese experience base
relatively easily to Japan,
much more
is
difficult to
transfer to the U.S.
Another problem posed by organizational experience
there sometimes
is
no overlap
organizations. This creates a
at another,
in
some areas of
dilemma
but the potential recipient
Or, the potential recipient
may
to technology transfer
in that a solution to
may be unable
that
a problem at one
site
may
exist
to recognize that the solution exists.
not have the expertise to implement that solution in
For instance, the Polychem partners hold semi-annual
operations.
is
the experience base of the cooperating
R&D
its
own
coordination
meetings to apprise partners of each other's work and to exploit synergies between research
projects at each
site.
While
of the researchers have
it
does keep them up to date on research done elsewhere, some
commented
that the meetings
seldom serve
as a source of
new ideas
because their own research and that of their colleagues are so different that they seldom
find a
common
basis for discussion.
Research projects sponsored
at
Polychem may be a way of integrating the experience base, assuming
capabilities,
communication, and cooperation remain
available at one site might also be "lent" to another
piece of
new technology was developed
partner
when
case, a
temporary overlap
its
original use
in
where
trials.
is
lacking.
in
by another
Experience that
Germany, but was transferred
in
market
is
For instance, a
to the
American
strategy.
In this
was created when the expert involved with the
development of the technology travelled with the hardware
through the start-up
it
site
that understanding of
at high levels.
was made unnecessary by a change
in expertise
one
The technology was
for
its
installation
transferred successfully and
and stayed
is still
in use
today.
Power structure One
power
structure,
in the relative
final
and how
it
element
in this discussion of architecture
relates to technology.
Changes
in
is
the organization's
technology can prompt
power of groups within an organization. This can have two
24
effects
shifts
on the
technology transfer process, depending on
affected,
can
filter
and how much power they have
how
the different groups in the organization are
to intervene in the process.
information about the potential of technologies at other
"turning a blind eye" to them. This
is
a concern for
R&D
managers
be faced with having to sponsor product development research
the product
is
markets
clearly out of the
case, the influence of a
group
the formation of the JV.
in
at
First,
sites
affected groups
by focussing on or
Polychem who may
at
another
site,
especially
if
which the other partner competes. In another
Polychem was weakened because of changes mandated by
at
In interviews with people from this group, several were initially
very cautious about their accepting partners' technologies, or were skeptical that their firm
would would ultimately benefit from the partnership.
The second way
technology transfer
is
specific technologies.
that changes in the
by actively intervening to
One group
at
transfer of a piece of technology
A
similar piece of technology
been allowed
power structure of the organization can
to participate
is
facilitate or interfere with the transfer of
Polychem had been heavily involved
some time
being transferred again, but
on the margins because of
its
this time, the
effect" at the
it
to gain the
negotiations early in the JV, especially relating to determining
Over
time, the relative
as the true capabilities of each partner has
power positions of the groups mentioned
technologies were to be transferred, and by
organization by
is
were
The Japanese
power
upper hand
in
some
whose technologies would be
positions have changed, especially
become more
in the previous
clear.
However, the
examples clearly
relative
affects
what
whom.
Individual incentives provide a final poignant example of
technology transfer. Information
In general,
transfer with partners
beginning because of demonstrable
strengths in certain production technologies. This allowed
at the different sites.
group has only
previous failure.
enthusiastic to begin transfer at the beginning of the JV.
Polychem partner experienced a "halo
used
in the unsuccessful
prior to the establishment of the present JV.
Polychem groups who saw immediate payoffs from technology
much more
affect
power balances
affecting
seen as a source of power and a way to advance
some managers and hourly employees
25
at Italsteel, so
it is
in the
often not shared
Managers who demonstrate
with others.
individual performance (which
On
promotions.
may
simply
the greatest knowledge,
mean
the other hand, promotions in the Japanese organizations in this study are
based on tenure, so the incentive to distinguish oneself
that encourage
incentive
is
and have the highest
not doing as poorly as peers) receive the
is
weak.
In fact, the social
employees to be a part of the group are much stronger.
to share information, so that the group's
performance
is
norms
This means the
improved. Because of
such differences in the power associated with possessing information, implementing
technologies which rely on the sharing of information at Italsteel or the other Western
organizations
is
difficult
and sometimes even
resisted.
Organizational Adaptive Ability
Knowledge Architectures are
things
that
can't
be changed
in
the short term.
Organizational adaptive ability refers to the things an organization can do in the short term
to increase
its
ability to
an organization's
adopt new technologies. In
ability to
adaptive ability
is
a measure of
"push the envelope" to act outside of the boundaries of
Adaptive
existing architectures.
effect,
ability
is
separated into staffing
flexibility
its
and production
flexibility
An
Staffing Flexibility
organization that has staffing in excess of that required for normal
operations can easily re-deploy people to work on technology transfer and implementation.
However, firms seldom have excess people waiting
to
be re-assigned.
In fact, staffing
pressures were cited repeatedly by managers as a hinderance to technology transfer.
Engineers at
Italsteel
complained that they were too busy to act as technology transfer
agents once they returned from
Two problems were
they had learned at
cited.
JSF because
First,
of the
demands of
their daily responsibilities.
they had no time to train other people in the behaviors
JSF because of pressures
to
keep the existing production system up and
running. Second, they didn't have any extra people to train even
One German Polychem manager made
similar
if
they did have the time.
comments, and added that because of
shortages of personnel in his organization, he could not even afford to transfer any people
26
the managers
who worked
at
JSF
One
about different technologies.
to other sites so they could learn
managers
tried at Italsteel assigns recently-hired interns to
are being trained in the
solution that
JSF
statistical
is
being
Those assigned
for training.
to
process control and
Total Quality techniques.
People that are available can sometimes be used more effectively through job
In the short run, effort can be focused
design.
people from other areas temporarily. This
multiple
facilities,
effort
skills.
Polychem
it is
operations).
at critical
move from
moments
helpful to temporarily have
This
possible only
is
if
flexibility
line to line
(for instance,
and position
re-
shifting
workers are cross-trained
Japan uses about the same number of people working
but line workers are able to
can be concentrated
started,
in
on certain areas of production by
in
at their
to position so that
when a production
line
more workers on hand than are needed
is
being
for routine
saves production time that can be used for technology
implementation. Furthermore, since the Japanese Polychem operators are relatively skilled
they are able to assume
production engineer.
running means that
effort
some of
the responsibilities that might otherwise be assigned to a
smooth-
Finally, the fact that the operations there are relatively
less effort
has to be spent on routine problem-solving and that more
can be devoted to technology implementation or transfer.
Longer-term deployments of people and expertise to specific areas can increase the
likelihood that technologies will be transferred there successfully. For instance,
if
the most
technology transfer occurs in process technology areas, then expertise should be massed
there
if
possible.
For instance, the Japanese Polychem partner has about the same number
of engineers working in
its
operations as do the
German
or
the
production are
assigned
to
R&D
groups where
American
partners.
The engineers not
those engineers, a larger proportion are process engineers.
they
development. That menas that more engineers are available
are
at the
engaged
Japanese
But of
assigned to
in
site for
product
process
technology improvement. Because relatively fewer engineers are assigned to production in
Germany, the production group sometimes has
to get problem-solving help.
Associated with
to
this
27
make formal
requests of the
R&D group
process are delays and potential conflicts
However,
in research priorities.
Germany
for
in the process of transferring
new production
a
German
the
line,
technology from Japan to
partner has created a production
engineering group structure more closely resembling that in Japan, to try to
of the people
it
make
better use
already has.
Production Flexibility
Production
flexibility
is
related to the relative availability of
production time that can be used for engineering problem-solving, equipment modifications,
or product
trial runs.
A plant that
must operate
However, no firm
for such activities.
at full capacity obviously
in a competitive industry
for the luxury of having production flexibility, either.
available production capacity
the
is
can build excess capacity just
One way
make
the most of the
For instance,
more unscheduled down-time than does
work and problem-solving.
relatively
The Japanese partner
the Japanese partner.
all
overall for production line
But of that time, the German and American partners experience
more scheduled maintenance time
plans
so that the time can be used for extensive equipment
That time
is
made even more
advance planning, contractor personnel can be called
number
to
to schedule several activities in parallel.
Polychem partners spend about the same amount of time
maintenance.
cannot shut down
in.
productive because with the
During
this period,
many
times the
of people normally required to run and maintain a production line can concentrate
their efforts
on the
line.
Ironically, the
to a meticulous production (based
Japanese partner gains
is
that
it
usually carries
more
in
line
advance.
The downside
of this particular
inventory, has slower inventory turns,
obsolete inventory at the end of the year than
performing production
by adhering
on projected customer demand) and maintenance (based
on available time) schedule planned long
approach
this flexibility
its
partners.
The
and more resources available
and has more
upside, however,
for
is
a higher-
implementing process
innovation.
One way
of alleviating the problem of binding production
demands
is
by using pilot
or non-production lines for experimentation with process improvements and implementation.
Each of the
One
facilities
Italsteel
involved in the study have pilot production lines of various capabilities.
manager saved an obsolete
facility
28
from being scrapped so that he could use
it
for technology
and product development. This
of technology that was transferred from the
Italy, Italsteel
and
was able
to transfer the technology
faxes, with fabrication
and
facility at the Italsteel plant.
several hundred miles
facility
JSF
plant.
was used
to test
Because a
from Japan with drawings, telephone
testing taking place in Italy. Oddly, this
Italsteel
away near
engineers at the main plant, and
is
its
is
does have a state-of-the-art pilot
central
and prove a piece
test facility existed in
R&D
even sometimes
extensive use of their pilot production lines to test
facilities,
idle.
but
test facility located
is
it
The Polychem
seldom used by
partners have
new products from
calls,
the only such test
made
their partners, or to
test
hypotheses about why one technology has higher performance than another. Often a
test
of a partner's product can be
made by
shipping polymer from one
providing the state conditions for the process.
on the
pilot lines before they are installed
site to
New parts or technologies are
on regular production
mentioned the use of the
The
pilot
their partners
production lines as part of the process.
four categories, Transfer Scope, Transfer Method,
Knowledge Architectures, and
Organizational Adaptive Ability, and their contents are summarized in Table
Table II
Categories and Sub-categories of Technology Transfer Framework
Transfer Scope
first
Most of the
lines.
Polychem engineers interviewed who had transferred technologies from
another and
also tested
II.
Others, where no clear evidence exists yet, are based on inferences that follow from the
framework.
The
relationships of transfer scope with transfer method,
and adaptive ability are defined in Table
transfer
methods must be used.
This
As
III.
is
is
more
intensive
based on the observation that information
transferred relatively easily, whereas behaviors
explanation for this
knowledge architectures,
transfer scope increases,
somewhat more
require
that as scope increases, the
effort.
is
The
embodied knowledge becomes more
extensive and complex (as in the case of behaviors).
more
Therefore,
intensive transfer
methods, which use media with greater information-carrying capacity, must be used.
the
Similarly,
greater
the
dissimilarities
knowledge
in
This
organizations, the greater the transfer scope.
is
architectures
between
based on the observation that more
complex embodied knowledge, such as behaviors, often involves more than just the transfer
of the behaviors themselves.
Complex systems often have
technologies or embodied knowledge.
The explanation
must adapt or be adapted to the architectures in their
to
be transferred
for this
new
is
setting.
that
This
in "bundles" of
new
is
technologies
done by either
the transfer of complimentary technologies from their previous setting, or by changes to the
architectures at the
new
setting.
Either effort
is
correctly associated with the overall effort
involved, or scope of the transfer.
Finally, the greater the organization's adaptive ability, the greater the scope of
technologies
it
is
able to successfully transfer.
This
is
based on the observation that
organizations that can flexibly re-deploy resources are able to transfer complex technologies
relatively quickly
increased
compared with others
ability).
The explanation
(the quickness of the transfer
for this
cope with greater demands and workloads
done
is
associated here with
is
that firms that can re-deploy resources can
in
engineering problem-solving, and get more
in a given transfer effort.
30
Table
III
Relationships Between Transfer Scope and Other Categories
Table IV
Relationships Between Transfer
Method and Other Categories
Based on the observed relationships and framework discussed above, we suggest
the
following implications for organizations involved in technology transfer:
Hardware
1)
is
relatively
easy
to
compared with organizational
transfer,
procedures, and operating philosophy.
has been observed that transfers of hardware
It
generally proceed quickly, while transfers of behaviors take
reflection of the positive relationship
structure,
much
longer.
This
is
a
between transfer scope and transfer method.
2) Investment in developing architectures similar to a partner's helps the transfer process
in the long run.
training
which was
had
This was observed as one firm which had previously instituted employee
programs and work re-designs proceeded with transfer
just
beginning to do
more
quickly than one
This preparation reduced the scope of technologies that
so.
be transferred from the partner.
to
efforts
This
is
a reflection of the positive relationship
between transfer scope and knowledge architectures.
3)
Technology transfer proceeds
then hardware, and
in stages.
observed that
It is
Some
finally organizational adaptations.
depending on the degree of
similarity
develop similar capabilities. This
is
between
firms,
it
begins with information,
of the steps might be skipped,
and the extent
to
which firms want
to
a reflection of the positive relationship between transfer
scope and knowledge architectures.
4)
Language differences can be a barrier
knowledge transfer
to
This problem can be overcome by establishing
making
simplicity the standard for all interactions.
relationship
in international partnerships.
common communication
This
is
protocols and
a reflection of the positive
between transfer scope and transfer method.
SUMMARY
An
proposed.
organizational capabilities-based framework of a technology transfer has been
It first
technology,
depicts the organization as groups of
procedures,
organizational
conceptualizing the organization this way,
different combinations of
structure,
it
embodied knowledge which include
and hierarchical relationships.
By
can be seen that different organizations rely on
embodied knowledge
33
types to accomplish the
same
ends.
Next, technology transfer was then depicted as the transfer of these
embodied
knowledge forms between organizations. The extent of the information embodied
in the
technology being transferred was captured by a concept called transfer scope. The greater
the scope, the
more knowledge
that
transferred.
is
The approaches used
to transfer the
technology are described in a category called the transfer method. Transfer methods range
from
relatively easy to very intensive
approaches. In general,
intensive the
it
(in
was suggested
terms of organizational resources required)
that the greater the scope of the transfer, the
Because an organization
is
a collection of
embodied knowledge
combination of types employed varies from organization
new environment may have a
transferred into a
the organization than
embodied knowledge
architectures.
the
greater
The
the
architectures are
An
more
methods that would be required.
it
types,
and the
technology
to organization, a
very different connection with the rest of
had previously. The relationships between the different forms of
in the
organization are captured in a concept called knowledge
greater the difference in knowledge architectures between organizations,
difficulty
assumed
to
of
be
transferring
technologies
static in the short term,
organization's ability to change
architectures
its
between them.
Knowledge
but changeable in the long term.
was defined by
Technology transfer then requires adapting new technologies
its
adaptive
ability.
to the existing
embodied
knowledge structure of the organization. This means accurately recognizing the scope of the
transfer required to successfully
selecting
to
implement the technology
an appropriate transfer method. With
develop imaginative ways of leverage
ability
if
the scope of the transfer
is
its
finite resources,
existing
too great.
in
its
new environment, and
an organization may have
knowledge architectures and
For instance, using adaptive
its
adaptive
abilities to
temporarily enhance the firm's architectural assets in a particular area might facilitate
technology transfer there.
34
REFERENCES
Abernathy,
W. and
Innovation",
Omega,
Allen, T.J. (1977)
Allen,
Thomas
J.,
Utterback,
J.
B.
MA: MIT
Press.
12,
2-9.
Hyman, and David
Manufacturing Firm:
Research Policy,
of Product and Process
and Sean Cooney. (1971) "The International Technological Gatekeeper."
Thomas J., Diane
to the Small
Dynamic Model
"Managing the Flow of Technology". Cambridge,
Technology Review, 73, 5 (March),
Allen,
(1975) "A
3, 6.
A
L. Pinckney. (1983) "Transferring Technology
Study of Technology Transfer in Three Countries."
199-211.
Aoki, M. (1990) "Toward and Economic Model of the Japanese Firm", Journal of Economic
XXVIII (March), pp. 1-27.
Literature, Vol.
Barley,
S.
R.
Observations of
"Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Evidence from
Scanners and the Sociology of Radiology Departments". Administrative
(1986)
CT
Science Quarterly, 31: 78-108.
Chakrabarti, Alok K., and Juergen Hauschildt. (1989) "The Division of Labour in Innovation
Management."
R&D
Management,
19, 2,
161-171.
Clark, Kim B. (1985), "The Interaction of Design Hierarchies and Market Concepts
Technological Evolution", Research Policy, Vol. 14, 235-241.
in
Cohen, Hirsch, Seymour Keller, and Donald Streeter. (1979) "The Transfer of Technology
from Research to Development." Research Management, May, 11-17.
Cohen, W. M., and D. A. Levinthal. (1990) "Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on
Learning and Innovation." Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152.
Dean, James W. (1984) "Deciding
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
to Innovate:
How
Firms Justify Advanced Technology".
Meyer, A. (1991) "Tech Talk: How Managers are Stimulating Global
Communication", Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp. 49-58.
De
R&D
Philip, Sanford V. Berg, and Jerome Duncan. (1979) "External vs. Internal
Knowledge Acquisition: Joint Venture Activity and R&D Intensity." Journal of Economics
and Business, Winter, 103-108.
Friedman,
35
Galbraith,
R. (1982) "Designing the Innovating Organization". Organizational Dynamics,
J.
10, 5-25.
Hamel, Gary, Yves L. Doz, and C.K. Prahalad. (1989) "Collaborate with Your Competitors
and Win." Harvard Business Review, January-February, 133-139.
--
Harrigan,
Kathryn R. (1988) "Joint Ventures and Competitive Strategy."
Management
Journal,
9,
Strategic
141-158.
Henderson, R. M. and K. B. Clark. (1990) "Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration
of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms", Administrative
Science Quarterly, 35,: 9-30.
Jervis, Paul. (1975) "Innovation
IEEE
Individuals."
and Technology Transfer- The Roles and Characteristics of
Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-22,
Katz, R. and T. Allen, (1982) "Investigating the Not Invented
Look
at the
(February), 19-27.
Here (NIH) Syndrome:
Performance, Tenure, and Communication Patterns of 50
Management,
1
A
R&D Groups", R&D
12, 1, pp. 7-19.
Kazanjian, R. K. and Drazin, R. (1986) "Implementing Manufacturing Innovations: Critical
Choices of Structure and Staffing Roles". Human Resource Management, Fall, Vol. 25, No.
3,
pp. 385-403.
Kedia, Ben L., and Rabi S. Bhagat. (1988) "Cultural Constraints on Transfer of Technology
Across Nations: Implications for Research in International and Comparative Management."
Academy of Management Review, 13, No. 4, 559-571.
Kogut, Bruce. (1988) "Joint Ventures: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives."
Management
Journal,
9,
Strategic
319-332.
Kogut, Bruce, and Udo Zander. (1992) "Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities,
and the Replication of Technology." Organization Science, 3, No. 3 (August), 383-397.
Leonard-Barton, Dorothy. (1988) "Implementation as Mutual Adaptation of Technology and
Organization." Research Policy, 17, 251-267.
March,
J.
G.,
and H. A. Simon. (1958) "Organizations".
Nelson, R. and
Belknap
S.
New
York: John Wiley and Sons.
Winter. (1982) "An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change", Boston:
Press.
36
Orlikowski,
Wanda
Technology
in Organizations."
J.
(1992) "The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of
Organization Science 3, No. 3 (August), 398-427.
Ouchi, W.G., and M.K. Bolton. (1987) "The Logic of Joint Research and Development."
California Management Review 30, 3, 9-33.
Ounjian, Moira L., and E. Bryan Carne. (1987) "A Study of the Factors Which Effect
Technology Transfer in a Multilocation Multibusiness Unit Corporation." IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management EM-34, 3 (August), 194-201.
Pelz,
Donald C, and Fred C. Munson. (1982) "Originality Level and the Innovating Process
Human Systems Management, 3, 173-187.
in Organizations."
Rice, Ronald E., and Everett M. Rogers. (1980) "Reinvention in the Innovation Process."
Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 1, 4 (June), 499-514.
Edward B. (1979) "Stimulating Technological Innovation: Organizational
Approaches". Research Management. Vol XXII No. 6. (November), pp. 27-31.
Roberts,
Roberts, E. B. and Frohman, A. L. (1978) "Strategies for Improving Research Utilization",
Innovation/Technology Review, 30, 5 (March/April): 35-41.
Roberts, E. B., and Fusfeld, A. (1981) "Staffing
Organization" Sloan Management Review, 19-34.
Rogers, Everett M. (1983), "Elements of Diffusion".
the
New
Innovative
York,
Technology-Based
NY: The Free
Press.
Souder, William E., and Venkatesh Padmanabhan. (1989) "Transferring New Technologies
from
to Manufacturing", Research and Technology Management, Vol 32, No. 5. pp.
R&D
38-43.
Tezuka, H., (1991) "Is Japanese Technology Transferable to the United States?" Master's
Thesis, MIT Sloan School of Management.
(1991) "Organizational Politics and Technological Change".
Sloan School of Management.
Thomas, R.
J.
manuscript,
MIT
Unpublished
L. and P. Anderson. (1986) "Technological Discontinuities and Organizational
Environments", Administrative Science Quarterly, 31:439-465.
Tushman, M.
M. J. (1990) 'Task Characteristics and Organizational Problem Solving in
Technological Process Change". Working Paper, WP#3 109-90-BPS, MIT Sloan School of
Tyre,
Management.
37
Tyre, Marcie
J.
(1991) "Managing Innovation on the Factory Floor."
Technology Review,
October, 59-65.
Tyre, M.J. (1991) "Managing the Introduction of New Process Technology: International
Differences in a Multi-Plant Network." Research Policy 22, 57-76.
White, William. (1977) "Effective Transfer of Technology from Research to Development."
Research Management May, 30-34.
Zander, Udo. (1989) "Exploiting a Technological Edge - Voluntary and Involuntary
Dissemination of Technology". Doctoral Dissertation, Stockholm: IIB.
38
il
The International Center for Research on the Management of Technology
Sloan School of Management
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Working Paper
List
Number
Date
1-89
11/89
Author(s)
Title
Netgraphs: A Graphic Representation of Adjacency Tool for Matrices as a
Network Analysis
2-90
Strategic Transformation
3-90
Managing
and the Success
of
George
Allen
High Technology Companies
Roberts
CAD Systems in Mechanical Design Engineering
Robertson
Allen
1/90 (Rev. 3/91)
4-90
The Personality and Motivations
of Technological Entrepreneurs
1/90
5-90
Current Status and Future of Structural Panels in the
Wood Products Industry
Montrey
Utterback
4/90
6-90
Do Nominated Boundary Spanners Become
Effective Technological Gatekeepers?
7-90
7/90
8-90
The Treble Ladder Revisited:
as They Grow Older?
Why Do
Engineers Lose Interest in the Dual Ladder
8/90
Allen
Katz
McCormack
Technological Discontinuities: The Emergence of Fiber Optics
Utterback
8/90
9-90
Allen
Nochur
6/90 (Rev. 7/91)
Basa
Work Environment, Organizational Relationships and Advancement of Technical
Professionals: A Ten Year Longitudinal Study in One Organization
Allen
People and Technology Transfer
Allen
Katz
10-90
8/90
11-90
Exploring the Dynamics of Dual Ladders:
A Longitudinal Study
Katz
Tushman
8/90
Allen
12-90
8/90
13-90
8/90
14-90
Managing the Introduction of New Process Technology:
in a Multi-Plant
International Differences
Tyre
Network
Task Characteristics and Organizational Problem Solving
Tyre
in Technological
Process Change
The Impact
of "Sticky Data"
von Hippel
on Innovation and Problem-Solving
8/90
15-90
5/90
16-90
7/90
Underinvestment and Incompetence as Responses to Radical Innovation: Evidence
from the Photolithographic Alignment Equipment Industry
Patterns of
Communication
Among Marketing
Engineering and Manufacturing
A Comparison Between Two New Product Teams
—
Henderson
Griffin
Hauser
Number
Date
17-90
Title
Author(s)
Age, Education and the Technical Ladder
Allen
9/90 (Rev. 8/91)
18-90
Katz
A Model of Cooperative R&D Among Competitors
1/90
19-90
4/90
20-90
Strategy, Structure,
and Performance
in
Product Development: Observations from
the Auto Industry
Organizing the Tasks
in
Complex Design
Projects
6/90
Sinha
Cusumano
Cusumano
Nobeoka
Eppinger
Whitney
Smith
Gebala
21-90
The Emergence
of a
New Supercomputer Architecture
7/90
22-90
Superceded by 39-91.
23-90
Software Complexity and Software Maintenance Costs
8/90
24-90
Leadership Style and Incentives
Banker
Datar
Kemerer
Zweig
Rotemberg
Saloner
9/90
25-90
Afuah
Utterback
Factory Concepts and Practices in Software Development
Cusumano
11/90
26-90
Going
Public: Sell the Sizzle or the Steak
Roberts
10/90
27-90
11/90
28-90
Evolving Toward Product and Market-Orientation: The Early Years of
Technology-Based Firms
The Technological Base
of the
New
Enterprise
Roberts
Roberts
11/90
29-90
Innovation, Competition, and Industry Structure
12/90 (Rev. 6/91)
30-91
Product Strategy and Corporate Success
Roberts
1/91
31-91
Meyer
Cognitive Complexity and
CAD Systems:
Beyond the Drafting Board Metaphc
1/91
32-91
6/91
Robertson
Ulrich
Filerman
CAD System Use and Engineering Performance in Mechanical Design
1/91
33-91
Utterback
Suarez
Robertson
Allen
Investigating the Effectiveness of Technology-Based Alliances: Patterns and
Consequences of Inter-Firm Cooperation
George
Number
Date
35-91
2/91
Author(s)
Title
Impacts of Supervisory Promotion and Social Location on Subordinate Promotion
RD&E Setting: An Investigation of Dual Ladders
in
an
Allen
(Rev. 11/91)
36-91
Demography and
Design: Predictors of
New Product Team Performance
Ancona
Caldwell
1/91
37-91
Katz
Tushman
Tine
Changing Role of Teams
in Organizations: Strategies for Survival
2/91
38-91
Schrader
Informal Alliances: Information Trading Between Firms
3/91
39-91
3/91
40-91
3/91
Supplier Relations and Management:
and US. Auto Plants
Strategic
A Survey of Japanese,
Japanese-Transplant,
Cusumano
Takeishi
Maneuvering and Mass-Market Dynamics: The Triumph
of
VHS
Cusumano
Mylonadis
Over Beta
Rosenbloom
41-91
The Software
Factory:
An
Entry for the Encyclopedia of Software Engineering
Cusumano
3/91
42-91
Dominant Designs and the Survival
Suarez
Utterback
of Firms
4/91 (Rev. 7/92)
43-91
An Environment for Entrepreneurs
6/91
44-91
7/91
45-91
Technology Transfer from Corporate Research
of Perceptions on Technology Adoption
When Speeding
Concepts
to
Nochur
to Operations: Effects
Allen
Utterback
Market Can Be a Mistake
Meyer
3/91
Tuff
Richardson
46-91
Paradigm Shift: From Mass Production
to
Pine
Mass Customization
6/91
47-91
8/91
48-91
Murotake
Computer Aided Engineering and Project Performance: Managing
a Double-Edged Sword
The Marketing and R
&D
Allen
Griffin
Interface
Hauser
10/91 (Rev. 2/92)
49-91
Cusumano
Systematic' Versus Accidental' Reuse in Japanese Software Factories
10/91
50-91
Flexibility
and Performance:
A
Literature Critique
and Strategic Framework
Suarez
Cusumano
11/91
Fine
51-91
11/91
52-91
12/91
53-91
12/91
54-91
12/91
Shifting Economies:
From
Craft Production to Flexible
Cusumano
Systems
and Software Factories
Beyond
Persistence: Understanding the
of Science
Commitment
of Pioneers in
Emerging
Institutional Variations in
Fields
Rappa
Debackere
and Technology
Problem Choice and Persistence among
Debackere
Pioneering Researchers
Rappa
The Role of Students
Rappa
in Pioneering
New
Fields of Science
and Technology
Debackere
Number
Date
55-91
Author(s)
Title
Technological Communities and the Diffusion of Knowledge
Rappa
Debackere
12/91
56-91
The Voice
of the
Customer
Griffin
Hauser
10/91
57-92
The Influence
of Inter-Project Strategy
on Market Performance
in the
Auto Industry
1/92
58-92
1/92
59-92
Linking International Technology Transfer with Strategy and Management:
A
Literature
Cusumano
Commentary
Using the Literature
in the
Elenkov
Study of Emerging Fields of Science and Technology
Rappa
Technological Progress and the Duration of Contribution Spans
Debackere
Garud
12/91
61-92
9/91
62-92
Garud
Technological Trajectories and Selection Mechanisms in the Development of
Rappa
Cochlear Implants
On the Persistence of Researchers
in Technological
Garud
Development
Rappa
12/91
63-92
An International Comparison
Life
on the
The
Social Construction of Technological Reality
Frontier:
of Scientists in an
Emerging
Field
Garud
Rappa
1/92
65-92
Utterback
Core Competencies, Product Families and Sustained Business Success
Meyer
2/92
66-92
3/92
Debackere
Rappa
1/92
64-92
Rappa
Garud
7/91
60-92
Nobeoka
Cusumano
Windows Of
Tyre
Orlikowski
Opportunity: Creating Occasions For Technological
Adaptation In Organizations
(Rev. 9/92)
67-92
4/92
68-92
2/92
Puritan
-
Bennett
— the Renaissance™ Spirometry System: Listening
to the Voice of the
Time
Flies
Hauser
Customer
When You're Having Fun: How Consumers
Allocate Their
Time When
Evaluating Products
(Rev. 11/92)
69-92
Moving Ideas to Market and Corporate Renewal
Meyer
Utterback
7/92
70-92
Hauser
Urban
Weinberg
Project
Management
in
Technology Innovation, Application and Transfer
Frankel
5/92
71-92
Investments of Uncertain Cost
9/92
72-92
Identifying Controlling Features of Engineering Design Iteration
73-92
10/92
Smith
Eppinger
9p/92
Objectives and Context of Software Measurement, Analysis and Control
Cusumano
Number
Date
74-92
Author(s)
Title
An
Empirical Study of Manufacturing Flexibility in Printed-Circuit Board Assembly
Suarez
Cusumano
11/92
Fine
75-92
11 92
76-92
Japanese Technology Management: Innovations, Transferability, and the
Limitations of "Lean* Production
Hauser
Customer-Satisfaction Based Incentive Systems
Simester
Wernerfelt
11/92
77-92
The Product Family and the Dynamics
of
Meyer
Core Capability
Utterback
11/92
78-92
11/92
79-92
Multi-Project Strategy and Organizational Coordination
Automobile Product Development
Pattern of Industrial Evolution:
Nobeoka
Cusumano
in
Dominant Design and the Survival
of Firms
12/92
80-92
11/92
81-92
Cusumano
King
Innovation from Differentiation: Pollution Control Departments and
Innovation in the Printed Circuit Industry
Answer Garden and
Utterback
Suarez
the Organization of Expertise
1/92
82-92
Skip and Scan: Cleaning
Up Telephone
Resnick
Virzi
Interfaces
2/92
83-92
Developing
New Products and Services by
Listening to the Voice of the
Customer
Roberts
8/92
t-92
A
Comparative Analysis of Design Rationale Representations
3/92
85-93
1/93
86-93
2/93
An Introductory Note for Using
Analyze Nodes, Relationships, Partitions and Boundaries
Relational Data in Organizational Settings:
AGN1 and Netgraphs
An
to
Asset-Based View of Technology Transfer in International Joint Ventures
Lee
Lai
George
Allen
Rebentish
Ferretti
The International Center
for Research
on the Management
of
Technology
all
papers published
Working Paper Order Form
Name:
Title:
Company:
Address:
I
would
like to
become
a
working paper subscriber and receive
during the current year. ($125
D
I
would
like to
U.S.,
#
#
all
other countries)
order working papers individually. Please send
papers:
#
Canada, Mexico; $150
#
me
the following
\
5939
1*2
3
TOAD 00AMbMA5
A