Knowledge that Transforms

© 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Research Policy. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Research Policy, 26, 2, (May 1997) DOI#10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00007-3

In recent years, ‘dual-use policies’ have become a widely promoted response to the problems faced by defence producers confronting the decline in defence expenditures, the continuing growth in the cost of new weapons systems, and the changing relationship between military and civilian technologies. A consensus has developed on the importance of dual-use policies, but no agreement seems apparent on what they are; such confusion derives from the variety of dual-use technologies, and the even broader array of mechanisms by which they can be transferred across military and civilian applications. By suggesting a typology of dual-use technology transfer mechanisms this paper provides a platform for the comparison and analysis of different dual-use policies. It identifies four main types of dual-use technology transfer mechanisms, all different in nature and purpose. The main difference is established between straight and adaptational mechanisms, depending on whether the technology transfer mechanism is concerned with adapting the technology to its new applications. Straight mechanisms do not require any change in the ways in which defence-oriented R&D and production is organised. In comparison, adaptational mechanisms are more ambitious policies and riskier, but may be a necessary answer to the structural problems faced by the industry.

This paper argues that the management of product-systems calls for a new logic for vertical integration, outsourcing, and R&D strategies. The particular characteristics of product-systems, in fact, requires a thorough understanding of the core, linkage, and peripheral underlying technologies, suggesting, therefore, that simple notions of core competencies that recommend the outsourcing of production, and even worse the development, of component and/or subsystem technologies should be rejected, as they may damage the firm's ability to master the product's evolutionary dynamics. The empirical evidence shows that Rolls-Royce can be considered as an illustrative example of the above arguments. Indeed, Rolls-Royce is vertically integrated as regards the jet engine's inner core, holds a full design capability over its outer core, and as regards the remaining components it retains a system integration capability.

Technological innovation is manifested in the development of new products, processes and techniques such that emerging technologies often substitute for more mature technologies. The interaction between technologies is typically referred to as competition , implying a confrontational interaction. The setting of technology strategy is thus often concerned with issues relating to the competition between emerging technologies and the response of mature technologies to the offense from emerging technologies-strategies for attack and defense. In this paper it is argued that the interaction between technologies should be viewed in a broader sense than mere competition, and it is suggested that a multi-mode framework provides a much richer setting for assessing the interaction of two or more technologies. This concept has been successfully applied in biological and organizational ecology, and it is shown that it can be equally useful when applied to the dynamics of technological interaction. It is proposed that the effect that one technology has on another's growth rate be taken as a classification criterion. Examples are given to illustrate that three major modes of interaction exist, namely pure competition, symbiosis and predator-prey. In addition, the notion that the interaction between technologies can in general shift temporally from one mode to another is motivated. It is suggested that, since the characteristics of the three modes differ from one another, it is appropriate to develop managerial strategies that apply specifically to each of the three modes, instead of just applying generic ‘competition’ strategies.

An emitter insertable through the wall of a water pipe having a pair of striated skirts depending from opposed edges of the emitter outlet for irrigating soil at a constant rate of water flow despite variations in water pressure within the water pipe.

Although there have been many previous studies of research collaboration, comparatively little attention has been given to the concept of ‘collaboration’ or to the adequacy of attempting to measure it through co-authorship. In this paper, we distinguish between collaboration at different levels and show that inter-institutional and international collaboration need not necessarily involve inter-individual collaboration. We also show that co-authorship is no more than a partial indicator of collaboration. Lastly, we argue for a more symmetrical approach in comparing the costs of collaboration with the undoubted benefits when considering policies towards research collaboration.

This paper presents an index of patent rights for 110 countries for the period 1960–1990. The index is used to examine what factors or characteristics of economies determine how strongly patent rights will be protected. The evidence does indicate that more developed economies tend to provide stronger protection. But the underlying factors which influence patent protection levels are the country's level of research and development (R&D) activity, market environment, and international integration, which are correlated with its level of development. The results qualify, however, that R&D activity influences patent protection levels after a nation's research sector reaches a critical size. An implication of this is that to raise patent protection levels in weakly protecting countries, it is important to foster a significant research base in those countries and thereby create incentives for protecting patent rights.