Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Technology Transfer Systems i n the U n ited States and Germany Lessons and Perspectives H. NORMAN ABRAMSON, JOSE ENCARNA~CAO, PROCTOR P. REID, AND ULRICH SCHMOCH, EDITORS Binationa/ Pane/ on Technology Transfer Systems in the United States and Germany FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTE FOR SYSTEMS AND INNOVATION RESEARCH NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1 997

OCR for page R1
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20418 NOTICE: The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sci- ences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and re- search, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Fraunhofer Society was established in 1949 and obtained its present semipublic status of a federal research institution with the mission of applied research in 1973. Most of its nearly 50 insti- tutes conduct research in various areas of technology. A considerable share of this work is contract research for industry. The Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, which is re- sponsible for this study, is active in the interdisciplinary field of technology, economy, and politics. It often works for the German government as an advisory body. Professor Dr.-Ing. H.-J. Warnecke is president of the Fraunhofer Society. This report is the result of work conducted by an independent panel appointed by the Council of the National Academy of Engineering and the President of the Fraunhofer Society. The panel members responsible for the report were chosen for their expertise, with regard for appropriate balance. Parts I and II of this publication have been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a National Academy of Engineering report review process. Parts I and III have been reviewed by various external experts and internally by the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research. Funding for this effort was provided by the German-American Academic Council Foundation. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data International Standard Book Number 0-309-5530-X Copyright ~ 1997 by the National Academy of Sciences No part of this book may be reproduced by any mechanical, photographic, or electronic procedure, or in the form of a phonographic recording, nor may it be stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, or otherwise copied for public or private use, without written permission from the publishers, except for the purpose of official use by the United States government. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
BINATIONAL PANEL ON TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY German Panel PROF. DR. JOSE ENCARNA~CAO, Chair, Director, Fraunhofer-Institut fur Graphische, Datenverarbeitung, Darmstadt PROF. DR. OTTO H. SCHIELE, Former President, Arbeitsgemeinschaft industrieller, Forschungseinrichtungen (AiF), Koln DR. GERHARD SELMAYR, Chancellor, Universitat Karlsruhe DR. SIGMAR KLOSE, Senior Vice President, Program Management New Systems Technologies, Boehringer Mannheim GmbH DR. KNUT MERTEN, Former President and CEO, Siemens Corporate Research, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey; Director and Head of Department, Siemens AG, Central Department "Technology", Munchen PROF. DR. PETER C. LOCKEMANN, Director, Forschungszentrum Informatik, Karlsruhe .. PROF. DR. BERND HOFFLINGER, Director, Institut fur Mikroelektronik (IMS), Stuttgart PROF. DR. PETER H. HOFSCHNEIDER, Director, Max-Planck-Institut fur Biochemie, Martinsried DR.-ING. HERBERT GASSERT, Member of Science Council (Wissenschaftsrat), Koln; Former Executive President of BBC and Member of the Supervisory Board of ABB, Mannheim; President of German Federation of Technical-Scientific Associations (DVT) U.S. Panel DR. H. NORMAN ABRAMSON, Chair, Retired Executive Vice President, Southwest Research Institute DR. ALEXANDER H. FLAX, Former Senior Fellow, National Academy of ~ . ~nglneenng DR. ROBERT C. FORNEY, Retired Executive Vice President, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company DR. DAVID A. HODGES, Daniel M. Tellep Distinguished Professor of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley DR. ARTHUR E. HUMPHREY, Professor of Chemical Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University DR. WILLIAM F. MILLER, Herbert Hoover Professor of Public and Private Management and Professor of Computer Science Emeritus, Stanford University DR. ALBERT NARATH, President, Energy and Environment Sector, Lockheed Martin Corporation DR. WALTER L. ROBB, President, Vantage Management, Inc. DR. WILLIAM J. SPENCER, Chairman and CEO, SEMATECH . . .

OCR for page R1
Staff of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Karlsruhe (FhG-ISI) DR. ULRICH SCHMOCH, Study Director, Senior Scientist RAINER BIERHALS, Senior Scientist VIOLA PETER, Scientist RENATE KLEIN, Administrative Assistant Staff of the National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C. (NAE) DR. PROCTOR P. REID, Study Director, Associate Director, NAE Program Office PENELOPE J. GIBBS, Administrative Assistant SIMON GLYNN, Research Associate GREG PEARSON, Editor V

OCR for page R1
Preface Increasingly, the value of science and engineering research to society is mea- sured by how readily research results are translated into useful products and ser- vices. Fundamental to this process is technology transfer, which has been the subject of growing public discourse since the early 1980s and is now more than ever a focal point of policy interest. This renewed attention to technology trans- fer is occurring at a time when expanding international markets, global competi- tion, and other pressures are forcing companies to rationalize or reengineer their operations, often in the face of increasingly constrained resources. The following consensus study, prepared by a binational panel of Ger- man and American experts, documents the significance of effective technology transfer to industrial competitiveness in a global economy. The study's findings make clear that it is no longer appropriate to view technology transfer as a simple one-way transfer from research performer to technology user of processed knowledge and finished concepts. Rather, technology transfer should be under- stood as a mutual, multidirectional exchange comprising many different forms and mechanisms within and between nonindustrial research institutions and industry. This comparison of the origins framing conditions . i] ---rat ---I----, ----------I, - ---~_-____, nstruments, and re- cent development of the German and American technology transfer systems re- veals strengths and weaknesses in both countries. It also offers a starting point from which each nation can pursue new paths toward strengthening economic and technological performance, as well as cultivate more intensive, mutually advantageous international collaboration in technology transfer. The binational study panel, comprising experts from 18 scientific and technological institutions and enterprises in Germany and the United States, has articulated important, v

OCR for page R1
v! PREFACE well-founded recommendations for improving and further developing the Ger- man and American technology transfer systems. I am confident that these rec- ommendations will be given serious consideration by scientific, economic, and public policy communities on both sides of the Atlantic. Furthermore, the study speaks to several interesting possibilities for further dialogue between experts in both countries. On behalf of the German-American Academic Council, I would like to thank the cochairmen, H. Norman Abramson and Jose Encarna~cao, and their colleagues on the binational panel for their considerable efforts on this project. I would also like to thank the staff of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering and the Ger- man Fraunhofer Institute for Systems Innovation Research who worked on the project, in particular the co-directors for the study, Proctor P. Reid and Ulrich Schmoch. PROF. DR. HEINZ RIESENHUBER President, German-American Academic Council Foundation

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgments This study has three parts: an overview and comparative report (Part I), a U.S. country report (Part II), and a German country report (Part III). These three reports were prepared by staff of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and the German Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (FhG-ISI) based on contributions of members of the binational panel, commis- sioned papers, and staff research. The findings and joint recommendations in Part I represent the consensus of the full binational panel. Part I also includes country-specific recommendations for which each of the respective national del- egations to the binational panel is solely responsible. Each national delegation was responsible for developing, reviewing, and finalizing its country report. Each delegation's review of its national technology transfer system was greatly en- riched by the insightful questions and comments of members of its counterpart delegation. The editors would like to thank all members of the binational panel for their considerable efforts on this study. They would also like to thank FhG-ISI re- search staff members Rainer Bierhals and Viola Peter, and NAE researcher Simon Glynn for their valuable contributions to the two country reports. Renate Klein and Penelope Gibbs provided critical administrative and logistical support. Greg Pearson, the NAE editor, greatly improved the style and logical structure of the report and helped prepare it for publication. Finally, the editors would like to express their appreciation to the German- American Academic Council for its generous financial support of the project. vii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Contents PART I: OVERVIEW AND COMPARISON 1 INTRODUCTION Understanding Technology Transfer, 2 Factors Shaping National Technology Transfer Systems, 3 THE GERMAN AND U.S. R&D SYSTEMS Major Similarities, 4 Major Differences, 5 COMPARISON OF MAJOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER INSTITUTIONS 9 Functional Similarities: An Overview, 9 Technology Transfer from Higher Education Institutions, 11 Technology Transfer from Government Laboratories, 20 Technology Transfer from Contract Research Institutes, 25 Technology Transfer by Industrial R&D Consortia, 27 SELECTED TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ISSUES IN A COMPARATIVE CONTEXT Role of Start-Up Companies in Technology Transfer, 29 Technology Transfer to Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Technologically Mature Industries, 30 Intellectual Property Rights and Technology Transfer to Industry, 32 International R&D Collaboration and Technology Transfer, 34 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Conclusions and Challenges, 35 Recommendations, 41 Joint German-U.S. Recommendations for Fostering Transatlantic Collaboration in R&D and Technology Transfer, 48 Ax 2 3 29 35

OCR for page R1
x Annex I: Suggestions for Transatlantic/International Collaborative Projects TRANSATLANTIC COOPERATIVE COMPUTER APPLICATIONS OVER GLOBAL NETWORKS SUGGESTED DEVELOPMENT OF A TRANSATLANTIC NETWORK OF INFORMATION ANALYSIS CENTERS COLLABORATION AMONG GERMAN AND U.S. INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATIONS PART II: TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN THE UNITED STATES INTRODUCTION THE R&D ENTERPRISE R&D Funders and Performers, 63 Distribution of Publicly Funded R&D, 70 The Industrial R&D Enterprise, 79 Technology Transfer to U.S. Industry in Context, 90 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FROM HIGHER EDUCATION TO INDUSTRY Distinguishing Characteristics of the Enterprise, 91 History of University-Industry Relations, 96 Technology Transfer by Research Universities and Colleges, 99 U.S. FEDERAL LABORATORIES AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER TO INDUSTRY Overview, 124 Federal Laboratories by Major Mission Area, 126 Federal Laboratories and Technology Transfer: History and Legislation, 133 The Federal Laboratories and Technology Transfer: Mechanisms, 135 Measuring the Performance of Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer, 144 The Future of Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer, 147 Conclusions, 149 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER BY PRIVATELY HELD, NONACADEMIC ORGANIZATIONS Overview, 151 Organizations That Create and Transfer Technology, 152 Organizations That Transfer or Facilitate the Transfer of Technology Created by Others, 162 Conclusion, 174 Annex II: Case Studies in Technology Transfer BIOTECHNOLOGY Simon Glynn and Arthur E. Humphrey CONTENTS 53 53 54 55 61 62 62 91 124 151 177 177

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS THE DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER OF MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES TO U.S. COMPANIES Robert K Carr MICROELECTRONICS Simon Glynn and William J. Spencer SOFTWARE Simon Glynn ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE: THE BOILER TUBE FAILURE REDUCTION PROGRAM Jim Oggerino PART III: TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN GERMANY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION THE GERMAN R&D ENTERPRISE General Structures, 246 Industrial R&D Structures, 250 Impact of European Research, 263 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FROM UNIVERSITIES Universities, 272 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FROM PUBLIC INTERMEDIATE R&D INSTITUTIONS Max Planck Society, 302 Helmholtz Centers, 312 Blue List Institutes and Departmental Research Institutes, 319 Fraunhofer Society, 320 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER BY INDUSTRIAL R&D CONSORTIA Federation of Industrial Research Associations, 332 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN SELECTED AREAS Technology Transfer in Information Technology, 341 Technology Transfer in Microelectronics, 342 Technology Transfer in Biotechnology, 343 Technology Transfer in Production Technology, 345 CONCLUSION: AN ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN GERMANY Annex III: Examples of Technology Transfer in Germany GTS-GRAL: TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FROM UNIVERSITY TO A NEW TECHNOLOGY-BASED FIRM G.E. Pfaff CO2 DYEING PROCESS: INDUSTRIAL COOPERATIVE RESEARCH Eckhard Schollmeyer x~ 194 214 225 238 241 242 245 246 272 302 332 341 346 349 349 351

OCR for page R1
xt! PRODUCTION AUTOMATION: TRANSFER FROM A FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTE TO INDUSTRY M. Hagele MEDIGENE: ESTABLISHMENT OF A START-UP COMPANY IN BIOTECHNOLOGY Peter Heinrich TECHNOLOGY LICENSING BUREAU (TLB) OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN BADEN-WUR1Y7EMBERG Thomas Ge ring APPENDIXES Notes References Biographical Information for the Binational Panel Index CONTENTS 352 353 354 361 363 381 400 409

OCR for page R1
Figures and Tables FIGURES German and U.S. industry R&D expenditures, percentage by industrial sector, 1973, 1983, 1993, 7 2.1 International total R&D expenditures, 1994, 63 2.2 Total and nondefense R&D spending as a percentage of GDP, by country, 64 2.3 National R&D expenditures, by performing sector and sources of funds, 65 2.4 National R&D expenditures, by performing sector, sector of funds, and character of work, 1995, 68 2.5 Federal obligations, by agency and type of activity, 1995, 74 2.6 Federal obligations for basic and applied research, by field, 75 2.7 U.S. industrial R&D spending, by sector, 1973, 1983, and 1993, 81 2.8 Number of new strategic technology alliances, by industry and region, 83 2.9 R&D spending by U.S. affiliates of foreign-owned firms as a percentage of all privately funded U.S. R&D, 1982-1994, 85 2.10 Distribution of U.S. scientific and technical articles, by sector, 1993, 100 2.11 University patents by broad fields, 108 2.12 All U.S. patents by broad fields, 109 2.13 UIRC foundings by decade, 1880-1989, for UIRCs existing in 1990, 111 2.14 Federal R&D funds by selected categories of performers, estimated values for fiscal year 1994, 126 2.15 Federal laboratory licensing activity, 1987-1994, 136 2.16 Active CRADAs at federal laboratories, 1987-1994, 137 2.17 New research joint venture announcements, 160 A-1 Allocation of R&D funds for different industries: product vs. process development, fiscal year 1994, 197 . . . x~

OCR for page R1
xlv 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 FIGURES AND TABLES MEP appropriations, including 1995 recision and 1996 continuing resolution, 208 Equivalent availability loss due to boiler tube failure, 1985-1992, 240 Organization chart of the German R&D system, 247 Main it&D-performing institutions in Germany, expenditures in billion 1995 DM, 249 Specialization index of European Patent Office (EPO) patents of German origin in relation to the average distribution at the EPO for the period 1989 to 1991, 251 Specialization index of European Patent Office (EPO) patents of U.S. Origin in relation to the average distribution at the EPO for the period 1989 to 1991, 253 Partners of SMEs in R&D and technology-related activities, by percent, 255 Participation structure in the Second Framework Program, by country, 1987-1991, 265 R&D expenditures of Germany (1992-1993) and the EU by sections of the Third Framework Program, 266 Number of participants in the Second Framework Program, by country, 1987-1991, 267 Volume of research conducted in areas of technology, as a percentage of total EUREKA financing, status as of 1995, 268 3.10 Number of EUREKA projects, including those with German participation, according to technology, status as of 1995, 269 3.11 Involvement of EUREKA participants by major organization type, status as of 1995, 269 3.12 Financing sources for JESSI, 1989-1996, 270 3.13 Program structures of JESSI, 271 3.14 Research funds of German universities in constant 1980 DM, 275 3.15 Distribution of research funds at universities, according to major areas, 1993, 277 3.16 External research funds of universities, according to major sources, 1980, 1985, 1990, 278 3.17 Relation of external, related infrastructure, and institutional base R&D funds of universities in selected areas in 1990 in current DM, 281 3.18 External funds from industry at the University of Karlsruhe, for selected areas, 1980 and 1990, in constant 1980 DM, 282 3.19 Patent applications to the German Patent Office by German university professors, 301 3.20 Specialization of German Patent Office patents of German university professors, in relation to the average distribution at the EPO for the period 1989 to 1992, 303 3.21 Max Planck institutes' expenditures in main supported areas, percent of total, 305

OCR for page R1
FIGURES AND TABLES Budget structure of 30 consolidated Fraunhofer institutes in West Germany, 323 3.23 Industry-oriented activities of 30 consolidated Fraunhofer institutes in West Germany, 1994, 324 3.24 Budget structure of 30 consolidated Fraunhofer institutes in West Germany, by research area, in 1994, 325 3.25 Typical division of labor between Fraunhofer institutes and industry, 326 3.26 Share of FhG industrial contracts, according to research area, 327 3.27 Specialization of German Patent Office patents held by the FhG in relation to the average distribution at the EPO for the period 1989 tol992, 331 3.28 Evaluation steps for publicly funded projects involving industrial cooperative research, 336 3.29 Public andindustrial funds for cooperative research, 1986-1993, in constant 1980 DM, 337 3.30 Volume of public funds and industrial funds spent on cooperative research, 339 xv TABLES 1.3 1.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 German and U.S. R&D Expenditures, Percentage by Source of Funds and Performing Sector, 1994, 4 The Relative Scale of the German and U.S. Technology Transfer Systems in Context, 5 Distribution of Government R&D Budget Appropriations in the United States and Germany, by Socioeconomic Objective, 1994, 8 Functional Similarities Between Research Institutions in the United States and Germany, 11 Support for German and U.S. Academic R&D, Percentage Share by Contributing Sector, 1994, 13 Research Expenditures at Universities in the United States and Germany, Percentage by Disciplinary Field, 1993, 14 2.1 U.S. Expenditures, by Performing Sector and Source of Funds, 1995, 66 2.2 Support for U.S. Academic R&D, Percent Shares by Sector, 69 2.3 U.S. Defense-Related R&D, Various Comparisons, 71 2.4 Distribution of Government R&D Appropriations by Socioeconomic Objective in the United States, 1987 and 1994, 73 Federal and State Government Investment in Cooperative Technology Activities, by Type of Program, Fiscal Year 1994, 78 High-Tech Companies Formed in the United States, 1960-1994, 86 Top 20 Most-Emphasized U.S. Patent Classes for Inventors from the United States and Germany, 1993, 89 Industry-Sponsored Research as a Share of Total Academic Research Expenditures at the Top 20 Research Universities, Fiscal Year 1994, 93

OCR for page R1
xvi FIGURES AND TABLES 2.9 R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, by Science and Engineering Field, Fiscal Year 1994 (dollars in thousands), 94 2.10 R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, Percent Share by Major Science and Engineering Field, Fiscal Year 1994, 96 2.11 UIRC Research by Discipline, 1990, 114 2.12 UIRC Research by Technology Area, 1990, 115 2.13 UIRC Research by Industry, 1990, 116 2.14 Distribution of UIRCs by Importance of Selected Goals, 117 2.15 Output per UIRC, 1990, 118 2.16 Active CRADAs by Federal Agencies and Laboratories, 1987-1994, 138 2.17 Distribution of 85 Large Independent R&D Institutes by Research Focus, 1994, 153 2.18 The Six Largest Independent, Nonprofit, Applied R&D Institutes in the United States, 154 2.19 Distribution of 35 Large Affiliated R&D Institutes by Research Focus, 199,4, 155 2.20 Primary Technical Areas of Joint Research Ventures (JRVs), 1985 1995, 161 Biotechnology Drugs in Development, 1989-1993, 178 Biotechnology Medicines or Vaccines Approved for Use by the Food and Drug Administration as of 1993, 179 A-3 Selected Nonmedical Uses of Biotechnology, 181 A-4 Use of New Technology in Manufacturing, Japan and the United States, 1988, 202 Revenue Trends and Forecasts, Customized Software and Services (dollars in billions), 1991-1997, 226 A-6 Global Spending for Prepackaged Software, 1991-1997 (dollars in millions), 227 Federal Funding for Computer Science and Engineering Research and All Science and Engineering Research, Fiscal Year 1991, 228 A-8 Agency Budgets by HPCC Program Components, Fiscal Year 1994, 230 3.1 Types of Knowledge Transfer from Academia to Industry, 256 3.2 Research Funds of German Universities (billions of DM), 276 3.3 Size and Response Rate of Survey Sent to German Universities, 290 3.4 Percent Share of University External Funds in Four Focal Areas, 1995, 291 3.5 Orientation of University R&D Activities, by Percent, 1995, 292 3.6 Channels of University Technology Transfer by Percent and Mean Score, 293 3.7 Benefits to University Researchers from Contacts with Industry, by Percent and Mean Score (percent total sample), 1995, 294 3.8 Barriers to Industry Contacts, by Percent and Mean Score, 1995, 294

OCR for page R1
FIGURES AND TABLES 3.9 Reasons for Industry Interest in University Research, by Percent and Mean Score, 1995, 295 3.10 Average Mean Scores in Major Question Groups, 295 3.11 Responses to the Survey of UIRCs, 1990, 296 3.12 Industrial Contributions to UIRCs, Percent Share by Area, 1990, 297 3.13 Orientation of R&D Activities at UIRCs, Percent Share, 1990, 298 3.14 Channels of U.S. UIRC and German University Technology Transfer, Mean Score in the Four Focal Areas, 299 3.15 Benefits of Industry Contacts at UIRCs, by Percent, and at German Universities, by Mean Score, 299 3.16 Average Number of Permanent Staff and Scientists at Max Planck Institutes, Main Sections, 1993, 305 3.17 Areas of Research at Max Planck Institutes, Percent by Expenditures and Scientists, 1994, 306 3.18 Budget Structure of the MPG, 1994, 308 3.19 Structure of Project Funds, 1993, 308 3.20 Spending, Percent Share of Total Budget, and Trend for Major Research Areas of the Helmholtz Centers, 1993, 314 3.21 Budgets and Staffing of Selected Helmholtz Centers That Emphasize Industrially Relevant Research, 1993, 316 Structure of the Food and Beverages Sector and Its Member Research Associations, 334 3.23 Importance of Cooperative Research in Different Industry Sectors in Germany, 1989, 338 xv

OCR for page R1