An exploratory study of retaining and maintaining knowledge in university technology transfer processes

Abstract

PurposeThis paper focuses on the university science park incubator element of the technology transfer process where knowledge in a variety of forms needs to be retained and maintained. The aim is to investigate the networking competencies of stakeholders involved in the university technology transfer process using absorptive capacity theory to explore how knowledge is externally retained and maintained through these network relations.Design/methodology/approachThis paper undertakes an inductive theory building approach using in‐depth multiple stakeholder interviews (n=30). The transcripts and results were analysed using open coding and NVivo. Six technology transfer meetings were also observed.FindingsThe findings show that developing and maintaining network relationships can significantly aid the development and retention of knowledge within the university technology transfer process. It was found that conscious effort is made to retain relationships with network stakeholders. Prior knowledge, partner knowledge complementarity and reciprocity, resulting in collective learning, were found to motivate stakeholders to engage in external knowledge retention strategies. The results also supported suggestions in previous literature that relative capacity is an antecedent for absorptive capacity within organisations.Research limitations/mplicationsThe paper helps in establishing a research agenda for knowledge retention in technology transfer where traditionally the emphasis has been on development of knowledge. The absorptive capacity framework provides a consistent theoretical basis for exploring the role of stakeholders in this area.Originality/valueThe paper focuses on how knowledge can be retained in technology transfer settings rather than being restricted to that of development. The use of the absorptive capacity framework has also enabled the concept of relative capacity to be developed within the research giving much needed empirical investigation into its relevance and feasibility.

Technology transfer models: typology and a generic model

“…Knowledge is responsible for creating wealth and economic growth (Muscio et al, 2013), and is recognised as a key factor in the process of innovation and TT (Miller et al, 2011). The TT process is essentially the application of knowledge (Gibson and Smilor, 1991).…”

Technology transfer motive of managers in Eastern Asia: empirical results from manufacture industry in Banten province, Indonesia

“…The importance of technology transfer showed by Ng et al (2012) stated that dynamic process from capability development will improve technology transfer in domestic workers compared with its foreign development. Miller (2011), then, showed that the development and maintenance of network relationship can significantly improve the knowledge development and retention in technology transfer process. Knowledge is recognized as important input in innovation and technology transfer process (Reychav and Weisberg in Miller et al (2011).…”

“…Miller (2011), then, showed that the development and maintenance of network relationship can significantly improve the knowledge development and retention in technology transfer process. Knowledge is recognized as important input in innovation and technology transfer process (Reychav and Weisberg in Miller et al (2011). Therefore, the usage of absorbent capacity theory to explore the role of proper importance and relationship in defending knowledge is still relevant (McAdam et al, 2010).…”

A combined technique using SEM and TOPSIS for the commercialization capability of R&D project evaluation

“…Moreover, 60% of the research production is the responsibility of governmental section (TSI, 2013). Currently, the interaction between the technology owners and technology transferees is absent, only the transfer level which focuses on machines and equipment than knowledge transfer, is present (Miller et al, 2011). Numerous R&D transfers have not been successful because the nature of innovation itself, which is uncertain and difficult to predict, especially so for radical innovation (Herath & Bremser, 2005).…”