Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

Thanaletchumi Sathasivam et al.
deadlines on success or failure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> technology transfer process. Although <strong>the</strong> hand<strong>of</strong>f point
between <strong>the</strong> providing company and <strong>the</strong> target company is important, both in terms <strong>of</strong> organisational
psychology and in terms <strong>of</strong> financial and competitive strategy planning, this does not mean that an
extended technology integration period spells disaster for <strong>the</strong> technology transfer process. Instead,
<strong>the</strong> organisation may need to undergo an ongoing period <strong>of</strong> adjustment that improves on its
organisational capacity and rectifies any problems that were found in <strong>the</strong> initial process <strong>of</strong>
organisational alignment. Practitioners can make use <strong>of</strong> this finding by integrating benchmarking <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong>ir processes and critical reflection on <strong>the</strong> technology transfer process into <strong>the</strong> process itself.
Continual reassessment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> technology transfer process as it is ongoing will allow <strong>the</strong> organisation
to identify any improvements that can immediately be made. This will allow <strong>the</strong> technology transfer
process itself to be more successful. However, <strong>the</strong> technology fit within <strong>the</strong> organisation should
continue to be assessed even after <strong>the</strong> initial transfer. Without this ongoing process, <strong>the</strong> company that
does not immediately achieve success with a technology transfer may write <strong>of</strong>f this technology
prematurely, which will lead to wasted resources and capital due to premature abandonment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
project. Of course, a project should not be continued indefinitely once it becomes clear than <strong>the</strong>
technology transfer process cannot recover, as this would involve a similarly irresponsible waste <strong>of</strong>
resources. However, practitioners may be reassured that technology transfer does not necessarily
halt at <strong>the</strong> completion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> license transfer from provider company to acquirer company, and <strong>the</strong>y
may consider whe<strong>the</strong>r ongoing improvements are appropriate in order to fur<strong>the</strong>r align <strong>the</strong> organisation
and <strong>the</strong> technology.
9. Conclusion
This study has successfully answered both <strong>the</strong> research questions. Firstly <strong>the</strong> qualitative approach
determined how organisational culture affects readiness for technology transfer. Secondly, it also
ga<strong>the</strong>red <strong>the</strong> elements <strong>of</strong> organisational culture affecting readiness for technology transfer. This study
has endeavoured to create a conceptual model with <strong>the</strong> factors as constructs and <strong>the</strong> relationship that
relates <strong>the</strong>m to each o<strong>the</strong>r. The model was practically implemented in <strong>the</strong> organization. Post hoc
interviews were conducted to fur<strong>the</strong>r understand <strong>the</strong> outcomes <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> technology transfer and <strong>the</strong>
ongoing technology transfer efforts in <strong>the</strong> organization. The contribution will serve as a checklist for
<strong>the</strong> future technology transfer recipients.
10. Appendix A: Sample <strong>of</strong> open coding categories and responses
397