^warorj.
V
^\
o
#
HD28
.M414
•^i
ALFRED
P.
WORKING PAPER
SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
Technology Transfer from Corporate
Research to Operations: Effects of
Perceptions on Technology Adoption
Kumar S. Nochur
Thomas J. Allen
July 1991
WP# 44-91
SSM # 3341
MASSACHUSETTS
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
50 MEMORIAL DRIVE
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139
i
The International Center for Research
on the Management of Technology
Technology Transfer from Corporate
Research to Operations: Effects of
Perceptions on Technology Adoption
Kiunar
S.
Thomas
Nochur
J.
Allen
WP # 44-91
July 1991
SSM
©
# 3341
1991 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Sloan School of Management
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
50 Memorial Drive, E52-171
Cambridge,
02139
MA
M.I.T.
NOV
LIBRARIES
1
5 1991
ABSTRACT
In this paper we examine how technology transfer from a
corporate research center to operating divisions is affected by
the perceptions of operational employees
regarding the utility
and user-orientation of research center projects and the
accessibility of researchers.
Data are presented from an
study
of
these
variables
empirical
in a large energy resources
company. The study shows that these perceptions are strongly
correlated with new technology utilization.
In situations where
there is a basic incongruity between the priorities of developers
and recipients of new technologies, increased communication
between them can actually induce or aggravate negative
perceptions and thereby increase the barriers to effective
technology transfer.
INTRODUCTION
It
has long been recognized that interactions between research centers and
downstream operating
units are influenced
responsibilities, job content
in the roles,
and orientation of employees working
Lawrence and Lorsch (1965) pointed out
different
by the differences
tasks connected with
that "...specialists
in
them.
working on
product innovation develop different
viewpoints and methods of operation and tend to work best in different kinds
of organizational structures.
associated with
sales,
it
are
This specialization and the differences
important for the effective operation of the separate
research, and production units, but they also contribute to the
disagreements and differences of opinion between these departments which
inevitably occur around the
product-innovation process."
Schon (1969)
noted that people involved with different stages of the technology
transfer
process are likely to hold different attitudes and perceptions about the
relevance of projects.
According
to
Allen (1984), differences in the
education level and background between scientists and engineers lead to
"differences in values and attitudes toward
work
that will
almost certainly be
reflected in the behavior of the individuals."
we
In this paper
will first
examine how the perceptions of researchers by
operations personnel affect technology transfer across organizational
boundaries.
various
We
modes of
The study
is
will then analyze
interaction
how
these perceptions are mediated by
between researchers and operations personnel.
based on data collected from a large energy
resources
company.
The Corporate Research Center (CRC) of
the
company develops process
technologies for geophysical exploration that are meant for use by the
operations people in
sources of energy.
its
various divisions,
who
are prospecting for
new
Data were gathered through a questionnaire survey of
285 regional employees, spread over
six geographically distant regions.
questionnaire asked about their adoption of
Corporate Research Center during the
new technologies from
last three years, their
the research projects conducted there,
The
the
perceptions of
and the extent and nature of
communication with researchers. Data collection and analysis were guided
by the following questions:
a.
How
do operations personnel perceive Corporate Research Center
projects and researchers?
b.
What impact do
these perceptions have on the adoption
of
new
technologies?
c.
How
do various modes of
interaction
between researchers and
operational employees affect these perceptions?
Overview of Regional Perceptions of Researchers
The
questionnaires completed by regional employees had fifteen statements
about various aspects of Corporate Research Center projects and
Respondents were asked
to indicate
scientists.
on a seven-point Likert scale whether
they agreed or disagreed with these statements.
Responses were generally favorable
I).
in nature,
with some exceptions (Table
For example, when asked about the timeliness of corporate research, 44
percent of respondents replied that Corporate Research Center output was
not timely enough to be of
much
use to them (item 10). Thirty-nine percent
believed that researchers did not have a good understanding of the technical
needs and problems of the exploration regions (item
that researchers
were
in
Less than half the respondents
felt
Corporate Research Center projects generally led to results useful to
them (item
3).
In terms of actual utility,
Research Center projects
their
Thirty percent felt
an "ivory tower" setting which isolated them from
issues of regional importance (item 9).
that
2).
work
in the past.
expectation of future
in their area
The
56 percent reported
of specialty had been very useful for
correlation
utility is
that Corporate
0.63 (p
<
between
this
perception and the
0.0001), indicating that positive
experiences with using new technologies from the Corporate Research
Center create a favorable climate for
The
futiu-e
adoption.
fifteen opinion statements in the questionnaire did not all address
different aspects of regional perceptions.
both concerned with the
Given
For example, items 2 and 9 are
researchers' understanding of regional problems.
such multiple measures of related concepts, a factor
conducted
to identify the basic perceptual
analysis
was
.
Table
I
Regional Opinions Concerning the Corporate Research Center
Proportion
Agreei
Statement:
Who
Proportion
Who
Disagree J
1.
The CRC
cx)uld
be disbanded tomorrow without adversely
affecting the quality of
my
work.
Researchers have a good understanding of the technical needs and
problems of geophysicists in my region.
18%
73%
36
39
47
27
13
74
48
11
51
13
76
16
44
15
30
48
44
28
68
19
3
94
56
16
57
7
5
84
2.
3. Projects at the
CRC generally lead
to results useful to regional
people.
4.
Nothing relevant
to
my work
has
come
out the
CRC in
the past
3 years.
5.
Researchers are receptive to ideas and suggestions from the
regions for identifying
6.
R&D projects.
Researchers are receptive to ideas and suggestions from the
regions for developing solutions.
7. 1
would
feel
comfortable approaching them with technical
matters.
CRC projects are relevant to the needs of my region.
8.
Current
9.
Researchers are in an ivory tower and isolated from issues
important for us.
10.
Research output
is
not timely enough to be of
much
use to
me.
1 1
If the
need
arises, it will
be easy for
me to approach researchers
for help with a technical matter.
nothing worthwhile to learn from the
CRC.
12.
There
13.
CRC projects in my area of specialty have been useful
is
to
in the past.
14.
me
CRC projects in my area of specialty are going to be very
useful to
my
work.
15. 1 don't really care
'Scores of
1
,2
what
is
going on
at the
or 3 on a seven |X)int scale.
^Scores of 5,6 or 7 on a seven point scale.
CRC.
dimensions underlying the opinion items. The fifteen items were subjected
to principal
component
some of them
analysis, after reversing the scales of
so that a high score on any item would indicate a positive perception of the
The eigenvalues of
the initial factor analysis
indicate that three factors are sufficient to explain
59 percent of the variance
Corporate Research Center.
variables.
in the fifteen attitudinal
factors
may be
is
it
believed that the extracted
presented in Table
II,
dimension
The
which
from the factor analysis are
final results
II),
1:
The
The underlying
shows the factor loadings.
that best describes
each factor
examining the items which load most strongly against
Factor
was done on
correlated with each other, an oblique rotation
the initial factor structure.
perceptual
Since
three 'gut reaction' statements (items
is
determined by
that factor:
1,
12,
and 15
in
Table
load most strongly on this factor. These statements are indicative of the
overall perception of the utility and relevance of the Corporate Research
Center's work.
The
other four items that load strongly on this factor are
also concerned with regional perceptions of the relevance and the utility of
the
Corporate Research Center's output (items
4,
8,
13,
14).
The
consistency of the concepts that relate strongly to this factor suggests that the
underlying dimension
is
best described as the utility of the
Corporate
Research Center.
Factor 2: The four items
that load highly
on
this factor are
the receptivity of Corporate Research Center to
6)
concerned with
regional inputs (items 5 and
and the perceived ease with which the regional people can approach
researchers for technical help (items 7, 11).
Allen (1984) has shown that a
major determinant of the choice of source for technical help
is
the perceived
of face' in having to proclaim ignorance or inadequacy on a technical
'loss
matter
Table
II
Factor Loading s of Opinions o n Perceptions
Factor
Statement:
1.
The CRC could be
2.
Researchers have a good understanding...
3. Projects at the
disbanded...
CRC generally lead to results
1
Factor 2
utility
accessibility
0.75
0.30
0.27
032
0.38
0.26
0.72
030
0.33
0.85
036
0.85
useful...
Nothing relevant
the CRC...
to
4.
5.
my work has come out
Researchers are receptive to ideas and
R&D projects.
suggestions. ..for identifying
6.
Researchers are receptive to ideas and
suggestions. ..for developing solutions.
would
feel
comfortable approaching them...
7.
1
8.
Current
9.
Researchers are in an ivory tower...
10.
CRC
projects are relevant...
Research output
11. If the
need
0.51
is
not timely...
arises, it will
be easy for
me
to
approach researchers...
nothing worthwhile to learn from
12.
There
the
CRC.
13.
CRC projects in my area of specialty
is
been useful to
14.
CRC
me
projects in
have
my area of specialty are
to my work.
going to be very useful
15.
1
don't really care
CRC.
0.75
in the past.
what
is
going on
at the
0.74
may
is
be described as
the psychological cost of interacting with researchers,
also reflected in this factor through item
number seven, which asked
regional geophysicists whether they would feel comfortable in approaching
researchers.
We may
conclude
therefore that this factor addresses the
accessibility of researchers.
Factor 3:
The remaining
four variables
issues they touch on are the following
all
load strongly on this factor.
The
--
the isolation of researchers
from
regional problems (item 9), the timeliness of the Corporate Research
Center's response (item 10), the understanding of regional technical needs by
researchers (item
last
be
2),
and the general
item seems more related to the
made
for
strong loading here
its
utility
utility
if
we
of results (item
3).
dimension of Factor
1,
While the
a case can
define this factor as describing the
regional perceptions of the user-orientation of researchers, in terms of
understanding the regional needs and responding to them in a useful and
timely fashion.
We
will therefore label this the user-orientation
factor.
Perceptions and Adoption of Technologies
Now we
examine how the three perception factors identified above are
related to technology adoption.
The index of technology adoption
number of new process technologies from
is
the
the Corporate Research Center
adopted by regional geophysicists during the three years preceding the study.
The
data
show
that
more favorable
on each perception
perceptions, as
factor, are associated with
number of technologies adopted (Table
III).
measured by factor scores
dramatic increases in the
Note particularly
that the
mean
number of new Corporate Research Center technologies used by those who
held more favorable perceptions about
utility is
almost Jive times that for
8
those
The
whose perceptions were
significant association
less favorable.
between perception of the research center and
adoption of technologies can be interpreted in two
improves the perception of
utility
a
after
ways.
Either adoption
new technology from
the
Corporate Research Center has been used, or a positive predisposition
promotes adoption
in the first place.
It is
also reasonable to
phenomenon works both ways through a feedback
supported
when we compare
effect.
assume
that the
This assumption
is
the perception
Table
III
Technology Adoption by Regional Staff as a Function of
Perception of the
CRC
Mean number of technologies adopted
during
last three
years by divisional staff
whose perceptions were:
Less Favorable
CRC
More Favorable
0.30
(n=102)
(n=139)
Accessibility of
Researchers
0.55
(n=106)
(n=130)
User-orientation of
0.64
(n=107)
(n=120)
Utility of
CRC
technologies
1.40
1.19
1.17
0.0001
0.002
0.001
levels of adopters and non-adopters of Corporate Research Center technologies
(Table IV).
Regional geophysicists,
who had
a more positive view of the accessibility of the
Corporate Research Center, adopted on average almost twice the number of
technologies as those
who
held less favorable attitudes.
This suggests that regional
employees who perceive researchers as receptive and easy
likely to seek
to
approach are more
them out and develop ongoing contact with them, leading
adoption of technologies.
to the
Regional geophysicists with a more favorable perception
of the Corporate Research Center's user-orientation also adopted about twice the
number of technologies
as those
Effects of Interactions
who had
a less favorable image.
and Communications on Perceptions
Given the positive association between perceptions and technology adoption, we
will
now examine how
various
modes of
Center
scientists.
these perceptions are affected by communication and the
interaction between regional geophysicists
The reason
and Corporate Research
for doing this is to better understand
what
determines perceptions, whether positive or negative.
Table IV
Differences in Perceptions: Adopters and Non-Adopters of
Corporate Research Center Technologies
Perception
it is
that
10
Data were gathered on the frequency of communication between
following modes of
researchers and regional geophysicists and on the
interaction that
were
particularly important within the
company:
Orientation programs for regional employees at the Corporate
o
Research Center.
These were organized periodically
to
introduce
regional operations people to the researchers and to give
overviews of new process technologies being developed
them
at
the
Corporate Research Center.
o
Visits
made by
regional employees to the Corporate Research Center
to discuss specific technical projects or problems.
Analysis of the relationship between these variables and perceptions of the
research center (Table V) leads to the following major conclusions:
1
.
Perceptions of
visits to the
utility
and accessibility are significantly affected by
Corporate Research Center, orientation programs, and
the existence of communication links between researchers and
regional employees.
The
positive association suggests that
exposure to the Corporate Research Center and contacts with
researchers serve to promote favorable perceptions.
11
Table
The
Effect of Interaction and Communication on Perceptions
of the Corporate Research Center
Mean
Perception
Influence of Orientation Program
Did not attend orientation (n=165)
Attended onentation (n=94)
Influence of Visits to the Corporate
Research Center
No
At
visits in
least
one
preceding three years (n=108)
visit in past three years
Influence
No contacts in
At
least
V
(n=170)
of Communication
Researchers
past year {n=168)
one contact in past year (n=92)
with
utility
Factor Scores on:
12
it
affected by the presence or absence of communication with individual
researchers.
To
why
understand
communication or
the perception of user-orientation
interactions,
we
underlying this perception and see
research center and
none of these
interesting.
its staff
On
unaffected by
turn to the four basic attitudinal items
how
they are affected by exposure to the
This reveals
(Table VI).
that,
measures are affected by exposure.
attitude
is
average, those geophysicists
who had
with one exception,
The one exception
is
visited the research center
within the preceding three years were more likely to agree that the center output
was not timely enough
To
to
be of use.
understand these unexpected results
we examined whether
unfavorable shifts are associated with particular regions.
to differ
from the other four
research center were
timeliness than those
no
effect
from
regions.
much more
who had
In
This reveals Region
Region B, those who had
The
B
visited the
likely to harbor negative opinions
not visited recently.
these
about
other four regions
its
show
visits.
Since these results emerged strongly only for Region B,
specifics of the situation to understand
Research Center
why
officials indicated that this
this
we probed
was happening.
the
Corporate
region had recently embarked on
off-shore exploration, involving prospecting in a totally
new kind of
terrain.
The
Corporate Research Center had not yet initiated any projects on off-shore
exploration.
As
a result, visitors from Division
B
concluded
that researchers did
not understand their needs and were not prepared to help them.
13
Table VI
Relationship Between Contact With Corporate Research Center and
Attitudes Toward The Center
_^.
Opimon
Researchers have a good understanding of the technical needs of
Atteafcd
Visit to
Oiieotatioii
in Past
"ogrsm
Years
CRC
Three
At Least One
Communication
Partner
m CRC
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
418
3.93
4.00
4.15
418
394
3.74
3.61
3.71
3.68
3
67
3.72
4.41
4.51
4.44
4.46
4,34
4.66
3.86
3.52
3.96*
3.60*
3.73
3.77
the regional geophysicists.
Research projects generally lead
to results useful to people in the
regions.
Researchers are in an "ivory tower" and isolated from items of
importance to the regions.
Research output
•p <
is
not timely enough to be of use to me.
05
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Both academicians and
practitioners
have long realized the need
to
concerned with
technology transfer
reduce the physical, psychological, and
organizational "distance" between the developers and users of
Many approaches have been
new
technologies.
suggested and implemented for making this happen:
increased communication, structural or organizational bridges, changes to
14
physical layout, rotation
of employees across organizational boundaries, liaison
An
agents, and technological gatekeepers.
increased contact between
break
down
underlying assumption has been that
downstream personnel
researchers and
will help to
perceptual barriers and organizational bottlenecks and thereby
facilitate the transfer process.
These unexpected findings indicate
knowledge about
them
researchers' priorities
understanding of downstream needs.
absence of first-hand
and perspectives, regional people give
benefit of the doubt and feel
the
in the
that,
that the
scientists
However, when they come
researchers during visits or orientation programs, they
have a good
in contact
become aware of
the
with
lack
of congruence between their priorities, needs, and time pressures and the
perspectives of researchers.
TTiis
awareness then
is
reflected in negative shifts in
attitudes.
The
strong positive relation between favorable perception and technology
adoption reinforces the need to better understand what underlies negative
attitudes
and work
to
remove
their causes.
generally helps to improve perceptions, a
Deep-rooted differences
guaranteed.
While increased communication
favorable
in priorities
interaction
that
have a high
a
research center
and communication between the developers and potential users
if
is
researchers are not doing
work
will
facilitate the transfer process.
that potential recipients see as
responsive to their needs, then more communication
situation.
If
priority for targeted recipients, then greater
improve the image of the researchers and thereby
However,
always
cannot be resolved solely by
increased communication and sharing of information.
working on projects
result is not
may
only
exacerbate the
15
REFERENCES
Allen, T.J. (1984) Managing the
Mass.: The MTT Press.
Flow of Technology.
Cambridge,
Organization
Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. 1965.
Environment, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Schon, D.
1969.
Technology, ed.
The MIT Press.
2876
and
Comments, in Factors in the Transfer
of
W.H. Gruber and D.G. Marquis. Cambridge, Mass.:
131
Date Due
2 198^
bST.OsiWK
Qll^
1
MIT LIBRARIES
3
TDflO
DD7Efl773