Factors Governing the Success or Failure of
Technology Transfer:
State Sector Experience of Sri Lanka
Muditha P Liyanagedara, Kushani Jayaweera,
Ranil D Guneratne
National Science and Technology Commission, Sri Lanka
Nastec@sltnet.lk
Purpose

The purpose of this exercise is to identify the factors governing
the success or failure of technologies developed and transferred
by the government sector R&D institutions. Because identifying
factors affecting the destiny of technologies transferred is a vital
requirement for a successful commercialization of technologies.
NASTEC
2
The Approach


A survey was conducted to test out the existence of
predetermined factors that may affect the fate of the
technologies transferred
Institutions surveyed


Arthur C Clarke Institute for modern technologies, Atomic Energy Authority,
Coconut research institute, Tea Research Institute, National Engineering
Research and Development Centre, Department of Agriculture, National
Building Research Organization, Rubber Research Institute, Veterinary
Research Institute, Industrial Technology Institute, Universities
Mainly considered technology Fields

Agriculture/Plantation, Engineering, Food and Herbal
NASTEC
3
Predetermined Factors Surveyed

Transfer mandate

Technology type

Transfer fee

Transfer mode

Barriers at institutions’ end and receivers’ end

Transfer methods

Financial support for receiver

Post-transfer involvement
NASTEC
4
Direct Outcomes of the Survey


Transfer mandate - yes for all institutions
Technology type



Transfer fee




Improvement to the existing technologies - 69.3%
New technologies 36.7%
Free of charge - 69.5%
For a nominal fee - 21.7%
Market value - 8.8%
Transfer mode


Know-how only - 79.5%
Know-how & Financial support - 8.1%
NASTEC
5
Direct Outcomes of the Survey ( contd.)

Main Barriers at institutions’ end






Main barriers at receivers’ end



Inadequate human resources - 51.7%
Inadequate financial resources - 38.7%
Lack of organizational infrastructure – 18.4%
Inflexible regulations – 18.4%
Lack of management support – 10.2%
Poor communication - 34.6%
Lack of Interest - 18.3%
Transfer methods




Training Programmes - 85.7%
Field trials/proto type pilot plant demonstrations – 71.4%
Workshops/Seminars - 61.2%
Personal contacts with individual receivers – 61.2%
NASTEC
6
Direct Outcomes of the Survey ( contd.)

The common order of the transfer methods that worked well for
many transferors


The common order of the transfer methods that many
transferors preferred to follow


training programmes>workshops/seminars = field trials/prototype pilot
plant demos>handouts>…>websites
Financial support to receiver


workshops = field trials>training programmes>brochures>handouts>news
letters>websites
Did not assist - 63.2%
Post-transfer involvement


Only when a problem is referred to - 57.1%
Continuous monitoring - 48.9%
NASTEC
7
Inferences

Factors increasing success rate





Transferring for a nominal fee
Transferring technical know-how with financial support
Using brochures,newsletters & TV programmes for dissemination
Monitoring continuously
Factors decreasing success rate




Inadequacy of institutional finance resources
Inflexible institutional regulations
Lack of interest of transferee
Monitoring only when a problem is referred to
NASTEC
8
Mainly highlighted reasons for success or failure

Success





Cost effectiveness
Fulfills receiver’s urgent need
Interest of transferor and transferee
Easy to adapt
Failure





Poor communication between
transferor and transferee
Inadequacy of financial and human
resources
Later invasion of the market by
cheaper alternatives
Practical difficulties inherent to the
technology itself
Lack of producers
NASTEC
9
Other Reasons

Success



Existence of technology transfer centres
Effectiveness of a technology as a new approach to a traditional
method
Failure




High cost
Lack of media publicity
Low purchasing power of the producers/end users
Small domestic market (difficult to achieve economy of scale)
NASTEC
10
Conclusions & Recommendations





To transfer a technology to producers having potential to
commercialize, it should be provided at least for a nominal
fee
The difference in the order of the transfer methods that
worked well for transferors and that of they preferred may
negatively affect the success of the transfer
Transferor should identify the most effective transfer
methodology for each technology
Continuous monitoring is a key to a successful transfer
Transferor should get involved in Continuous improvements
of the technology to face the market competition by smart
alternatives
NASTEC
11
Conclusions & Recommendations (Contd.)





There should be an effective technology advertising mechanism
Establishing a repository of Government developed technologies
It is better to do a market study before developing a technology
Supply push approach preferred
The country should have a proper transfer policy and
mechanism
NASTEC
12
Technology to Improve Kithul Sap Yield: Factors
Governed the Success

Effectiveness of the technology as a new approach to a
traditional method

Interest of transferor and transferee

Easy adoptability

Cost effectiveness


Assistance (both financial & technical) provided to increase
production capacity and to find the market for produces
Personal contact with individual receivers
NASTEC
13
Thank You
NASTEC
14
NASTEC
15
NASTEC
16