Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

Thanaletchumi Sathasivam et al.
The problems encountered during <strong>the</strong> transition were reported at various levels across <strong>the</strong> groups.
The responses <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> focus groups who indicated each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> problems that were identified during <strong>the</strong>
coding process for analysis purposes is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Problems encountered during <strong>the</strong> technology transfer process (one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questions)
The focus groups indicated that resolution <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se processes including providing instructions to
managers that had <strong>the</strong> skills and knowledge to provide support to operational staff, and hiring new
staff with <strong>the</strong> appropriate skills and knowledge. However, this was not accepted as a solution because
<strong>the</strong> new staff members were paid more than <strong>the</strong> older staff members and <strong>the</strong>y were hired at <strong>the</strong>
managerial level. This creates internal friction and resistance to <strong>the</strong>ir guidance. The focus groups
reported problems including <strong>the</strong> new employees not being listened to and <strong>the</strong>ir instructions being
ignored. There were comments that it was difficult to become integrated into <strong>the</strong> company, and <strong>the</strong>re
is need for intervention from high level managers. This reduced <strong>the</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong> this approach to
managing <strong>the</strong> difficulties involved in <strong>the</strong> technology transfer.
Internal communication methods identified included IT supported systems, including email, shared file
systems, and chat systems, as well as meetings. The only problem indicated was <strong>the</strong> inclusion <strong>of</strong>
newly hired managers and contractual employees in <strong>the</strong> communication systems. Communication
with <strong>the</strong> supplier <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> technology was identified mainly as using meetings with management and
personal relationships between managers at <strong>the</strong> implementation level. However, one group did
indicate problems with information being held back, which <strong>the</strong>y indicated hurt <strong>the</strong> process. Existing
policies and procedures were seen both as benefits as well as hindrances. The existing policies were
helpful, but <strong>the</strong>y were intended for different kinds <strong>of</strong> projects, and also required more time than was
available for this project. The policies had to be shortened to accommodate this project, and
sometimes <strong>the</strong>y were too rigid for <strong>the</strong> needs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> project.
Knowledge sharing used IT facilities (emails, bulletin board, intranet, project management and
common file locations). It also involved meetings, including brainstorming, informal discussions, and
presentations. General consensus among <strong>the</strong> focus groups was that <strong>the</strong>se tools worked well. The
main approach to resolving problems without supplier involvement was to go to <strong>the</strong> manager <strong>of</strong>
operations or <strong>the</strong> project manager, and using project management techniques to track problems with
<strong>the</strong> implementation. Some escalation to <strong>the</strong> supplier was used, but it was not always met with a reply
in a timely fashion.
4.2 Results from interviews
The 11 interviews that were conducted included 13 different questions intended to identify <strong>the</strong>
individual experience and view <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> technology transfer. These responses varied much
more widely than <strong>the</strong> focus group responses, due to <strong>the</strong> discussion process used to come to
conclusions within <strong>the</strong> focus group. Overall, <strong>the</strong> views <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> participants were that <strong>the</strong> project was
challenging and exciting. However, <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> uncertainty in <strong>the</strong> project was clearly a stressor.
One participant remarked, “We felt like we had to actually turn <strong>the</strong> world around360 degrees, because
we had far too many uncertainties.” The respondents indicated that <strong>the</strong>re was a high level <strong>of</strong> reliance
on <strong>the</strong> technology provider, which was reflected at a much higher level than in <strong>the</strong> focus groups.
Challenges noted included organisational structure and culture, as well as technical barriers to
392