ERIC EJ899220: Knowledge from Research and Practice on the Barriers and Carriers to Successful Technology Transfer for Assistive Technology Devices

2010·0.29 MB·English

by  ERIC

Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1
Knowledge from Research and Practice on the Barriers and
Carriers to Successful Technology Transfer for Assistive
Technology Devices

James A. Leahy & Joseph P. Lane
University at Buffalo, SUNY

Abstract Background
Historically, the assistive technology (AT) Modeling the Technology Transfer Process
industry is made up of small to medium size
companies serving relatively small markets When an entity attempts to shift control and
with products characterized as ‗niche‘ or responsibility for a prototype invention to
‗orphan‘ products. Presenting opportunities to another entity, it engages in a process
AT companies that are created by outside commonly referred to as technology transfer
sources is difficult. Presenting such (TT). Definitions of TT vary widely. In order
opportunities to companies serving larger to provide common ground for dialogue, and
markets is even more difficult. In both cases, for action within the field of AT, we created
transferring new or improved products is and published a generic model that
fraught with barriers. characterized the key elements of the TT
process (i.e., initiating transfer forces, critical
This paper outlines the critical barriers to events and stakeholder groups) and linked
brokering efforts between major U.S. these elements within an overall process
university technology transfer offices and U.S. (Lane, 1999). This generic model (Figure 1
corporations. This paper also identifies the below) is intended for application within the
corresponding carriers, or facilitators, and context of any specific program.
standard practices that are employed to
overcome these barriers in both the AT and In the context of this generic model, TT
mainstream markets. The barriers identified in should be viewed and treated as a single broad
this paper will span the research, process that encompasses multiple elements.
development, and commercialization The elements comprising TT are routinely
continuum for technology transfer. Over the viewed as disparate activities, but it is more
past 14 years, by using the carriers and constructive to treat them as stages of a
standard practices delineated in this paper, the continuous process from technology
authors have successfully transferred new discovery through product consumption.
technologies and devices in the areas of AT Technologies enable a product‘s features and
and mainstream consumer products. functions. For example, the manufacturer of a
non-stick frying pan incorporates multiple
Key words: Barriers, Carriers, Facilitators, technologies (e.g., metals, ceramics, plastics,
Technology Transfer, Assistive Technology, and bonding agents), while the consumer only
University-based Research, Technology buys one product (e.g., a frying pan with the
Transfer Office desired non-stick feature; Camp & Sexton,
1992).

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits
73
Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer
Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1

Figure 1. Generic model of the TT process.
TT commences by one of two initiating the perceived solution. It is a gamble that may

forces. Forces at either the technology prove right or wrong.
discovery end or the product consumption
end can initiate TT. Demand pull TTs, on the other hand, are
initiated in response to a validated market
A supply push TT is initiated through an effort demand for a product feature or function.
to apply a technology‘s utility within a new Companies may seek a solution to a problem
product. Otherwise put, the technology is articulated by their customers (Von Hippel,
pushed toward the marketplace to address an 1986). The authors, for example, determined
assumed, unsatisfied demand (Paul, 1987). For that power wheelchair manufacturers, and
example, an elderly person may struggle to people with mobility impairments, considered
rise from a wheelchair because he or she the battery charging process to be inefficient.
struggles to engage the wheel locks. In an Once the market articulated demand for an
effort to solve this problem, a therapist improved battery charging process, we
prototyped a device that automatically identified a device in the automobile industry
engaged the wheel locks as the elderly person that met the demand. Within six months the
rose from the wheelchair. The device was authors brokered a transfer agreement
effective, so the inventor sought a broader between the device and five wheelchair
commercial market for the invention through companies.
license or sale. In this example, the inventor
collaborated with the authors to improve and Another source of demand pull activity is
license this device to a corporation within the evident in technology requests from
wheelchair industry. This is a classic case of manufacturers, or National Aeronautics and
supply push transfer in that an invention Space Administration (NASA) specifications,
designed for limited application is assumed to which circulate through the Small Business
be applicable to a larger population, without a Innovation Research (SBIR) program because
validated expression of the market‘s need for
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits
74
Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer
Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1
they are market problems seeking a developed inside or outside a company. From
technology solution. a manufacturer‘s perspective, assessing the
prototype‘s commercial viability includes
In some cases, breakthrough technologies internal manufacturing capabilities, sales and
(e.g., telephone, integrated circuits) enter the marketing expertise, and product planning
market through supply push activities. horizons (Day & Shoemaker, 2000). Beyond
Subsequently, demand pull forces expand that, the manufacturer‘s involvement requires
those applications. Identifying the initiating successful negotiation of intellectual property,
force as either supply push or as demand pull financial compensation, and agreement on
helps validate the transfer opportunity, due diligence terms between the manufacturer
estimate market value, and assess the and prototype developer (Gutterman &
likelihood of future success. Erlich, 1997). Problems in any area will likely
result in project termination. Manufacturers
Within the generic model, all technology maintain an especially low rejection threshold
transfer projects pass through three critical for external projects.
events. These critical events, which are listed
and defined below, represent the The product event takes place when the first
transformation from core technology to production-quality unit leaves the assembly
commercial product (Rogers, 1995). line for the marketplace. In our example, the
proliferation of bicycle and wheelchair frames
The idea event is the conceptual awareness that made from composite materials--along with
an existing technology might be applicable in limb braces, tennis rackets, and golf club
a new field. The idea event involves no shafts--demonstrates the range of product events
tangible development. Take, for example, an that can result from an initial idea event. It
engineer who asserts that a transfer of also shows the power of one technology to
composite materials used in aircrafts could enhance the lives of people with and without
improve consumer goods by reducing weight disabilities.
while increasing strength and flexibility.
The product event represents the culmination
The prototype event occurs when a working of an arduous journey through the product
model demonstrates that the idea functions as development ‗valley of death,‘ a series of gaps
expected in an actual application, where, in that must be bridged to achieve success
legal parlance, the idea is ‗reduced to practice.‘ (Rosenau, 1996). Specifically, the transition
When bicycle and wheelchair frames that are from prototype to product requires bridging
formed from composite materials pass basic three crucial gaps: the (a) funding gap between
performance tests, a prototype event has government and commercial support; (b) value
occurred. gap between academic knowledge and market
potential; and (c) information gap between
The transition from feasible prototype to technologists and marketers (Hartman &
market product is the crux of technology Lakatos, 1998). Successfully bridging all three
transfer. For the transition to take place, a gaps leads to the challenges of product
manufacturer, or product producer (see Figure 1), introduction. Product introduction
must decide to invest in product development encompasses production, distribution, sales,
(Krishnan & Ulrich, 2001). They make this marketing, and support activities (Jolly, 1997).
decision based on their assessments of the Each of these must be considered in the
technology created by a technology producer. This developer‘s earliest transfer plans because
decision is required whether the prototype is
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits
75
Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer
Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1
manufacturers will consider the costs of these In general, TT is clearly more business-
activities in their transfer decision. oriented than academic-oriented. Intellectual
criteria that make a project interesting in the
As a TT broker, the authors focus on the context of an academic model are subordinate
portion of the TT process between the to economic criteria, which require a project
prototype event and the product event--the to be sound and profitable in the framework
aforementioned valley of death. This focus of a business model. Even when a product is
makes the manufacturers (technology supported by a sound business plan, the
consumers/product producers) in Figure 1 champion of the product faces a major hurdle
the most critical stakeholder group and, simply by virtue of coming from outside the
therefore, our primary target population. targeted partner corporation.
Manufacturers are critical as they are uniquely
positioned to turn a prototype into a External product submissions to companies
commercial product. They are also pivotal to must compete against internal product
the roles of other stakeholders (Scadden, initiatives which are supported by internal
1987). Manufacturers rely mostly on product corporate champions. These internal
consumers, including people with disabilities, to initiatives already have corporate time and
be customers for their products. To a lesser money invested based on prior management
extent, manufacturers rely on technology decisions to proceed. The internal champions
producers for innovations in core technologies. possess the experience necessary to: (a)
For small markets like AT, manufacturers also navigate the corporate product development
need support from resource providers like cycle, (b) overcome barriers, and (c)
federal agencies, which fund development satisfactorily answer questions and address
projects, regulate new products, or set concerns from a company‘s internal managers.
reimbursement levels. All of these Few companies have slack resources available
stakeholders, therefore, are considered target to support new projects. Instead, companies
populations, with manufacturers in a pivotal must weigh the merits of competing
role. opportunities and then invest in the most
compelling option.
However, in order to successfully transfer
commercial products to the marketplace, the Companies are generally risk-averse and, thus,
authors must also consider the implications of conservative when investing internal resources
early work on the remaining elements of the on research and development. They tend to
technology transfer process. No matter how focus on refinements to existing products that
great the need, or whose need, not all are proven commodities with established
prototypes culminate in products with value market positions. It is safer and easier to
to the AT marketplace. Market failures can invest in expanding market share for a
often be traced back to activity preceding the profitable product than it is to justify the
prototype event. Improper assumptions about expense of fulfilling an unmet need in the
ideas, incorrect information about markets, marketplace with a new, unproven product. In
interpersonal conflicts, or the trajectory of the current environment, truly novel ideas are
parallel research that makes current work left to start-up companies. Established firms
obsolete, can all lead to market failure. Early prefer to wait and will pay a premium to
decisions, or actions, by any stakeholder acquire a successful new product or company
group may have grave consequences later in rather than make the risk investment
the process. themselves.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits
76
Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer
Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1
Eliminating or minimizing barriers to Association (PDMA) has published a series of
commercialization perceived by licensing textbooks on the product development
companies is of the utmost importance to the process. We have extracted from this
successful transfer, licensing, and production literature 20 steps--from the idea to product
of new inventions. It is much easier for a stages--which, when followed, ensure
corporation to refuse an external invention successful product development. Each step
than to accept it. A refusal requires neither has input and output processes, which
licensing nor any expenditures of time or advance an idea from its conception to a
capital in research and development, successful product in the marketplace. There
marketing analysis, and consumer testing. The are 10 steps from the idea to prototype stage
external inventor who hopes to initiate the and 10 more steps from the prototype to product
product development cycle must overcome stage. PDMA‘s product development process
this corporate inertia. is based on the assumption that one entity, a
company, performs all 20 steps (see Figure 2).
Modeling the Product Development
Process However, in TT at universities, the initial
product development process is performed by
For the purpose of this paper, discussion of a university researcher. This process ceases
barriers, carriers, and standard practices when the prototype is developed. From there,
should be considered in the context of TT a university‘s TT office (TTO) handles the
processes at federally funded (U.S.) programs invention‘s licensing and subsequent handoff
at universities where prototype development to a company that completes the product
is followed by TT to corporations for product development process.
development.
The barriers, carriers, and standard practices
The Product Development Managers discussed in this paper are the same, in some

Figure 2. Development literature shows 20 steps from idea to product.

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits
77
Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer
Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1
cases, as those encountered in standard new Barriers to Achieving a Valid Idea Critical Event
product development processes by
corporations. However, because a university Failure to allocate an adequate amount of researcher‟s
attempts to license a prototype invention to a time. Here, if a researcher allocates only
company, the barriers, carriers, and standard minimal time to the research project, for
practices are unique to university research example, 5%-10% full-time effort, practically
communities and to universities attempting to speaking, the project won‘t receive enough
license prototypes. attention to succeed (Lane, 2008).
Figure 2 shows the three critical events of TT Failure to allocate adequate resources. A researcher
and the PDMA‘s 20 steps between the idea may allocate insufficient lab and financial
event for the application of an enabling resources to the project. If only one member
technology to the product event resulting in a of a research team works on a project, the
commercial product that is ready for future of the project is already in jeopardy.
production and market introduction. This Similarly, if that individual leaves the team, it‘s
paper describes and discusses barriers to possible that the team‘s remaining members
progress in each of the critical events as well would let the project fall by the wayside.
as carriers that will circumvent or dissolve
those barriers. Carriers that Can Nullify Barriers Prior to the Idea
Stage
Barriers and Carriers Prior to the Idea
Critical Event Granting agencies or universities should see to
it that federally funded investigators who
Our discussion begins with the ‗valley‘ that perform research have allocated a substantial
precedes the idea critical event. Barriers to minimum amount of time to a research
successful TT of an invention spring up at the project. Generally, very low full-time effort
earliest stages of research, even before a allocation of a researcher‘s time (5%-10%)
researcher develops an invention. If a results in project failure (Lane, 2008).
researcher or inventor fails to meticulously
consider and address these early barriers, the Allocation of adequate resources includes
future product may fail downstream. staff, facility, and consumer involvement time.
While researchers may understand their
At this stage, the researcher knows of an laboratory and staff needs, researchers who
unmet consumer need for a technology or a fail to allocate sufficient financial resources to
product. But at this point, the researcher is a consumer component of research (i.e., focus
uncertain of exactly what to develop. He or groups, surveys, etc.) may remain unaware of
she applies for a grant from a funding agency the full range of consumers‘ needs, wants, and
to do research to develop a technology that desires for a product solution. Researchers
the researcher hopes will address the unmet may incorrectly make assumptions about what
need and become a usable product for is good for, necessary to, and desired by end
consumers. Even at this stage, potential consumers (Cooper, 1999).
barriers that go unaddressed will lead to
project failure. Projects should be seeded with the efforts and
interests of multiple researchers. Multiple
investigators should contribute significant
full-time effort. By this approach, a project
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits
78
Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer
Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1
can survive the departure of any single which delayed the arrival of many voice-
researcher (Lane, 2008). operated products to the market. Today, as
more product applications have appeared, and
Barriers and Carriers Between Idea and Prototype the technology to produce voice chips has
Critical Events become cheaper, the cost of voice-interactive
products has decreased. These products are
By now, a researcher has received federal now viable commercially. Similarly,
funding and university backing. For research researchers may believe themselves to be
to result in invention, innovation, and, experts in terms of both the technologies and
eventually, a viable commercial product, products that are currently available as well as
product development literature shows that consumers‘ needs. Therefore they will not
certain carriers and standard practices should perform due diligence requirements on an
be performed by the research team at this industry. They will also fail to assess
early stage. Failure to navigate potential consumer needs in detail.
barriers here significantly inhibits the project‘s
potential for success. Carriers that Would Nullify Potential Barriers
Between Idea and Prototype Stages
Barriers to Progressing to the Prototype Critical Event
Perform preliminary assessments. Researchers
Lack of preliminary assessment. Lack of due should perform an extensive search of
diligence by an inventor or research team regulatory standards and competing
could result in duplication of research and technology and products to verify that their
thus only minor or incremental improvements research will meet an existing need or solve a
to technology and products that are already in problem. Options include searching similar
the commercial marketplace. If the research technologies, products, and patents.
team lacks awareness of the industry, of which Researchers should contact industry
technologies are being developed into associations in their areas of research to track
commercial products, and of regulatory or current developments from manufacturing
business perspectives (i.e., device and regulatory standpoints.
reimbursement issues, government
accessibility regulations [such as those Build the business case. Researchers should
contained in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation explore the technology costs and applications.
Act], or the relocation of manufacturer Retailers and professionals may be visited to
production facilities overseas), their research learn how individuals presently address the
will fail to lead to a development outcome of relevant function or need through products
a product in the commercial marketplace. currently in the market. Inventors must also
recognize that consumers sometimes prefer a
Failure to build the business case. AT markets are technology-free option. Also, researchers need
historically small. Unless research generates to constantly search for disruptive
technology that can be used across markets, technologies as this may negatively affect the
the cost of the technology will stunt its early acceptance and adoption of their work.
acceptance and use by consumers. If the
overall goal of a research project is to impact Barriers and Carriers Between the Prototype and
the lives of consumers now, then awareness Product Critical Event
of the costs of technology is paramount. A
decade ago the cost of the voice chips used in The remainder of this paper focuses on
voice-interactive products was prohibitive, technology transfer at U.S. federally funded
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits
79
Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer
Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1
programs where prototype creation occurs at 3. Inventors under pressure to publish
universities with subsequent technology research results, may, through their
transfer to corporations for product publications, publicly disclose their
development. Universities operate technology work, inadvertently activating a one-
transfer offices (TTO) to ensure compliance year time bar for filing patent
with all institutional and federal regulations application for the invention. For
concerning intellectual property, such as the example, a researcher publicly
Bayh-Dole, Patent and Trademark Act disclosed his work on a thermostat
Amendments of 1980. Research performed by with voice feedback. Unfortunately
university employees, on or off premises, and the researcher never filed for a patent
specifically all research performed on on his work in the year following its
university property, utilizing university public disclosure. Because his work
facilities that leads to an invention by a had entered the public domain, no
university employee must be disclosed to the thermostat company could exclusively
university‘s TTO. For inventions that result own the intellectual property rights to
from federal funding, the TTO discloses the the concept. Thus, no company would
invention to the funding sponsor and invest in bringing the concept to
determines if either the TTO or the sponsor fruition in the marketplace.
elects to lay claim to the invention. 4. When universities retain claims to
inventions, the institutions may
Potential Barriers Between Prototype and Product include them among inventions that it
Stages passively solicits potential licensees
for. In this case, the invention would
A university invention may meet a number of not be shopped actively and may
barriers on its path towards never be licensed.
commercialization. 5. Assuming the TTO finds a potential
licensing company, the TTO may be
1. If researchers fail to communicate unaware of the lower royalty rates
with the appropriate office at their (ranging from 3% to 8% for non-
university, the TTO may be unaware software items) associated with AT
of a new federally funded grant being products (due to much lower sales
awarded to its university. The TTO, volume) and may ask for too high of a
therefore, may be unaware of its return. This can mean the invention
duties and responsibilities under the won‘t be licensed.
new grant. 6. In some cases, inventors‘ main goal is
2. Unknowing or uninformed to publish their work, not bring an
researchers may not make timely invention to the marketplace. Due to
disclosures to the TTO, thus the TTO the inventor‘s lack of interest and
will not preliminarily search patent- assistance, companies may forego
related artwork. Thus the TTO may or licensing the invention.
may not proceed with intellectual 7. The inventor may provide inadequate
property protection (patent) for the information to the TTO, thus
invention. Consequently, an inventor hindering the intellectual property
may not be the first to file for a patent protection and licensing of the
on his or her invention. This may invention.
delay licensing or may result in failure 8. The eventual licensing of a prototype
to license the invention at all. can be stalled by a university TTO‘s
reluctance, skepticism, and
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits
80
Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer
Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1
complacency in signing off on though it‘s unclear who the true
agreements, including a non- decision-maker is.
disclosure agreement. 16. Due to triaging, both internal and
9. An inventor may not actually have external, of new inventions, corporate
proof-of-concept for the prototype of personnel may not respond to a
his invention. In this case, licensing university TTO‘s licensing inquiries.
the invention will be most difficult. 17. Due to turnover of corporate
10. If a university researcher proceeds personnel at a potential licensing
without significant consumer input, company, the TTO representative may
the invention can be void of design have to forge new working
functions and features that would relationships with new personnel, or
enable its licensing and success in the seek a different licensing partner.
marketplace. 18. Delays in agreements on terms
11. In licensing negotiations, the inventor between inventors and licensees can
may delay sending the functioning mean that timely inventions miss their
prototype to the licensing company windows of opportunity. During the
for evaluation. This delay may kill a delay, the licensing company may
potential licensing deal as companies decide to focus on a different
cannot wait indefinitely this invention or technology.
information. Companies interested in 19. Incorrect licensing terminology (e.g.,
new product development may search the inaccurate use of ‗Universal
for other opportunities. In the Design‘ [UD] instead of
meantime, the invention may be ‗Transgenerational Design‘ [TD]) may
rendered obsolete. inadvertently disinterest a company.
12. If an inventor‘s prototype does not 20. In presenting to potential licensing
function the way that potential companies, TTOs may fail to provide
licensing companies were led to enough information or may
believe by the TTO, it can negate a incorrectly format the information.
licensing company‘s interest.
13. In the eyes of consumers and licensing Carriers that Nullify Barriers Between Prototype and
companies, a prototype may seem Product Events
unfinished, thus negating the potential
licensing to a company. This applies The following are carriers and standard
to companies that may lack the practices that can nullify the potential barriers
financial wherewithal to redesign a noted above. The numbers listed with the
prototype into a product. carrier and standard practice correspond to
14. When inventors send prototypes to the potential barriers above.
potential licensing companies, they
may need to answer technical With the receipt of a new federal grant, a
questions. Delays or non- university‘s TTO office needs to be brought
responsiveness on the part of up to date as soon as the initial granting
inventors may stifle licensing agency‘s site visit and prior to the actual
opportunities. financial award. The funded researcher and
15. The TTO may fail to identify the funding agency are responsible for ensuring
correct corporate personnel to contact that university TTO is aware of its
for licensing an invention, a possibility commercialization duties and associated
given that, in AT companies, that role responsibilities under the new federal grant.
may be filled by multiple people,
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits
81
Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer
Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1
Time should be spent outlining both the prior to the financial award of the grant to the
researcher‘s development projects and the university.
nature of the associated responsibilities a
university‘s TTO should anticipate in terms of Researchers and or inventors should
representing and licensing any resultant understand that the grant award has key
invention. deliverables that need to be accomplished.
The granting agency should make the
Having initiated a relationship between the researcher aware that his or her deliverables
researcher and his or her university TTO at for the grant are not finished when they have
the time of the grant award, the researcher completed their publications and prototype. It
should be made aware of the need for timely remains incumbent upon researchers to assist
invention disclosures to the university TTO. in licensing any resultant IP from their
This awareness and training should be research, which means being available for
continually reinforced by the university‘s TTO consultation, providing adequate information
through faculty and researcher training to their TTO, and continuing to work on the
programs. prototype so that it is presented in the best
light to potential licensing companies.
TTO training programs for researchers and or
inventors should clarify guidelines regarding Researchers should interject consumer input
the topics of intellectual property protection early in the design process and when finalizing
and public disclosure of the work. the pre-production prototype. Even large
manufacturers of mainstream consumer
Grant-generating entities, like the National products make product design decisions
Science Foundation, U.S. Department of without factoring in the needs, wants and
Education, and National Institutes of Health, expectations of the full range of end
should make the university TTO aware of its consumers. This process leads to ineffective
expected role in commercializing any products in the marketplace, new product
intellectual property (IP) resulting from the failures and product abandonment. Failure
federally sponsored research. Due diligence rates for new product introductions vary by
clauses and expectations should be outlined industry, but they generally range from 30%
for the university TTO in the final grant to to 90%. Many of these failures can be traced
ensure that the federally funded intellectual to a point early in the product design process
property generated is actively shopped to where significant consumer or device-user
potential licensing companies. information was not collected and or not
analyzed.
Prior to the official award of the grant from
the federal agency, negotiations with the The AT industry has faced the same
university‘s TTO office should include how, complaints for decades. The medical model of
and under what terms, resultant IP will be rehabilitation service provision readily
licensed by the university. Because the substituted clinical requirements for user
university‘s research is federally funded, there requirements. Failing to involve consumers
is an expectation that resultant IP will make with disabilities in every aspect of product
its way to the commercial marketplace for the design and development results in products
benefit of taxpayers who have funded that that fail to meet consumer expectations and
research. General guidelines for royalty rates fail to deliver the required functional
and licensing expectations should be covered capabilities.
Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits
82
Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer