a paper presented at the vet forum held in … · a paper presented at the vet forum held in...

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER:

THE CONCEPTS, PRACTICES, AND LESSONS

FOR TANZANIA AND ITS TVET SYSTEM

A PAPER PRESENTED AT THE VET FORUM

HELD IN DECEMBER 10-11, 2014,

IN ARUSHA, TANZANIA

COMPILED AND PRESENTED BY DR. PETER E. MATESO

Local Government Training Institute, Dodoma

[email protected]

of 31

TABLE OF CONTENT

Content Page

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………….. 3

The Meaning and Origin of Technology Transfer……………………………………………. 4

Conditions that Influence Technology Transfer……………………………………………… 5

Types of Technology Transfer Models and Practices………………………………………… 9

Steps and Barriers to Internal and External Technology Transfer……………………………. 11

Technology Transfer Process by R&D Entity………………………………………………... 14

International Technology Transfer Practices…………………………………………………. 15

Opportunities and Challenges in the International Technology Transfer…………………….. 18

International Technology Transfer Success Story: A Case of Japan…………………………. 20

Lessons for Tanzania and its TVET System…………………………………………………. 22

Conclusion and Broad Recommendations …………………………………………………… 28

References ……………………………………………………………………………………. 30

NB: This paper is for educational purpose only. It is not for reproduction for any other purpose.

of 31

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

THE CONCEPTS, PRACTICES, AND LESSONS

FOR

TANZANIA AND ITS TVET SYSTEM

INTRODUCTION

This paper focuses on major issues regarding Technology Transfer and how the subject is relevant

to the Tanzanian nation and its Technical and Vocational Training System (TVET). Technology is

the key driver of both enterprise and national development. The capacity to generate and apply

technologies determines the development thrust that a nation might have. Technology Transfer (TT)

has been employed for centuries as a method to boost technological and economic development of

nations.

The TT concept denotes the process by which technology is disseminated from one point to others.

This phenomenon is especially important in reducing the gap between technology- rich countries

and the technology-poor countries. TT can either be a pull or push factor in global and national

economic development. However, it is important to note that the willingness of the Technology

giver and the degree of acceptance by technology recipient play a crucial role in fulfilling

technology transfer processes.

As a practice, TT is a foundation of technological and economic development of any nation. Japan

serves as one of best examples of the economy that developed steadily over decades thanks to a

combination of various forms of TT, whereby several kinds of technologies from Western countries

were calculatedly assimilated and absorbed in Japanese economic ventures. There is no way a

nation can make economic development without strategic efforts in generating, coordinating, and

transferring technologies from other parts of the world.

Tanzania, as a nation, needs to put in place effective policies, strategies, and institutions that will

purposefully initiate and implement wisely selected TT and innovation projects aimed at stimulating

the national technological and economic development. In identifying and managing such projects,

both the public and private organizations must be involved and various tactics must be employed in

identifying, scouting, acquiring, and assimilating appropriate technologies from various parts of the

world.

of 31

THE MEANING AND ORIGIN OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

Definition of Technology Transfer

Before we explore the meaning of TT, it is important for us to understand first what Technology is.

Canon and Glazer (1987) defined Technology as products, processes, or related findings that are

tangible, reproducible and scientific or technical in nature. Also, technology can be described as

“information required to produce and sell a product or service” (Canon and Glazer, 1987).

With this understanding we can now define what TT is. Several scholars have defined the term

Technology Transfer using different words. Khurana (2013) defines Technology Transfer as the

process of disseminating technology (including knowledge and skills) from the giver to the

recipient. Grosse (1996) provides a more detailed definition of TT. He says it is “the process of

transferring skills, knowledge, technologies, methods of manufacturing, samples of manufacturing

and facilities among governments or universities and other institutions to ensure that scientific and

technological developments are accessible to a wider range of users who can then further develop

and exploit the technology into new products, processes, applications, materials or services” (p. 1).

Other scholars define TT as the process by which technology or knowledge developed in one place

or for one purpose is applied and exploited in another place or for some other purpose.

TT is important because it seeks to bring technologies developed somewhere else into use by others

who need those technologies in another place. Also, TT is important as it helps to modify the

technology produced for a certain purpose to be used for another purpose. TT process involves

identifying technology needs, scouting the required technology, acquiring it, developing it for the

local conditions, and applying it for sustainable development of the technology recipient.

Brief Historical Overview of TT

TT has played a crucial role in economic history since ancient days. Archaeological evidences

indicate that both hard and soft technologies were transferred from one location to the other. In fact,

the three centres of civilisation in the pre-Christian world, China, India and the Mediterranean,

developed and exported a number of technologies to other parts of the world. The history shows that

the economic power of the Western Europe since the 12th century is indebted to the printing and

manufacturing technologies that were transferred from China and the Middle East. Actually, China

is the source of blast-furnace steel manufacturing and clock making technologies. Pre-Renaissance

of 31

Western Europe was initially technologically underdeveloped compared to the East. It is the TT that

has empowered the Western countries (Uchida, 1990).

After acquiring technologies from the East and Middle East, Europe creatively worked hard to

develop them to new levels. Eventually, Great Britain became the hub of the industrial revolution in

the 18-19th

Centuries whereby it generated steam engines, steam ships, spinning machines, railways

and coke-fired blast furnaces (Uchida, 1990). Thereafter, the whole Europe and USA achieved

notable industrial development thanks to transfer of industrial technologies mainly from Great

Britain. According to Seely (2004), international transfers of technology were essential for many

nations that wanted to duplicate the success of British industrial growth after mid 18th

Century.

Eventually, the technologies were transferred from Western Europe to Japan during the second half

of the 19th

Century.

The challenge of recovering the lost European economy due to WWII was huge. Americans

initiated a Marshall plan that hugely hastened the process of European recovery. Many European

industries captured this opportunity to learn how US car industry organized its production. On the

other hand, the American gesture in postwar Europe was an opportunity because USA managed to

achieve both political and economic goals (Seeley, 2004). The fact is that “the United States was

not simply a source of technology for Europe in the postwar period; it was also a seeker of

technology… the WW II victors exploited the fruits of the industrial and military technologies that

had powered the Nazi war machine”(Seeley, 2004, p.1). Americans and Russians competed to gain

the remaining Germany Nazi technology1. It is not a secret that the origin of successful space

programs in the United States and the Soviet Union is the Nazi German programs (Seeley, 2004).

CONDITIONS THAT INFLUENCE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

Demand and Supply of Technology:

Technology transfer occurs only when certain conditions are met. First, there must be two parties at

least - some one who wants to acquire the new technology and another party which is ready to give

out the technology. This means the first condition is that there must be a supplier and an acquirer of

the said technology.

1 Look for the information about Operation Paperclip, the American effort to access Germany technology.

of 31

Willingness of the Technology Supplier:

The second condition is about the willingness of the technology owner to release it. Technology

seekers may work hard to search for the appropriate technologies; but these efforts may become

futile, if technology owners are reluctant to give those technologies to other parties. The supplier

may be reluctant due to fear of competition, due to security reasons, or because the technology

might not be mature enough for releasing out.

Technology Readiness Level:

The question of technology maturity or readiness for utilization is a huge one. For that matter, many

technology entities have developed Technology Readiness Level (TRL)2 frameworks. Many

European and American Institutions have put in place their TRLs to guide assessment of technology

readiness before technology is supplied elsewhere. Assessment of technology readiness level is

crucial since it helps the owner to appreciate technology maturity, minimize failure risks, and

increase chances for commercialization. For example, American Aeronautical and Space Agency

(NASA) developed its framework in the 1980s comprising of 9 levels as follows:

Level 1: Basic principles observed and reported

Level 2: Technology concept and/or application formulated

Level 3: Concept demonstrated analytically or experimentally

Level 4: Key elements demonstrated in laboratory [or workshop] environment

Level 5: Key elements demonstrated in relevant environments

Level 6: Representative of the deliverable [prototype] demonstrated in relevant environments

Level 7: Final development version of the deliverable [full-scale] demonstrated in operational

Level 8: Actual deliverable qualified through test and demonstration

Level 9: Operational use of the deliverable

In this framework, level 1-3 usually deals with basic technology research and study to prove

feasibility of the technology. Level 4-5 dwells in the actual development of technology components

in laboratory or workshop settings and then testing in the relevant environment. Level 6 represents

technology demonstration using models/prototypes tested in the relevant environment. Level 7-8

focus on technology commissioning after testing the full-scale similar system in relevant

environment and finalization and final testing of the whole system. Level 9 indicates the

technology is in the final stage and ready for full operation in the expected mission.

2 Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) are a type of measurement system used to assess the maturity level of a particular

technology.

of 31

Technology User Acceptance:

The third condition lies in the degree of the desire of the technology seeker. Regardless whether TT

occurs internally or externally, there is one key factor driving the technology recipient to employ

TT as a development strategy. This factor is called technology user acceptance. Technology

Acceptance Model (TAM) tries to explain how user acceptance behavior is formed (Chuttur, 2009).

The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is an information systems theory that tries to describe

how users come to accept and use a certain technology. TAM suggests that when users are exposed

to a new technology, a number of factors influence their decision about how and when they will use

it, particularly two factors play major role:

Perceived Usefulness (PU) – which is defined as "the degree to which a person believes that

using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance" (Davis, 1989).

Perceived Ease-of-Use (PEoU) – this is defined as "the degree to which a person believes that

using a particular system would be free from effort" (Davis, 1989).

According to Davis (1989), the two perceptions (PU & PEoU) determine individual’s Attitude and

Behaviour toward the new system/technology exposed to him/her. This means that Perceived

Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease-of-Use (PEoU) determines the Behavioral Inteantion (BI) to

use the new technology. If the BI is high, the user decides to accept and make actual use of the

technology (Chuttur, 2009). In other words: the higher the degree of PU and PEoU, the stronger the

BI. The stronger the BI, the higher the chance of making actual use of that technology.

Technology Transfer as a Market Pull or Technology Push:

Technology transfer can be described as market pull or technology push. Market pull occurs when

expressed needs or problems cause private companies to seek technology from elsewhere. In

Fig1: Final Technology

Acceptance Model (TAM)

Version by Venkatesh &

Davis (1996, p. 453)

External

Variables

Perceived

Usefulness

(PU)

Perceived

Ease of Use

(PEoU)

Behavioral

Intention to Use

Actual

System Use

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_acceptance_model#CITEREFDavis1989

of 31

contrast, technology push occurs when acquired innovations or inventions are used to create new

markets or consumer needs within or outside the given country. Whereas market pull of technology

is demand driven process, technology push is supply driven (Martin, 1994). Sometimes, the push

and pull forces compliment each other, reinforcing the pace of technology transfer.

Source: Martin (1994)

In brief, there is a distinction between technology push and market pull or demand. A technology

push implies that a new invention is pushed into the market through R&D, production, and sales

functions; this takes place without accurate consideration of whether the pushed technology will

satisfy the user needs or not (Martin, 1994). In contrast, a market pull occurs when an innovation is

developed by the R&D entity in responding to an identified market need (Martin, 1994). So,

technology push is a part of a business strategy of a company to create a market for its technology

or products thereof. Many of the so called ‘international technical aid’ to developing countries from

developed world can be seen as technology push if scrutinized critically.

Characteristics of Technology, the Giver, and the Receiver:

Characteristics of the technology can influence TT decisions. Some of the features to consider are

the level of complexity, sophistication, and age. Also, it is vital to understand the characteristics of

the giver in terms of his business size, cultural and geographical factors, and global business

strategy. Likewise, TT actors must take into account characteristics of the recipient organization or

country in terms of the investment policy, technical absorptive capacity, and learning capacity of

the technical staff. All these characteristics have impact on the decisions regarding TT modalities

and strategies (Li-Hua, 2010).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%26D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push%E2%80%93pull_strategy

of 31

TYPES OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER MODELS AND PRACTICES

Types of TT models

According to Choi (2009), seven TT models have been employed by TT practitioners and policy

makers. Brief description is presented below as follows:

1. Appropriability model: focuses on purposive attempts to transfer technologies

2. Dissemination model: indicates that transfer processes can be successful when experts

transfer specialized knowledge to a willing recipient

3. Knowledge utilization model: emphasizes strategies that effectively deliver knowledge to

recipients

4. Contextual collaboration model: is based on constructivist idea that knowledge can’t be

simply transmitted; but it is constructed subjectively by the recipients.

5. Material transfer model: looks at a simple transfer of new materials and associated

technologies.

6. Design transfer model: here the technology is transferred together with its design including

blueprints and specifications.

7. Capacity transfer model: emphasis is put in the transfer of knowledge that gives recipient

the capacity to design and produce a new technology independently.

In addition to the seven mentioned models, another approach - Appropriate Technology Transfer -

was employed to try to hasten adaptability of technology in developing countries. Choi (2009)

argued that the seven models plus the extra one couldn’t guarantee a successful TT. The main

mistake was a failure of effecting TT without proper considerations of the several recipient factors

related to utilization of technology: these factors include cultural, organizational, technical, and

maintenance aspects as well as effective planning, training and education, and a desire to do

contextual technology modification.

Eventually, Choi (2009) suggested a new model that embraces diverse issues of recipient countries.

He believed that his model will be the answer to the failure of several Western-sponsored technical

aids in developing countries. Thus, Choi (2009) suggested that TT should take place only after the

recipient has: (1) developed a high quality human capital, (2) made a clear plan to increase the

willingness of both the recipient and donor of technology, (3) a strong desire to generate new

of 31

innovations out of the acquired technology. South Korea3 successful TT was mainly due to adhering

to this approach.

Types of TT Practices

Several types of technology transfer practices exist. According to Khurana (2013), types of TT

practices can be distinguished in terms of such criteria as formality, technology ownership, and the

like. In terms of formality, formal and informal TTs are identified. Based on who remains the

controller and owner of technology after the transaction, there are internal and external TTs. Other

types include direct TT and spin-off TT, scientific knowledge transfer, and artwork knowledge

transfer (Khurana, 2013). A few of these practices are discussed below.

Formal/Informal TT:

According to Khurana (2013), the TT transaction may be formal or informal. Whereas formal TT

happens through legally binding contracts, informal TT occurs through such ways as personal

contacts, reading of literature, and attending professional meetings, to mention a few. However, for

the TT to occur, the involved parties must meet the minimum conditions as discussed above.

Internal and External TT:

Internal Technology Transfer entails such a transaction whereby the transferor retains the control on

the ownership and usage of the technology. For example, a large entity having R&D department

produces technology that can be acquired by the core production department of the company. In the

external TT, the control on the ownership and usage of technology is passed to the recipient.

External TT occurs in a form of joint ventures or licensing technology to another entity (Khurana,

2013). The agreement in external TT can take place between private and public entities; between

private and private companies, or between public and public entities.

International TT (ITT):

International TT entails the transfer of technologies developed in one country to firms in another

country. For instance, Japan stands out as a major historical example of a successful 19th century

transfer of technology from the Western Countries (Uchida, 1990). South Korea is another success

3 South Korea transformed itself from an agrarian society of 1960s to one of the world’s top industrialized nations. Its

economy has grown tremendously through a strong government support and engaged people.

of 31

story of international TT. Apart from ITT between the West and Japan or Korea, USA has

significantly benefited from technologies transferred from Europe.

Moreover, The African continent tried a number of ITT ventures for decades since 1960s. North-

South technology transfer efforts aimed at speeding up economic and industrial development in the

world’s poor nations. Unfortunately, the results of ITT in the biggest part of Africa are not yet

impressive. In fact, the reverse trend is eating up the continent – for several decades, the

technology-rich nations have been transferring and benefiting from African Indigenous Knowledge

related to bio-resources such as medicinal and cosmetic plants (Mateso, 2008).

It must be noted that, for technology-rich nations, ITT is mostly a strategy for commercialization of

technologies and for attaining larger economic powers. ITT often takes place through two

strategies: the licensing of intellectual property rights and extending property rights and technical

expertise to developing firms located in other countries. Usually, ITT occurs through technology

embodied in: tangible goods, technology implementation processes, knowledge and skills that

technical personnel are moving with.

STEPS AND BARRIERS TO INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

Different kinds of TTs are accomplished through different steps. But, also, it is a fact that different

kinds of TTs are hampered by different kinds of obstacles as elaborated below.

Steps and Barriers to Internal Technology Acquisition

Internal TT takes place without the technology owner loosing the ownership and usage of his/her

technology (Khurana, 2013). In order to decide about the internal TT, responsible actors have to

consider the following questions: When to introduce new technology? Where to transfer new

technology? Who should be involved in transfer process? What type of Communication methods

should be adopted to facilitate the transfer? (Khurana, 2013).

Steps in Internal TT:

Aside from considering these questions, the following steps are recommended by Khurana (2013) in

the process of internal technology acquisition: (1) planning new products / services / and relevant

processes (including user/customer voices); (2) Screening new but viable products, services, and

processes; (3) Initiating properly designed development process; (4) carrying out trial production on

of 31

small scale and test marketing; (5) improving design and production processes based on experiences

or feedback; (6) Commercialization of the products/services through mass production and sales or

patenting to other commercial investors.

Barriers to Internal TT:

Together with all the precautionary questions noted above and clear steps that can be followed, still

there exists a possibility for Internal TT to suffer problems due to some barriers. Barriers that can

hinder Internal TT include: (1) Unclear or Lack of R&D goals; (2) The challenge of stopping

current operations to test new technological processes; (3) Needs and capability of core business not

clear to R&D Department; (4) Change resistance of the Core Business Department and /or R&D

Department; and (5) absence of linkage between new technologies and marketing / client needs

(Khurana, 2013).

Therefore, to overcome those barriers, Internal TT Offices must implement certain strategies such

as: (1)Top management support and participation in the transfer process; (2) providing supportive

organizational culture; (3) use of multi-functional teams in the transfer process; (4) ensuring

effective communication in the organization; (5) bringing R&D closer to core business; (6) rotation

of few persons between R&D and core business; (7) Involving marketing/customer elements in the

transfer process (Khurana 2013).

Steps and Barriers to External Technology Transfer

Justifications:

For the external TT, control on the ownership and usage of technology is passed to the recipient.

External TT is important because the recipient uses technology that is already developed by

somebody else; hence the recipient saves time and efforts. Moreover, entities decide to acquire

technology externally due to: (1) its suitability where growth objectives or competitive goals cannot

be reached through internal development; (2) lack of risk taking ability for innovations; (3) lack of

internal resources for research and innovation; (4) lack of core competencies to deal with complex

technological developments; (5) the need to keep up with competitors; and (6) the need to cope up

with technological change pace. Moreover, external TT can serve as company’s strategy -

purchasing technology developed by others so as to avoid taking big R&D risks (Khurana, 2013).

of 31

Methods:

Several methods can be employed to accomplish external Technology Transfer. These include:

Forming co-operative/collaborative/joint ventures, forming strategic alliances, making licensing

agreements, making contracting agreements, and accomplishing enterprise acquisition. But it is

important to note that successful external TT depends on following factors: Type of the technology

being transferred; complexity of the technology being transferred; transfer mechanism selected;

relationships/mutual trust between the parties; core competencies of the parties and their

compatibility; as well as organizational culture of the parties and their mutual understanding

(Khurana, 2013).

Steps in External Technology Acquisition:

In order to accomplish external TT acquisition, the nine steps are recommendable (eight steps

according to Khurana (2013), and the ninth is Author’s addition):

(1) Identification of needs; (2) Developing list of suitable technology providers; (3) Short listing /

selecting suitable technology providers on the basis of: cultural compatibility, compatibility of core

competences, appropriateness of technology, and technical feasibility; (4) Negotiation; (5)

Agreement; (6) Payments as per agreement; (7) Transfer of specifications, blueprints, designs,

documents, CDs to purchaser; (8) Training of technical personnel of the purchaser; and (9)

installing and operating the technology.

Different payment modes of external TT exist. They include lump sum payment or periodical

installments; paying royalties as a percentage of sales over several years; fees under cross-licensing

agreements; contracted supply of output; issue of equity shares instead of the transferred technology

(Khurana, 2013).

Barriers to External Technology Transfer:

Several factors may hinder external TT. These barriers include those as viewed by a buyer and a

giver respectively. From the angle of a buyer, barriers are: (1) high costs associated with external

TT; (2) appropriateness of technology (i.e. its suitability to core competencies of buyer and market

needs); (3) the danger of heavy reliance on foreign technology and associated conditions; and (4)

lack of mutual trust between two parties.

From a giver’s view: (5) the risk of losing control over technology and arbitrary use technology by

the recipient; (6) transfer may render existing technology & its related products / services /

of 31

processes obsolete; (7) recipient may turn a potential competitor in future; (8) mismatch of core

competencies between the supplier and receiver; (9) different organizational cultures; (10) lack of

effective communication between the parties (Khurana, 2013).

To overcome these barriers to external TT, the following strategies are suggested: (1) proper

assessment of appropriateness and pricing of technology; (2) proper evaluation of compatibility of

core competencies of the parties; (3) building pre-agreement relationships so as to develop mutual

trust and so as to understand culture of opposite parties; (4) signing a well defined technology

transfer agreement; (5) seeking cross cultural training; (6) ensuring effective communication; (7)

anticipating problems and adopting measures to facilitate a transfer (Khurana, 2013).

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROCESS BY R&D ENTITY

This TT process is borrowed from the practice by one US Research Institution known as Fred and

Hutch located in Seattle, Washington State. According to Fred and Hutch (2014), a research entity

has to go through important steps towards letting out its technological discoveries to the public.

These steps are presented briefly as follows:

1. Discovery: Efforts of different researchers and innovators may lead to meaningful discoveries.

2. Disclosure: the discovery made must be documented, registered and officially disclosed so that

the inventor is given a kind of certificate that will denote name and type of discovery. This step

will reduce possible confusion and fight for discoveries by would-be competitors.

3. Evaluation: the R&D or TT Office must evaluate the discovery through a variety of factors

such as patentability, commercial possibility, and possible partners and give the inventor

appropriate information.

4. Intellectual Property Protection: The R&D or TT Office has to assist the inventor to pursue

patent or intellectual property rights protection of the discovery from Government Organs.

5. Marketing: The R&D or TT Office will identify opportunities and market discovered

technologies to potential commercial companies or partners who can translate discoveries into

new products/services with the goal of improving customer services and returns.

6. Licensing: Once suitable licensee is identified, a license agreement is prepared to grant a

company the right to develop and commercialize the discovery owned by the Research Entity

together with its discoverer. The discoverer is guaranteed a share in the licensing agreement.

7. Product Development: the company has to invest significant resources to translate the new

innovation into a useful product or service.

of 31

8. Public Use and Financial Returns: The Company must ensure that newly developed product

reaches the public through its marketing, distribution, and sales departments. Money gained is

distributed between inventors and R&D entity as per agreement; the R&D organ reinvests

obtained money into future research.

Source: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (2014) of Seattle, USA

INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PRACTICES

The role played by international technology transfer (ITT) in spearheading economic development

can not be ignored. ITT is mainly influenced by ITT channels, national policies (of both giver and

recipient nations), international agreements, and international regulatory bodies such as World

Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), World Trade Organization (WTO), and Convention on

Biological Diversity (CBD).

of 31

Four common Channels for ITT:

Usually four channels are used to execute ITT. These four channels are: (1) trade in goods/services;

(2) foreign direct investments (FDI); (3) trade in knowledge through technology licensing; and (4)

international movement of skilled people (Hoekman, Maskus, & Saggi, 2004). In countries where

ITT has been successful such as Japan and South Korea, all four channels were effectively and

calculatedly used to affect the desired ITT.

National Policies and International Agreements:

Another important point to note is the role played by national policies and international agreements

in stimulating ITT. International TT is highly influenced by the type of national policies and

international agreements that parties sign (Hoekman, Maskus, & Saggi, 2004). The desire to

acquire, absorb, and diffuse technology is reflected in the recipient’s national policies and in its

legal and institutional arrangements for implementation. Absorption and diffusion4 of a new

technology is a step towards subsequent creation of new home-based innovations. Regarding

international agreements, recipient nations must be extra smart in closing agreements with

experienced companies that offer technologies. There is a danger of getting unexpected results, if

agreements are not properly scrutinized before signing. Poor national policies will lead to

ineffective ITT; and lopsided international agreements will give advantage to technology owners at

the expense of technology recipients.

Role played by International Organizations and Multinational Corporations:

Several International Organizations have a direct or indirect stake in the ITT. World Bank (WB) is

surely an interested party in ITT because ITT is seen as a strategy for influencing national and

global economy. World Trade Organization (WTO) is involved in regulating world trade mainly for

the benefit of developed capitalist nations. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is

concerned with regulating intellectual property ownership and protection. On top of that, the WTO

made the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) that

requires countries to enforce comprehensive minimum standards of Intellectual Property Rights

(IPRs) protection without discrimination. This Agreement has provisions related to ITT too

(Hoekman, Maskus, Saggi, 2004). Moreover, there exists Convention on Biological Diversity

4 Success of ITT is often reflected by the amount of technology diffused. Technology diffusion is a process whereby technologies/ innovations are

transmitted to the community to the extent of causing a positive change in that community (Choi, 2009). Diffusion of any innovation depends on its

five characteristics: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, triability, and observability. These five explain or determine innovation absorption rate.

of 31

(CBD), which is more concerned with how to equitably access and share the benefits of the global

biodiversity.

The problem, however, is that the WB has not yet established adequate mechanisms for ensuring a

win-win technology transfer (Li-Hua, 2010). Also, the Committee on Development and Intellectual

Property (CDIP) has indicated concerns regarding how WIPO, WTO, and TRIPS have not been

very successful with ITT (CDIP, 2014). Even CBD, since its establishment in 1992, has not been

able to equitably manage global exploitation of biodiversity (Mateso, 2008). The worse part is that

TRIPS has not been able to resolve the conflicting biodiversity issues hanging between the

industrialized and developing nations.

In fact, sometimes these World Organs pursue conflicting goals. For instance, while TRIPS imposes

private intellectual property rights on the biodiversity from the developing nations, CBD recognizes

the biodiversity as a collective resource of local communities that enjoy a kind of collective rights

(Mateso, 2008). It must be noted that through biodiversity exploitation, there is a very huge transfer

of indigenous knowledge and biomaterials from biodiversity-rich nations to biotechnology-rich

nations. These transactions, which are rarely discussed, unfortunately give Western multinationals

huge profits at the expense of poor communities (Mateso, 2008).

The role played by Multinational Corporations (MNCs) and Transnational Corporations (TNCs) is

similarly huge. These are the biggest generators and owners of technologies. However, these are

more interested in making profits than in resolving poverty issues of developing nations. This

conflicting reality must be taken into account when technology recipient is seeking to accomplish

ITT.

In view of the above, developing nations must be extra careful when dealing with the International

Organizations, developed countries, and Multinational Corporations. For instance, one of WIPO’s

aims is to promote the protection of man-made creations for the economic, social, and intellectual

advancement of all people. But, in effecting ITT, WIPO will definitely protect the technology

owner more than the recipient (due to requirements of IPRs).

of 31

OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN INTERNATIONAL TT

Opportunities:

With proper planning and pursuit of ITT, developing nations like Tanzania can benefit from this

phenomenon. The following are some opportunities that can be exploited in ITT: (1) ITT provides a

win-win solution for both the supplier and recipient of technology – technology nations will get a

big market for their products and technology, while recipient nations will gain the required

technology, knowledge and skills; (2) ITT is a platform for technological advancement (via

evolution or revolution) for a poor nation; (3) ITT gives a recipient nation a room for making

problem-solving innovations through imitations, absorption, adaptation, improvement,

reconfiguration, modification, or rebranding of a transferred technology; (4) ITT may cause

establishment of many subsidiaries by MNCs and TNCs, which can create several jobs, improve the

economy, and be the basis for national industrial development (Li-Hua, 2010, Uchida, 1990,

Khurana, 2013). Remember that a country that does well in ITT will eventually become a magnet of

subsequent exogenous and endogenous investments and will earn respect in the world economic

map. The human nature compels people to identify themselves with successes and not with failures.

Challenges:

Several challenges face ITT. The three common ones are: incomplete information; market

power; and market failures. Incomplete information is the fact that technology owners do not

always disclose all the information to the recipient; hence the buyer is unable to fully appreciate the

actual price ant the extent of the technology. Owners would prefer to open subsidiaries than

disclosing the whole truth to the would-be competitors.

Regarding market power, owners of technology have more power than buyers because of their

accumulated advantage and the power of patents and the backing they get from International

Bodies. This situation makes the price of technology often higher than expected; hence giving a

smile to technology owners and pain to buyers. Besides, the market can not always appreciate and

measure the costs and benefits of technology diffusion. Hence, technology owners may not gain any

benefit that might eventually occur when the diffused technology produces spillovers. If there are

any positive spillover results, the advantage will go to technology buyer alone (Hoekman, Maskus,

Saggi, 2004).

of 31

Another problem is that policy makers and planners may face difficulty in analyzing, measuring

and pricing of complex ITT processes. Together with that challenge is the intricate issue of

technology imitation. Imitation is hardly reported or documented properly; hence, making the

capture of innovation spillover difficult. These measurement challenges leads to another

complication for policy makers of how to formulate adequate TT targets for the national policies

and programs in the complex ITT undertakings (Hoekman, Maskus, Saggi, 2004).

Furthermore, there is problem of how to balance certain ITT aspects such as: technology

protectionism vs. open trade regime; local content vs. requirements of foreign investors. Then, the

question is: Should FDI be placed under restrictions or be left without any? Remember that Japan,

South Korea, and Taiwan at various points imposed certain restrictions on FDI (Hoekman, Maskus,

Saggi, 2004). Technology owners prefer the recipient country to have more liberal FDI and TT

policies to their advantage. What about the stake of technology recipient? All these issues need to

be well considered in policy making.

Additional problem lies in the hidden mismatch between the goals of technology giver and

buyer. The capitalist world adores super profits. Hence, their goal is often to realize as much profit

as possible through whatever form of ITT. The poor world is struggling with solving socio-

economic growth problems. The goal here is to get technology at cheapest possible price (Li-Hua,

2010). As a result, several dilemmas may occur. For example, while the developed focus on proper

IPRs protection, the developing nations tend to breach the IPRs protection. On the other hand,

although a developing country may pay fully for the technology, the country may end up receiving

outdated or secondhand technology; or it may even suffer from incomplete or inadequate delivery

of technology (Li-Hua, 2010).

Finally, in ITT sometimes there exists a problem of separation of knowledge from technology due

to fear of competition. Let it be known that without adequate transfer of knowledge, transfer of

technology alone will not be effective. Both explicit and tacit (hidden) knowledge must be

transferred to the recipient (Li-Hua, 2010). In fact, it is often difficult to get from technology

owners the tacit knowledge because it is a key to a competitive advantage for the technology givers

(Li-Hua, 2010). Tacit knowledge can hardly be copied or replicated by potential competitors; and it

can hardly be learned through conventional training sessions, seminars or conferences. To gain it,

of 31

one needs to be keen in observing experts on job training and operations, in casual talks, and in

social interactions with holders of such knowledge (Li-Hua, 2010).

INTERNATIONAL TT SUCCESS STORY: A CASE OF JAPAN

According to Uchida (1990), Japan stands out as a major historical example of a successful 19th

Century transfer of technology from Western nations. The first instance of technology transfer

occurred in 16th

Century from Europe to Tokugawa Japan; but it had a limited effect on the national

economy. In the19th

Century, Japan employed a variety of TT strategies in a calculated manner. The

employed methods were:

1. Overseas factories founded through direct investment by suppliers

2. Businesses established by migrants from the supplier country

3. Joint ventures

4. Management contracts with suppliers

5. Turnkey contracts, where suppliers guarantee the transfer of technology when they construct

a factory

6. The employment of engineers and skilled workers provided by the suppliers or by

businesses.

7. Purchase contracts for machinery and know-how

8. Technology transfer as an integral part of the machinery imported by the recipient

9. Patent licence agreements

10. Production of imitations

11. In-house development of a technology

Japanese people used all eleven strategies depending on the situation at hand. Initially, the Japanese

tried to produce technology based on produced copies or models of Western-style products like

ships and steam engines based on the Dutch texts they had in their possession. However, this did not

work out. The gap between Japanese technology and the Western was so huge that they decided to

use the strategy of importing the products from the West (Uchida, 1990).

Importation of finished goods did not yield expected results too; the solution was to opt for bringing

people from outside who can come with required skills to Japan. So, Russians were first brought to

build ships in 1854; and Nagasaki Naval Training Centre was established in 1855. These efforts

yielded results. Using Russian naval officers and foremen, the Japanese built their first ships based

of 31

on Russian designs. These Japanese who worked under Russians became the first batch of skilled

people in that industry (Uchida, 1990).

Later on, the Dutch government gave a gift to Japanese to train its 167 crew in Japan’s first

Western-style battleship. Five Dutch navy personnel, including the naval officer were involved. The

Nagasaki Naval Training Centre was used for the training of various skills to the crew. The centre

was operated jointly between Dutch Navy and the Japanese, although the daily management was

entrusted to Dutch instructors. Thus, this was a kind of a Joint venture TT (Uchida, 1990).

A few years later in 19th

Century, Nagasaki5 and Yokusuka Steel Mills as well as Kagoshima

Spinning Mill were established. These attained TT through employment of European engineers and

skilled workforce. Based on the experiences of the three companies, a model of engaging foreign

advisors with expertise for the new government’s programs was realized. Hence, many TT efforts

followed this pattern – a kind of management contract with technology suppliers – strategy number

4 above (Uchida, 1990).

Furthermore, the Japanese used many other approaches. For example, businesses had to employ a

limited number of foreign non-managerial workers; who were hired as consultant engineers for

designing and planning and as skilled workers assigned to specific areas of work. This approach

resembles the one in number six above. Other technologies were transferred using modalities such

as turnkey, purchase contracts for machinery and know-how, Technology transfer as an integral part

of the machinery imported by the recipient, patent license agreements, production by imitations, and

In-house development of a technology.

By 1880, foreign engineers and skilled workers had disappeared from all but a few workplaces.

Businesses that had used TT by management contracts now shifted to another type (type 6: hiring

workers from suppliers). The shift resulted from: (1) a change in policy by the government, which

could no longer afford paying big sums to hired foreigners; (2) experts declined renewing contracts,

(3) many businesses were ready to do without external experts; and (4) trained Japanese technicians

were ready to take over the duties of foreign engineers. After the departure of foreign engineers,

Japanese engineers adopted the role of internalising and diffusing Western technologies in Japan

(Uchida, 1990).

5 Nagasaki Steel Mill is a breeder of Mitsubishi Company.

of 31

Towards the end of 19th century, Japan engaged in modality of allowing foreign factories to be

established through direct investment by suppliers so as to gain technology. For example, Japan

facilitated a creation of a telephone manufacturing plant by importing designs and equipment from

American company - Western Electric (WE). WE established Nippon Electric Company (NEC) in

1899 - the telephone manufacturer - as the first subsidiary in Japan (by obtaining 54% of the

shares). Using the same pattern, in 1905, America’s General Electric (GE) made an agreement with

Tokyo Electric by GE’s acquiring 51% of Tokyo Electric’s shares (Uchida, 1990).

One major reason why ITT from West to Japan went smoothly was because Japan trained a big

number of engineers during the ITT period. On top of that, Japan’s industrial success was

influenced by the development of the technical educational system. Other important factors that

contributed to Japanese ITT success include: (1) the desire by the government and Japanese people

to acquire, absorb and diffuse new western technology; (2) readiness of technology suppliers to

come to Japan due to domestic investments slowness and a good pay Japan was offering to

expatriates; (3) calculated training of Japanese skilled labor force and engineers to take over

positions held by foreigners; (4) ability of the Japanese to blend the traditional with the new

imported technologies; (5) the strategy of using engineering graduates in the transfer technology

from outside Japan and within the country (Uchida, 1990).

LESSONS FOR TANZANIA AND ITS TVET SYSTEM

A: What can Tanzanian Government do to have a Thriving Technology Transfer?

Rich nations have accumulated advantages over centuries of knowledge and technology production.

Countries like US can globally compete confidently due to the wealth of knowledge and expertise it

holds in its human capital (scientists and engineers) as well as in private and public R&D and

technology transfer programs, which are well funded. Almost all Universities of Europe, Japan, and

USA have R&D programs, TT Offices, and pursue commercialization of their findings. Hence, it is

a high time Tanzania admitted that it will not grow, unless it starts to generate its own knowledge

and technology through both exogenous (imported) and endogenous (local) technology research and

transfer endeavors. To achieve that end, a number of things mentioned below must be implemented.

of 31

1. Get Enough Understanding of TT Concepts and Practices:

Tanzania should encourage stakeholders of technology, policy makers and national development

planners to be very knowledgeable about the national and international TT issues. Issues discussed

above are just the tip of the iceberg of what Tanzanian TT actors have to learn and understand.

2. Build the Capacity to Understand International Business and ITT Affairs:

Tanzanian actors involved in TT must work hard to understand issues surrounding international

businesses and ITT. They must understand: (1) strategies and operations of IPRs regime; (2) how to

manage international Agreements; and (3) how International Organizations like WTO, WIPO, WB

and others operate explicitly and tacitly. Moreover, Tanzania TT actors must learn strategies of

major Multinational Corporations, Transnational corporations and Governments of technology-rich

nations. The truth is that without working properly with IPRs regime, it is impossible to attain TT

from Technology owners. Protection of IPRs is the basis for forming agreements, contracts and

MoUs having monetary values. Without understanding objectives of the other side of the game and

how international organizations and governments of developed nations work, Tanzanians will

naively pursue ITT.

3. Establish National Technology Growth Strategy:

Tanzania needs to establish its technology growth strategy that must include several tactical actions

such as to: (1) understand which technology needs Tanzania has and which technologies must be

acquired, when, from where, and how best to transfer it; (2) to determine which key actors to be

involved for spearheading each TT; (3) forge close and strategic relationship with technology

owners; (4) form a meaningful partnership between foreign and local industries; (5) initiate strategic

use of international consultancies and experts; (6) invite as many MNCs and TNCs as possible to

establish their branches; (7) support formation of as many JVs as possible; (8) identify which

technology absorption and diffusion actions to be implemented for each TT transaction; (9) ensure

value addition for each ITT transaction made; (10) put in place means of tracking results of each

TT; (11) have an independent ITT and innovation monitoring unit or strengthen the existing ones.

4. Review Technology Development Policy and Regulatory Mechanisms:

The importance of having effective Technology development and transfer policy can not be

overemphasized. Currently, Tanzania is still using its Science and Technology Policy of 1996,

which is still undergoing review process. This policy acknowledges the role of science and

of 31

technology in the national development. It has the objective of promoting science and technology to

become means for economic and human development. In fact, it postulates the importance of

promoting technology transfer and enhancing development of endogenous technologies. The

problem, however, lies in the big gap between policy statements and actual practices. Until now,

only a few notable successes in this area are notable. Commission of Science and Technology

(COSTECH) has been established as the focal point and coordinator of science and technology

development efforts in the country. Also, a Centre for Development and Technology Transfer has

been established. The major question though is to what extent are these organs effective in

spearheading and stimulating technology development and transfer? An evaluative research would

be necessary to get the answers to this question.

On the other hand, the country has a Research and Development Policy of 2010. The policy seeks to

address several challenges related to R&D in Tanzania. Some of the issues to be fixed by this policy

are: (1) establishing effective R&D coordination and guidance; (2) creating mechanism for

prioritization of research areas; (3) putting effective means of translating research into tangible

products and effecting commercialization of the same; (4) promoting development of research

human capital; and (5) improving research funding possibilities. Again, there seems to be a gap

between policy statements and practices in relation R&D efforts. It is not clear how R&D efforts are

linked to internal and external TT efforts. Again, COSTECH is given the role of coordinating and

registering R&D efforts in the country. The impact of COSTECH’s activities is less vivid though.

In view of the above, there is a need to review both policies and see what can be harmonized in

order to put clear mechanism for fostering national and institutional technology development and

innovation. The National policies must generate laws and regulations that will regulate R&D,

indigenous technology development, and ITT practices. Regarding ITT, the regulation may focus on

two directions: (1) Regulation of technology imports/ inflows; (2) Regulation of technology

export/outflows. Tanzania should look at the possibility of exporting its technology in the near

future. Regulations are necessary because there are both advantages and disadvantages of importing

foreign technology and exporting indigenous technology (Khurana, 2013). Also, it is important to

have a framework to regulate endogenous TT and innovation efforts by various entities including

universities, TVET centers, public and private firms, as well as Government Agencies.

of 31

5. Revamp National and Institutional R&D and Innovative Efforts:

Tanzania is yet to be vigorous in R&D and endogenous technology generation. In fact, generation

of local innovations leave a lot to be desired. Although there are few positive results in R&D,

especially in agricultural, medical, and in production of some elementary agro-processing, mining,

construction and transportation equipment; much is desired in R&D practices. Some universities

and Institutes are trying to be innovative. But a few innovative efforts exhibited by some TVET and

universities in different events like International Trade Fairs barely go beyond Technology

Readiness Level 4 or 5. Hardly do innovative initiatives in TVET system go beyond testing

prototype in relevant environment. Even a few successes that are validated in the relevant

environment don’t attract enough funding to enable production of prototypes that can be

demonstrated in operational environment or be tested for the actual mission or operations. So, R&D

and innovative results are not yet remarkable in Tanzania. On top of that, there are challenges

related to the awareness and compliance to the protection of intellectual property rights. Very few

innovators patent their discoveries. As a result, it is difficult to license unpatented discovery.

6. Review and Improve ITT Strategies and Practices:

According to Khurana (2013), several methods of technology acquisition can be employed by a

Nation like Tanzania. These include: (1) attracting MNCs and TNCs through: (a) direct measures by

inviting selected industries in form of FDI and (b) indirect measures by offering incentives and

subsidies; (2) attracting MNCs and TNCs into natural resource processing aimed at greater value

additions; (3) using MNCs and TNCs to encourage the foreign suppliers to invest in the country; (4)

improving skills & training of local technologists by involving MNCs and TNCs; (5) developing

industrial/technology parks to attract more technology investors; (6) offering incentives to existing

investors to move to more complex technologies and to boost technological R& D base; (7)

improving competitive environment and existing incentive structure to encourage top-notch

technology and management; (8) improving technological access for local firms for outsourcing

technology; and (9) collecting, organizing & disseminating information about technology

development.

The caution, however, is that care must be taken when providing incentives and subsidies to

investors because some dishonest ones misuse subsidies and incentive packages. For example, they

can decide to strategically under invest or understate their profits to lure government subsidies or

incentives.

of 31

B: What can Tanzanian TVET System do to Facilitate Technology Transfer?

TVET institutions can apply various forms of technology transfer as a strategy for enhancing

institutional technology development capacity. Some TT methods are simple; others are complex

depending on the resources, user, and mechanism that connects the two parties and how technology

will be moved from one organization to another (Khurana 2013). The decision about the method to

use depends on the policies and financial strength of the institutions involved, the size of the

technological target to be attained for a given period of time, the amount and quality of the technical

information available, the learning capacity of the human resource; the conditions of technology

supplier; and the eagerness shown by the recipient institution (Uchida, 1990). In any case, the

following recommendations are provided to enable TVET system to be actively engaged in TT.

TVET Institutions must put technology development and transfer strategy in the priority list.

All TVET institutions should be encouraged to put technology development strategies in the top

agenda list. In pursuing technology development objectives, TVET centers - as potential developers

of technology - have to show the way. However, these institutions have to start with answering

several questions such as: (1) What preparations are needed to become a technology/innovation

center? (2) What kind of technologies should the centers pursue? (3) Will the pursued technology be

for internal usage, government purpose, or industry application? (4) Will this be a totally new

technology or an innovation based on existing technology? (5) Will it be developed via external

technical assistance or by internal efforts? (6) If technical assistance is foreseen, where will it come

from and under what terms? (7) Is collaboration with other private or public entities possible? (8)

Will the technology be commercially transferred to private businesses and how? (9) Which

innovators will be involved and how will their intellectual property be protected? (10) How will the

Institution developing the technology share the benefits with the innovators/inventors?

Eventually, TVET centers must aim at being active in technology transfer employing a combination

of the following measures: (1) commercial transfer to external entities in the country (businesses,

manufacturers, government entities); (2) exporting technology or skills to other countries in Africa

or beyond; and (3) scientific dissemination for the benefit of TVET stakeholders (via conference

papers, seminars, and workshops).

of 31

A few TVET institutions must be supported to be focal points of sophisticated technologies.

The world is changing very fast. It is easy for a developing country to be drawn in solving normal

development problems to the extent of forgetting sophisticated technologies. Thus, there is a need

of selecting a few potential TVET institutions to be empowered to become centers for sophisticated

technologies. As such, these centers will be instrumental in pulling and pushing ultra modern

technological development efforts at the global pace. They will engage in research and development

of sensitive technology and innovation based on imported technologies. The world is moving fast

towards biotechnology, nanotechnology, personal mobile computers (PMC), memristor6

technology, wireless power, to mention a few. Hence, the selected institutions have to find means to

work with technology-rich enterprises in those areas. They have to become pioneers in research and

disseminating new sophisticated technologies and innovations to the Tanzanian public and business

entities.

In order to become specialized points for R&D in technology and innovation, TVET institutions

should strive to collaborate with the industry. No effective TT will take place without serious

R&D that is linked to the industry. Through these R&D efforts, TVET institutions will generate

revenues through sell of licenses and patents to producers of final technological products and

services. With good revenues, institutions will be in good positions to keep their researchers and

innovators happy. With meaningful technologies and innovations being released out, TVET centers

will even forge stronger collaboration with the industry and other stakeholders. Eventually, it will

be easy for the productive centers to attract more funding for their R&D and innovative activities.

Therefore, it is important for TVET institutions to make some preparations towards this

important role. Preparations must include: learning more about TT issues and how IPRs regime

works; prepare a core personnel for research activities; open R&D departments and/or TT offices;

forge close ties with COSTECH, Centre for Technology Transfer, and other relevant organs. Also,

it is important for innovators to be well trained in proposal development skills and documentation;

how to deal with trademarks, branding, copyrights issues, and protection of their property rights; as

well as how to prudently negotiate agreements and how to sell licenses/patents to other technology

developers and business enterprises.

6 Memristor is a microscopic component that can remember electrical signals even when it is switched off. It will be

cheaper and faster than the current flash storage. This technology will completely revolutionize the computer world.

of 31

Finally, the TVET system should put in place a way of monitoring R&D and TT efforts by

using the following indicators: (1) Number of TVET Institutions with functioning R&D/TT

offices; (2) number of research activities and reports per given period; (3) number of inventions or

innovations made; (4) number of patents acquired; (5) number of licensing Agreements made; (6)

Licensing revenues obtained; (7) number of research partnerships functioning; (8) number of

business startups caused; (9) amount of research funding attracted; (10) number of technologies and

innovations transferred to local entities; (11) number of technologies/innovations exported to

foreign entities; (12) number of foreign technologies acquired; and (13) number of technological

adaptations made out of foreign technologies

CONCLUSION AND BROAD RECOMMENDATIONS

The TT concept denotes the process by which technology is disseminated from one point to others

or from one application to the other. This phenomenon is especially important in reducing the gap

between technology- rich countries and the technology-poor countries. TT has played a crucial role

in economic world history. Europe and USA achieved remarkable industrial development in 19th

and 20th

Centuries thanks to transfer of industrial technologies that mainly originated from Great

Britain. Moreover, the technologies of the Western world were transferred to the Eastern countries

like Japan and South Korea. From mid 20th

century, there have been attempts to influence economic

growth of developing countries through several modalities of ITT.

The paper has discussed essential conditions or factors that influence the occurrence of TT in

general. These conditions include: technology demand and supply in the global and national

markets; the willingness level of technology giver and the Technology Readiness Level when it has

to be transferred; the willingness of recipient to accept the technology (technology user acceptance);

the existence of the market pull and technology push, and the characteristics of the technology

giver, of the receiver, and of the technology itself.

Moreover, this paper has discussed steps to be taken in effecting TT and common barriers that

might occur in the process of internal and external TT. Moreover, several issues surrounding

International TT has been presented such as the four common channels for ITT, the criticality of

effective national policies; the capacity and desire of recipient country to absorb and diffuse new

technologies; the question of international agreements; and the role played by international

organizations and multinational corporations and their governments.

of 31

Although ITT presents itself as an opportunity for developing countries like Tanzania, it exhibits a

number of challenges such as the technology giver being reluctant to offer complete technology

information; the imbalanced market power between the giver and recipient of technology; and

potential market failures that may influence decisions for or against TT ventures. Also, TT actors

have to address the whole problem of mismatch of goals between technology givers and technology

recipient nations. All these challenges notwithstanding, the world has witnessed a few ITT success

stories such as ITT that occurred between Western countries and Japan and South Korea as well that

which took place in both directions between Europe to USA.

Most importantly, the paper identifies a few lessons that can help both the policy makers of

Tanzania and the TVET stakeholders. Policy makers are encouraged to draw lessons that may

stimulate thoughts about TT aspects and finally review/harmonize policies related to research,

technology development, and transfer. Likewise, TVET stakeholders are requested to draw some

lessons that might provoke fresh perspectives, approaches, and practices in R&D, Technology

production, innovation, and TT.

Finally, a few broad recommendations are suggested here: (1) Policy makers should critically

rethink about the role of technology development, innovation, and transfer as a key strategy to kick

start successful economic development of the country. (2) TVET system and its stakeholders have

to seriously give R&D, innovation, and TT a high priority, so that TVET becomes the hub of new

and adopted technologies/innovations for our country. (3) The Tanzanian government should learn

tactics (as Japanese and Koreans did) of how to engage technology-rich nations, MNCs, and

International Organizations so that there can be smooth, effective, and win-win ITT for both sides

without Tanzania being marginalized or outsmarted.

of 31

References

CDIP (2014). Economics of IP and international technology transfer. 14th

Session, Geneva,

November 10-14, 2014.

Chuttur M.Y. (2009). "Overview of the Technology Acceptance Model: Origins, Developments and

Future Directions," Indiana University, USA . Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems,

9(37). http://sprouts.aisnet.org/9-37

Choi, H. J. (2009). Technology transfer issues and new technology transfer model. The Journal of

Technology Studies 35(1). Retrieved December 3, 2014 from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/

ejournals/JOTS/v35/v35n1/choi.html

Davis, F. D. (1989), Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of

information technology, MIS Quarterly, 13(3): 319–340, doi:10.2307/249008.

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A

comparison of two theoretical models, Management Science, 35, 982-1003.

Fred Hutch (2014). Technology transfer process. Retrieved on December 4, 2014 from

http://www.fredhutch.org/en/diseases/technology-transfer/for-inventors/process.html

Grosse, R. (1996). International technology transfer in services. Journal of International Business

Studies 27: 782.

Hoekman, B.M., Maskus, K.E., Saggi, K. (2004). Transfer of technology to developing countries:

Unilateral and multilateral policy options. Working paper PEC2004-0003. Institute of Behavioral

Science. University of Colorado at Boulder.

Juan, Z., Wei, L., Xiamei, P. (2010). Research on technology transfer readiness level and its

application in university technology innovation management, E-Business and E-Government

(ICEE), 2010 International Conference 7-9 May 2010. pp.1904, 1907.

Khurana, V. K. (2013): Technology Acquisition & Transfer. Retrieved December 1, 2014 from

http://www.slideshare.net/VijayKrKhurana/technology-transfer-acquisition-15896914.

of 31

Li-Hua, R. (2010). Opportunities and challenges in international technology transfer. A paper

presented at International Technology Transfer Workshop, Ningbo, China, 15th

October, 2010.

Martin, M. J.C. (1994). Managing innovation and entrepreneurship in technology-based firms. NY.

John Wiley & Sons-IEEE. Retrieved December 1, 2014 from http://books.google.com/books?

Mateso, P. (2008). Ethical Challenges in Knowledge Transfer: The Case of Global Biopiracy. A

paper presented in the Leadership Ethics Class of Leadership Program, Bowling Green State

University (unpublished)

Rebow, M. (2012). Technology transfer and innovation: indicators, best practices, and policy issues.

A paper presented at Universities’ Third Mission Meeting, 2-3 February 2012, Dublin Ireland.

Seely, B. E. (2004). World War II and technology transfer: A historical introduction. Comparative

Technology Transfer and Society 2(1), 67-70.

Siegel, D. (2012). Research on academic entrepreneurship in the U.S. and Europe: Lessons learned

and research agenda. Paper presented at NSF Engineering Globalization Workshop May 17, 2012.

Uchida, H. (1990). Technology transfer. In Nishikawa, S. & Abe, T. (Eds), The era of

Industrialisation. A History of the Japanese Economy, Vol 4.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, F.D., and Davis, G.B. (2003) User acceptance of information

technology: Toward a unified view, MIS Quarterly, 27, 425-478.

http://books.google.com/books?id=fnE7R732COMC&printsec=frontcover#PPA44,M1

a paper presented at the vet forum held in … · a paper presented at the vet forum held in...

Documents