The Human Side of Technology Transfer a Viewpoint

Abstract

It is argued that, despite evidence that technology transfer may not happen or may happen in unforeseen ways, exponents behave as if innovation will automancally occur and proceed without much further involvement by them with potential adopters. However, innovation implies change, which is not usually easy. Diffusion studies show that innovative products or ideas have to compete with what already exists and that there is a diversity of attitudes towards them. Consideration of failures often shows that the attitudes of people who are expected to change have been inadequately considered. The A VICTORY mnemonic provides a much better framework for understanding decisions people make. Apart from their perceptions often being different from those of the experts, people often work in an organisation or system which prevents knowledge being utilised or change being implemented. To improve the success rate of technology transfer, a well planned psychological operation is needed, based on studies of what persuades people of their need to change, and involving them at all stages of development of the new product or idea.

Diffusion of a campus innovation: Integration of a new student dispute resolution center into the University culture

“…Innovations frequently carry status rewards that increase their perceived value and speed their adoption (for example, technological advances; see Kimberly and Evanisko, 1981;Rogers, 1983). The rewards to be gained from innovations that are social or preventive in nature, however, are not immediate and therefore not as readily perceived; these innova;ions experience a longer time lag for adoption (Cobern, Porter, Leeming, and Dwyer, 1995;Geller, Kalsher, Rudd, and Lehman, 1989;Gregory, 1994).…”

“…Researchers who have studied the introduction of quality improvement programs have noted that they are often unsuccessful because they require radical changes in basic philosophies (Lewis and Seibold, 1996). This is especially likely to happen when the values of the innovator or management are different from those of the target (Damanpour, 1991;Gregory, 1994;Hage and Dewar, 1973;Kimberly, 1979). This is important, as the goals and values of administration and faculty are not always aligned with those of students, providing a good argument for consulting students before making the decision to implement a DRC (Willett, 1998).…”