2 The Innovation Process Understanding the innovation process is essential to establishing strategies for technology transfer. This chapter begins by briefly describing the innovation process in the highway industry on the basis of a traditional linear model. This model is then revised to illustrate the dynamic nature of the process by including several communication and other linkages involving individuals, groups, and organizations. Finally, the discussion focuses on technology transfer and the adoption of innovations, the relationship between the two, and their role in the innovation process. The development of models based on stages or activities of a process is a familiar mechanism for bringing order to and better understanding the process. Traditionally, linear models have been used to model innovation (Kline and Rosenburg 1986).
![Processes Processes](https://reader009.staticloud.net/reader009/html5/20181031/575029561a28ab877ec73ae9/bg1.png)
The study of technological innovation is a diverse and growing field. Terminology and theories describing the factors influencing the production and application of new technology differ among observers and researchers in the field, and few studies specific to building technology have been made. Savitz Garrett Processing Division Allied-Signal Aerospace. Louis Tornatzky Director, Southern Technology. This report examines the processes of innova-tion and commercialization with an eye toward developing a more complete understanding of the multiple pathways linking new.
Presents such a model, used to describe the sequence of events from research idea to implementation of the research product in the highway industry (Kulash 1997). This model, representing the point of view of the source or production of technology, comprises seven stages. Research and develop. Ment (R&D) usually ends within Stage 4; technology transfer typically focuses on the activities within Stages 5 through 7. While the traditional linear model is a helpful beginning and highlights some of the major steps involved, it misrepresents the innovation process by depicting it as smooth and well behaved (Kline and Rosenburg 1986). A linear model of innovation is inherently limited because the process is not quite so simple.
A linear model cannot describe the differences, relationships, and interdependencies among stages; the large number of participants involved; or the full array of activities required to achieve implementation. Consequently, such a model is inadequate for establishing strategies and providing guidance for the management of a technology transfer program. Presents a revised model of the innovation process that incorporates additional details reflecting characteristics of the highway industry. For example, once an idea has evolved into a research product, the product is available for use by state and local highway agencies.
The revised model includes stages associated with specification and procurement obstacles, the contractors (and others) who will be asked to adopt and adapt to the innovation, and the specific project applications that will yield the benefits of use of the product. The model portrays these stages in both the vertical and horizontal dimensions to represent an innovation process that moves forward (horizontally) in time, as well as upward (vertically) to overcome resistance or barriers. Included in are some of the feedback loops and input channels that. Tornatzky et al. (1990) suggest that the stages of innovation should be defined not as steps on a stairway, but as rooms connected by a large number of doors.
Participants in the innovation process often provide new technologies, important feedback on implementation experience, new ideas for additional research, and assistance in fostering more widespread application. Some play multiple roles in research and implementation. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER As noted previously, technology transfer has been defined as the movement of technological and technology-related organizational know-how among partners. Technology transfer activities are aimed at (1) identifying innovative technologies available for use in the highway industry immediately or after some adaptation; (2) selecting and prioritizing technologies to be promoted to the highway industry; (3) determining, developing, and applying effective technology transfer methods to promote the technologies; and (4) continually modifying the technology transfer process in accordance with feedback on which technologies and which methods of technology transfer have been successful. Although the purpose of technology transfer in the private sector is to “enhance at least one partner’s knowledge and expertise and strengthen each partner’s competitive position” (NAE 1997, 2), public-sector technology transfer focuses on getting technology known and implemented. Howitt and Kobayashi (1986) suggest that technology transfer consists of complex relationships among organizations, with participants having significant interests at stake and perceiving varying incentives for becoming involved in technology transfer and implementation activities. Like the innovation process, technology transfer is usually iterative, involving many individual steps.
Technology transfer can begin when users describe specific needs to researchers or developers of technology. The process includes all the activities of the researchers, technology users, and technology transfer staff that lead to the adoption of new or different products or procedures (TRB 1998).
Technology transfer can occur through informal interactions between individuals; formal consulting agreements; publications; workshops, personnel exchanges, and joint projects involving groups of experts from different organizations; and more readily measured activities such as patenting, copyright licensing, and contract research (NAE 1997). The above definition of technology transfer encompasses both direct and indirect forms. Direct or active technology transfer is linked to. Specific technologies or ideas and to more visible channels, such as cooperative research projects or partnering agreements. Indirect or passive technology transfer involves the exchange of knowledge through such activities as informal meetings, publications, workshops, and conferences. In the early stages of the technology life cycle, indirect technology transfer predominates, so it is often difficult to trace the origins of specific technologies or ideas.
Nevertheless, a robust innovation process benefits from inputs and feedback from many sources. Public agencies are particularly reliant on technology transfer programs for several reasons. The large volume of R&D under way and the dispersion of R&D agencies serve as deterrents to anyone seeking useful technical information, especially public agencies with limited financial resources and personnel. Few research products are self-executing, so users must rely on outside experts to understand how to adopt the new products effectively. Potential users need information on the limitations and capabilities of research products to avoid wasting time and resources in attempting to fit a technology to an incompatible use. Technologies that are particularly sophisticated, different from those currently used, or costly to adopt may require adaptation before being employed in specific applications or may necessitate considerable accommodation by the users (Lemer and Tornatzky 1991).
Without technology transfer programs, local public agencies would find it difficult to make decisions about new technologies (Bikson et al. Local agencies are often hindered by limited knowledge of innovative new technologies, a lack of funds for initiating programs involving such technologies, and limited technical expertise to assist in implementation ( Jacobs and Weimer 1986). Professional and trade journals provide information, but technical details are often lacking. Moreover, “unlike their private counterparts, public managers cannot look to the profitability of competitors as an indication of successful innovation, and they are not punished in the marketplace for failing to adopt the most efficient technologies” ( Jacobs and Weimer 1986, 139).
As a consequence, technologies can be available for many years and widely adopted while they continue to be implemented for the first time by some local agencies. (See also.) Any improvement over existing technologies or processes, not necessarily a chronologically recent innovation, is new to the implementing agency (Schmitt et al.
INNOVATION ADOPTION Studies of innovation adoption indicate that it involves several phases for both individuals and agencies (Rogers 1962) (see ). Each of these phases benefits from technology transfer activity. During the initial awareness phase, potential users observe an innovation or new technology and decide whether to seek more information about it. In the next phase, attitude formation and persuasion, the potential user actively seeks more information and forms some initial impressions.
The appropriateness of the innovation for the user’s situation is then assessed, and an adoption decision is made. In the final phase, the user continues to seek information to confirm acceptance or rejection of the innovation. Illustrates these phases relative to time and user involvement. Another aspect of innovation adoption is important to technology transfer. Adoption of new technologies by implementing agencies varies over time. Some technologies are adopted quickly, while others never exhibit more than a slow rate of adoption.
Although the concept of. Table 2-1 Phases in the Innovation Adoption Process Phase Description of User Involvement Phases Awareness A potential user first observes an innovation or new technology and gains some understanding of how it functions. Such awareness may be entirely passive; lacking complete information, the potential user may not yet be motivated to seek further information. Attitude Formation and Persuasion The potential user becomes interested in the innovation and actively seeks additional information in order to form some attitude toward it.
Trial and Decision The innovation is assessed, and an adoption decision made. A trial period may ensue.
Performance is one of the decision factors. Confirmation The potential user continues to seek information to confirm the adoption decision made.
A decision can be reversed if there is conflicting information. Figure 2-3 S-curve illustrating involvement of individuals at differ ent stages of the innovation adoption process (Rogers 1962). Adoption rates is widely accepted, data are scarce for comparison purposes, especially for public-sector technologies. Moreover, at some point, demand for specific technologies tapers off; sometimes a new technology is overtaken by a more recent innovation (Feller 1981). As a result, there is a point at which technology transfer activity can be scaled back or dropped because further activity would be unproductive. In most cases, moving technology from the research environment to an operating environment involves considerable technology transfer effort and resources.
The effort goes beyond information dissemination and exchange to encompass technical assistance and user training (EPA 1991). Successful technology transfer programs depend on effectively segmenting user audiences, and tailoring strategies to those audiences and to different stages of the technology development. ABBREVIATIONS EPA Environmental Protection Agency NAE National Academy of Engineering TRB Transportation Research Board Bikson, T. Markovich, and B.
Facilitating the Implementation of Research Findings: A Summary Report. NCHRP Report 382, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 24 pp.
Innovative Technology Transfer Workbook: Planning, Process, Practice; Draft Version 1. Prepared by Technical Resources, Inc., Washington, D.C., Aug. The Diffusion and Utilization of Scientific and Technological Knowledge in State and Local Governments.
131–150 in Technology Transfer by State and Local Governments (S. Doctor, ed.). Cambridge, Mass., Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain. Howitt, A., and R. Organizational Incentives in Technical Assistance Relationships. 119–136 in Perspectives on Management Capacity Building (B.
Honadle and A. Howitt, eds.).
State University of New York Press. Jacobs, B., and D. Inducing Capacity Building: The Role of the External Change Agent. 139–162 in Perspectives on Management Capacity Building (B.
Honadle and A. Howitt, eds.). State University of New York Press. An Overview of Innovation. 275–305 in The Positive Sum Strategy (R.
Landau and N. Rosenburg, eds.). NAE, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Improving the Effectiveness of Highway Research: Reflections from the SHRP Experience.
188, Jan.–Feb., pp. Lemer, A., and L.
Processes of Technological Innovation. Appendix B in The Role of Public Agencies in Fostering New Technology and Innovation in Building. Committee on New Technology and Innovation in Building.
Building Research Board, National Research Council, Washing-ton, D.C. Technology Transfer Systems in the United States and Germany. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press of Glencoe, New York. Beimborn, and M. Technology Transfer Primer. FHWA-TS-84-226, University of Wisconsin, July. Tornatzky, L. Eveland, and M.
Technological Innovation: Definitions and Perspectives. 9–26 in The Processes of Technological Innovation (L. Tornatzky and M. Fleischer, eds.).
Lexington Books, Boston, Mass. Transportation Research Circular 488: Transportation Technology Transfer—A Primer on the State of the Practice. National Research Council, Washington, D.C., May. Contents. i–xii. 1–10. 11–15.
16–25. 26–40. 41–70.
71–81. 82–84.
85–87. 88–92. 93–100. 101–108. Welcome to OpenBook!
You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website. Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?. Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one. Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.
Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text. To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter. Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email. View our suggested citation for this chapter. Ready to take your reading offline?
Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.
Article citations L. Tornatzky and M. Fleischer, “The Processes of Technological Innovation,” Lexington Books, Lexington, 1990. Has been cited by the following article:.
TITLE: AUTHORS:, KEYWORDS:, JOURNAL NAME:, June 16, 2011 ABSTRACT: Information technologies (IT) have become one of the most important infrastructural elements for SMEs in service in-dustries. Now, these firms show specific characteristics and behaviours with regard to adopting and assimilating IT.
These specificities have not been taken into account however in formulating a research framework or programme on the adoption and assimilation of IT in service SMEs. The present study thus seeks to fill this void. After reviewing the literature on IT in the services sector, the antecedents of IT adoption and assimilation in the context of service SMEs are identified and integrated within a research framework.
This framework is then applied to generate a set of twenty-two salient propositions for future research on IT adoption and assimilation in service sector SMEs.