The process of technology transfer in the Ahmedabad textile Industry

Abstract

By studying the transfer of technology from ATIRA to its users, it was hoped that some insights could be gained regarding international transfer of technology (in India) and directions for further work emerge. There would be some direct gains to ATIRA and its users, and knowledge added to that existing on intra-national transfer. The Literature survey revealed that technology transfer was not as rational, or unidirectional, as assumed. Furthermore previous works had not studied transfer as a process not had they looked at all the systems (or the environment) that might affect it. The thrust of this study, then, was to uncover relevant variables that might influence the transfer process and to highlight possible directions of influence. A study of the Government environment (based on the Draft Science & Technology Plan) showed how it influenced the nature of technology being generated. Using publications and interviews, a profile of ATIRA (1947 to 1975) was drawn. It showed how ATIRA’s focus changed, in response to the environment, towards research that ended in use. The period March, 1971 to march, 1975 was studied in detail. Since transfer was a process, four “cases” of technology transfer were investigated in depth by interviewing respondents of ATIRA and of user and non-user organizations. The technologies chosen for investigation differed in their nature, readiness to use, success of transfer and the targets aimed at. Analyses revealed 9 important areas:- (1) origin of the technology (foreign, literature, mills, etc). (2) Location in Technology Source (in which subsystem of the source it was mitiated). (3) User characteristics (awareness, need, facilities, skills, etc). (4) Linkage between source and user (frequency, timing, and nature of communication). (5) Characteristics of the Technology (Risks, Impacts, Pay-offs). (6) Pre-planning (Source and user anticipation of requirements/possible effects). (7) Environment (Govt; and “immediate” viz. labour, power, market, etc). (8) Contract (fair, prohibitive, etc), and (9) Perceptions (how source and users view each other). These tentative findings were shared at a seminar and suggestions from ATIRA, User, and IIMA members. Four interview schedules were constructed to probe the above areas. They covered six processes and five products transferred my AITRA, users, and potential user organizations were interviewed, the date analysed and hypotheses listed. The insight that emerged was studied to see what implications they had for the transfer process (in terms of the 9 areas). Some of the important implications are briefly given below: (1) Technologies that originated in users’ realities were more easily transferred. (2) R & D teams that had top management support, and continuity, produced more usable technology. (3) Successful transfer required a matching between technology and user characteristics (technical and managerial). (4) Initial contact of the user by the source required to be tailor-made. (5) Technologies that increased quality/offered new markets were more acceptable. (6) Finance was not a barrier to transfer. (7) Estimations of time cost and use prior to R & D facilitated transfer. (8) Government environment influenced transfer but not the “immediate” environment. (9) Contracts could not be used to facilitate transfer. (10) Source would have to break out of its narrowly defined “technical” role (to include market research and technological forecasting) for successful transfer. Two models were constructed to depict the variables highlighted and the possible nature of their influences – a contextual model, and a process model of technology transfer. Directions for future research were suggested and specific recommendations made to the source.