Critical Role of Intermediaries on Technology Transfer: Case Study of BIOTROP and Center for Mariculture Development of Lampung
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12695/jmt.2017.16.1.3Keywords:
technology transfer, technology adoption, tissue culture, seaweed, intermediaryAbstract
Abstract. Relationship among technology generator and technology user is one of factors determining successful technology transfer, but the existence of intermediaries is proven to enhance the absorptive capacity of technology user, especially in rural areas. Government can enact as intermediary by supporting the relationship generator-user, which is commonly found in agriculture and fishery sectors. The aim of this study is to demonstrate how government can support technology transfer from academic institution to rural industry. Using case study method, this study focused on the critical role of Center for Mariculture Development of Lampung (CMDL) which acts as an intermediary of technology transfer process from Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization- Southeast Asian Regional Center for Tropical Biology (SEAMEO-BIOTROP) to seaweed farmers. This study shows that intermediary agent plays an important role in articulating demand from technology user to technology generator, creating network between adopter-generator, and providing resources (fund, technician, industrial-scale laboratory) for technology commercialization. Intermediary with strong commitment to deliver technology to society is highly needed in successful technology transfer.
Keywords: technology transfer, technology adoption, tissue culture, seaweed, intermediary
Abstrak. Hubungan antara penghasil dan pengguna teknologi merupakan salah satu faktor yang menentukan keberhasilan transfer teknologi, tetapi keberadaan lembaga perantara telah dibuktikan mampu meningkatkan kapasitas absorbsi pengguna teknologi, terutama di daerah pedesaan. Pemerintah dapat berperan sebagai perantara antara penghasil dan pengguna teknologi, seperti yang umum ditemukan di sektor pertanian dan perikanan. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk menunjukkan bagaimana pemerintah dapat mendukung transfer teknologi dari lembaga akademis ke industri pedesaan. Menggunakan metode studi kasus, penelitian ini fokus pada peranan vital Balai Besar Pengembangan Budidaya Laut (BBPBL) Lampung sebagai perantara proses transfer teknologi dari Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization- Southeast Asian Regional Center for Tropical Biology (SEAMEO-BIOTROP) ke pembudidaya rumput laut. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa agen perantara memainkan peranan penting dalam menerjemahkan permintaan dari pengguna teknologi ke penghasil teknologi, membangun jaringan antara pengguna-penghasil teknologi, dan menyediakan sumberdaya (dana, teknisi, laboratorium skala industri) untuk komersialisasi teknologi. Perantara dengan komitmen kuat untuk mengantarkan teknologi ke masyarakat sangat dibutuhkan untuk keberhasilan transfer teknologi.
Katakunci: transfer teknologi, adopsi teknologi, kultur jaringan, rumput laut, perantara
Â
Downloads
References
Bauer, S. M., & J. L. Flagg. (2010). Technology Transfer and Technology Transfer Intermediaries. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer, Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1.
Beddington, A., & Farrington, J. (2007). Governments, NGOs and agricultural development: perspectives on changing inter-organisational relationships. Journal of Development Studies 29(2) , 199–219.
Boardman, P. C. (2009). Government centrality to university–industry interactions: University research centers and the industry involvement of academic researchers. Research Policy 38 , 1505–1516.
Caldera, A., & Debande, O. (2010). Performance of Spanish universities in technology transfer: An empirical analysis. Research Policy 39 , 1160-1173.
Dardak, R. A., & Adham, K. A. (2014). Transferring Agricultural Technology from Government Research Institution to Private Firms in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 115 , 346 – 360.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry 12(2), 219-245.
Fontes, M. (2001). Biotechnology entrepreneurs and technology transfer in an intermediate economy. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change Vol. 66(1) , 59-74.
Giuliani, E., Morrison, A., & Pietrobelli, C. (n.d.). Who are the researchers that are collaborating with industry? An analysis of the wine sectors in Chile, South Africa and Italy. Research Policy (Article in press) , 2010.
Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy 35, 715–728.
Hsu, D. W., Shen, Y. C., Yuan, B. J., & Chou, C. J. (2015). Toward succesful commercialization of university technology: Performance drivers of university technology transfer in Taiwan. Technological Forecawsting & Social Change 92 , 25-39.
III, W. J., Gray, V. W., Jackson, B., & Steele, L. C. (1993). A systems approach to the commercialization of space communications technology: The NASA/JPL Mobile Satellite Program. Acta Astronautica Vol. 29 , 567-575.
Klerkx, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2009). Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 76, 849–860
Kucuksayrac, E., D. Kskin, H. B. (2015). Intermediaries and innovation support in the design for sustainability field: cases from the Netherlands, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Journal of Cleaner Production 101, 38-48.
Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: 'Gold', 'ribbon' or 'puzzle'? Research Policy 40 , 1354-1368.
Nelson, A. J. (2014). From the ivory tower to the startup garage: Organizational context and commercialization processes. Research Policy , 1144-1156.
O'Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy 34 , 994-1009.
Ponomariov, B. L. (2008). Effects of university characteristics on scientists’ interactions with the private sector: an exploratory assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer 33 , 485-503.
Reece, J. D., & Sumberg, J. D. (2003). More clients, less resources: toward a new conceptual framework for agricultural research in marginal areas. Technovation 23(5) , 409–421.
Santoro, M. D., & Chakrabarti, A. K. (2002). Firm size and technology centrality in industry–university interactions. Research Policy 31 , 1163-1180.
Theodorakopoulos, N., Deycy, J., Sanchez, P., & Bennett, D. (2012). Transferring technology from university to rural industry within a developing economy context: The case for nurturing communities of practice. Technovation 32 , 550–559.
Van Lente, H., M. Hekkert, R. Smits, & B. Van Waveren. (2003). Roles of Systemic Intermediaries in Transition Processes. International Journal of Innovation Management 7(3), 1–33
Van Rijnsoever, F. J., Berg, J. v., Koch, J., & Hekkert, M. P. (2015). Smart innovation policy: How network position and project composition affect the diversity of an emerging technology. Research Policy 44 , 1094-1107.
Wu, Y., Welch, E. W., & Huang, W.-L. (2015). Commercialization of university inventions: Individual and institutional factors affecting licensing of university patents. Technovation 36-37 , 12-25.
Downloads
Submitted
Accepted
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Copyright @2023. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial used, distribution and reproduction in any medium.
