Technology transfer process in Nigeria: from R&D outputs to entrepreneurship

216

Int. J. Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2013

Technology transfer process in Nigeria: from R&D outputs to entrepreneurship Bolanle O. Oyedoyin Federal Institute of Industrial Research, Federal Ministry of Science and Technology, Oshodi, Lagos, Nigeria Email: [email protected]

Matthew O. Ilori, Timothy O. Oyebisi and Billy A. Oluwale African Institute for Science Policy and Innovation, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Oluseye O. Jegede* National Centre for Technology Management, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria Email: [email protected] *Corresponding author Abstract: The study evaluated the business development and transfer of technologies to small manufacturing companies by research institutes in Nigeria. The study covered all the industrial research institutions with headquarters in southwestern Nigeria as well as agricultural research institutes with crop utilisation departments in the same region. The research instruments for the study were structured questionnaire technique, interview schedule as well as secondary data collection. Five of the research institutes indicated the existence of technology transfer policy in their organisations. All the seven research institutes surveyed had technology transfer offices. The technology transfer strategies employed by the research institutes included licensing agreements, cooperative R&D agreement/contract research, joint ventures, self/exploitation, spinout/spin-off, training workshops, technical assistance and consultancy services. The most frequently used technology transfer strategy was training workshops. In conclusion, it was discovered that not all the stakeholders were involved in the innovation process as well as R&D transfer.

Copyright © 2013 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Technology transfer process in Nigeria

217

Keywords: research institutes; R&D; commercialisation; technical assistance; stakeholders; Nigeria. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Oyedoyin, B.O., Ilori, M.O., Oyebisi, T.O., Oluwale, B.A. and Jegede, O.O. (2013) ‘Technology transfer process in Nigeria: from R&D outputs to entrepreneurship’, Int. J. Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.216–230. Biographical notes: Bolanle O. Oyedotin is the Deputy Director, Industrial Linkages Division at Federal Institute for Industrial Research, Oshodi, an agency of the Federal Ministry of Science and Technology, Nigeria. She is the former head of Business Development Division (2006–2011) after which she was moved to Industrial Linkages Division. She started her career in the Food Technology Division of the same agency in 1985. She has a Bachelor of Science degree in Food Science and Technology in 1984, Master of Business Administration in 2000, Master of Science in Technology Management in 2006 and Doctor of Philosophy in Technology Management in 2011. Matthew O. Ilori is a Professor of Technology Management at the African Institute for Science Policy and Innovation (AISPI), Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile-Ife, Nigeria. He is a former Director at AISPI, formerly known as Technology Planning and Development Unit (TPDU) of the Faculty of Technology, OAU, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. He teaches and supervises post graduate research in the university. His areas of interest include innovation management, industrial technology management, policy and indigenous technology. He has many publications in these fields. Timothy O. Oyebisi is a Professor of Technology Management at the African Institute for Science Policy and Innovation (AISPI), Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile-Ife, Nigeria. He is a former Director at AISPI, formerly known as Technology Planning and Development Unit (TPDU) of the Faculty of Technology, OAU, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. He teaches and supervises post graduate research in the university. His areas of interest include innovation management, information technology management and policy. He has published severally in these fields. Billy A. Oluwale is a Research Fellow at the African Institute for Science Policy and Innovation (AISPI), Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile-Ife, Nigeria. He teaches and supervises post graduate research in the university. His areas of interest include innovation management, industrial technology management, policy and indigenous technology. He has several publications to his credit. Oluseye O. Jegede is a Researcher with the National Centre for Technology Management (NACETEM), an agency of Federal Ministry of Science and Technology, located in Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. He teaches science and technology policy, management of R&D and innovation system at the post graduate programs of NACETEM. His areas of research are economics of innovation, innovation systems and industrial policy.

1

Introduction

Technology transfer is the process of taking an invention from its inception in a laboratory to a commercialised product. In the traditional view of universities, obvious

218

B.O. Oyedoyin et al.

commercialisation was antithetic to the pure goal of scientific inquiry. The modern view, however, assigns a critical role to research universities in technology transfer and commercialisation. This view has been further bolstered by legislative rulings on the disposition of the intellectual property rights (Bremer, 2003; Weber and Duderstadt, 2004). Technology transfer has also been defined as the translation across organisations of knowledge that can be embodied in a process or a product. The knowledge may be explicit; frequently it is tacit, often called know-how. Technology transfer includes any knowledge useful in the creation of new products and processes, and also the value of the technology and principles of operation, management, and utilisation (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2001). It also means a system under which various inter-related components of technology, namely, ‘hardware’, ‘software’ (techniques, know-how, information), ‘humanware’ (human ability), management aspects and the final product (including marketing) are rendered accessible to the end-users. The system also includes institutional capacity for technology adoption, adaptation or rejection. Technology transfer is the process by which research and other new technologies are transferred into useful processes, products, and programs (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2001). For the purpose of this study, technology transfer means formal transfer of rights to use and commercialise new discoveries and inventions resulting from scientific research to another party. Technology transfer is a proactive form of advocacy for change through adoption of technology. Practitioners of technology transfer are variously referred to as change agents, communicators, teachers, trainers, technology marketers, and by many other terms (Carayanis and Alexander, 1998). According to them, technology transfer “refers to all the activities leading to the appropriate adoption of a new product or procedure by any group of users. ‘New’ is used in a special sense as it means any improvement over existing technologies or processes, not necessarily a chronologically recent invention”. Technology transfer occurs at all stages of the technology innovation process, from initial idea to the final product. These processes integrate multiple functions, including organised research and development, design, production, engineering, manufacturing, marketing, and other value-adding activities in a complex web containing multiple feedback loops (EC, 2007). In the broadest sense, technology transfer is a process of communication that results in putting research findings or new information into practice. Research is implemented as a result of technology transfer activities whether the process of technology transfer is formally engaged in or not. Also, implementation of research is more likely to occur, however, when technology transfer is practiced formally and purposefully. The main ingredients of technology transfer include fostering a mutual recognition of skills and abilities needed for the success of the technology transfer project and the technology transfer personnel should be willing to share organisational and technical know-how. Technology transfer from a research university and other institutions is a process consisting of several steps. The first step in the process is invention disclosure, recognition of the information about a new technology developed by a faculty member or researcher, and linking the innovation to the office of technology licensing. The second step in the technology transfer process is patenting. Once a new technology is patented by a research institution, the institution owns the intellectual property rights and can license the patented technology to another organisation. The next step in the process occurs when an individual or a commercial company secures a license from the research institution for the patented technology. After this, licensing agreement is executed, and the licensee is

Technology transfer process in Nigeria

219

granted commercial use of the licenses. The research institution may then begin to earn income from the transferred technology. This technology transfer process requires several years after a technology is patented before the institution earns royalties from the licensed technology. The number of start-up companies should be a measure of the effectiveness of technology transfer. In commercial context, a spin-off company is a new company that is formed 1

by former employee(s) of a parent organisation

2

around a core technology that originated in, then was transferred to, the new company (Carayanis et al., 1998).

Thus, technology transfer from a research institution contributes to creating new commercial companies, jobs and economic growth. Researchers are the driving force behind technology transfer, and they constitute an important resource in moving technology from bench top to the marketplace. Technology transfer comes in many flavours and involves different parties depending on various situations. The success is dependent on several important factors, including the maturity of the technology, receiver’s expectations, and commitment from the receiver. Moreover, successful technology transfer is also a matter of timing. The research must be in a mature enough state and the results from a transferor must fit into the receiver’s culture and business situation. There are many drivers that motivate technology transfer. We define technology suited for transfer to be in the form of competence, methods, tools, prototypes and ready-made products. The reasons lie in the receivers’ interests. Some reasons that may generate the necessary pull of new technology are to: replace obsolete technology, increase efficiency (improved methods, tools, cheaper components), attract customers and engineers, and comply with customers’ specific technology requirements. To be most successful, technology transfer must engage all those involved in the research and implementation process. Technology transfer should not only be a consideration upon the conclusion of research, it is a process that must be effectively integrated throughout the entire research effort, resulting in greater benefit from the research results.

2

Methodology

The study covered all the industrial research institutions with headquarters in South Western Nigeria as well as agricultural research institutes with crop utilisation departments in the region. This reason for this was to select the region with the most promising technology transfer activities in Nigeria. It was also selected based on the state governments’ policies that favoured promotion of technology transfer and other forms of interaction between universities and industries. The institutes included Federal Institute for Industrial Research, Oshodi (FIIRO), Lagos; Nigeria Institute for Oceanography and Marine Research (NIOMR), Lagos; Nigerian Building and Road Research Institute (NBRRI), Ota; Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria (CRIN), Ibadan; National Institute for Horticultural Research (NIHORT), Ibadan; Institute of Agricultural Research and Training (IAR&T), Ibadan; Engineering and Material Development Institute (EMDI),

220

B.O. Oyedoyin et al.

Akure; Nigerian Natural Medicine Development Agency (NNMDA), Lagos and Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria (FRIN), Jericho, Ibadan. All heads of departments that are responsible for technology generation and transfer were selected as respondents for the study. The chief executive officers and directors of accounts in each institution were also involved in the study. A list of entrepreneurs who have benefitted from R&D results of one of the institutes was compiled. The research instruments for the study were structured questionnaire technique, interview schedule as well as secondary data collection. The chief executive officers and heads of departments responsible for technology development and transfer in the research institutes and entrepreneurs who have commercialised R&D results of one of the research institutes were interviewed to obtain data that complimented those obtained through the questionnaires. Secondary data were collected from publications of the research institutions such as annual reports, research reports, journals, newsletters, magazines, publications of the organised private sectors such as National Association of Small Scale Industrialists (NASSI), and National Association of Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (NASME). The data collected from the properly filled questionnaire were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. These included frequency counts, percentages, cross tabulations, correlation, regression analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA).

3

Results and discussion

3.1 R&D transfer from the RI to entrepreneurs There are various activities involved in the transfer of R&D results from the research institutes to the end users (firms). These activities include identification of process equipment; raw materials studies to establish their sources and costs; establishment of costs of other inputs; operating and maintenance costs and investment analysis. The involvement of the scientists in all these processes was rated high (3.0) except in the area of investment analysis which was rated low (2.0) at NIHORT (Table 1). At FIIRO, NIOMR, CRIN, IAR&T, the involvement of the scientists in technology transfer activities was rated very high (3.0–5.0). At NNMDA and FRIN, their involvement in identification of process equipment (4.0–5.0) and raw material studies (4.0–5.0) were rated very high. However, they were not involved in the investment analysis. Process engineers were never involved in the transfer of technologies to entrepreneurs at NNMDA. They were only involved in process equipment and maintenance cost identification at FRIN. The involvement of process engineers at NIOMR in all R&D transfer activities was rated very high (4.0). At FIIRO, their involvement was rated very high (5.0) in equipment, operation and maintenance costs identification. However, their involvement in business analysis was rated low. The engineers were highly involved (3.0–5.0) in R&D transfer activities except in investment analysis where their involvement was rated low at IAR&T. At NIHORT, the involvement was not in existence. Technology marketers were fully involved in all the technology transfer activities at NIHORT, FIIRO, NIOMR and IAR&T. Their involvement was low at CRIN and they were not even involved at NNMDA and FRIN.

Stakeholders

2

1

1

Operation and maintenance cost identification

2

1

1

2

1

Investment analysis

3

Operation and maintenance cost identification

2

3

Raw materials studies

3

Investment analysis 1

2

Raw materials studies

1

4

5

5

4

5

2

3

5

3

3

4

3

FIIRO

Identification of process equipment

3 2

Identification of process equipment

2

Investment analysis

Operation and maintenance cost identification

2

Raw materials studies

4

Operation and maintenance cost identification 2

3

Investment analysis

Identification of process equipment

1

Raw materials studies

3 2

Operation and maintenance cost identification

Identification of process equipment

2

Investment analysis

Notes: Very high – 5; high – 4; fairly high – 3; low – 2; lowest – 1 Source: Field survey (2010)

Financial institutions

Entrepreneur

Technology marketers

Process engineer

3

Raw materials studies

NIHORT 3

Activities

Identification of process equipment

1

1

1

1

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

4

NIOMR

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

5

NNMDA

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

3

3

4

4

4

4

5

4

CRIN

1

1

1

1

3

5

2

3

4

4

5

3

5

2

5

3

2

3

4

4

IAR&T

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

1

1

4

1

1

4

4

FRIN

1.0

1.1

1.1

1.0

2.1

2.3

2.4

1.9

2.4

2.6

2.7

2.3

3.7

2.3

2.7

3.3

2.6

2.6

4.3

3.3

Average rating

Table 1

Scientists

Technology transfer process in Nigeria 221

Ratings of stakeholders’ involvement in transfer of R&D outputs in the research institutes

222

B.O. Oyedoyin et al.

There was little or no involvement of entrepreneurs in R&D transfer activities for commercialisation at FRIN and CRIN. This is not unexpected since none of them indicated commercialisation of any R&D result. However, at NIOMR and IAR&T their involvement were high. At FIIRO, entrepreneurs’ involvement in investments analysis was low. This is because investment analyses are usually done for the entrepreneurs by the technology marketing department of the institute. Generally, the financial institutions were not involved in technology transfer in all the research institutes. In summary, the involvement of stakeholders like entrepreneurs and financial institutions in technology transfer for commercialisation is very low. This could be responsible for low commercialisation of research outputs from these institutes. It could even be responsible for the failure of those that were commercialised.

3.2 Technology transfer policy and technology transfer office Five of the research institutes namely NIHORT, FIIRO, NIOMR, IAR&T and FRIN indicated the existence of technology transfer policy for their organisations (Table 2). Research institutes need to develop their own policy on the generation of R&D results, their patenting, marketing and commercialisation (WIPO, 2002). The existence of a national policy framework for patenting and commercialisation of R&D results is generally the crucial first step. The Bayh-Dole Act, enacted in the USA in 1980, marked a breakthrough in the history of university-industry relations. The Act had essentially two purposes. It allowed universities and other research institutions to patent and commercialise their R&D results and inventions made under government-funded research programs. It also allowed federal agencies to grant licenses for their technology to provide more incentive to business (WIPO, 2002). Araba (2006) reported lack of intellectual property policy in universities and research institutes in Nigeria. However, the National Office of Technology Acquisition and Promotion (NOTAP) has started encouraging universities, polytechnics and research institutes to create Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer Offices (IPTTO) in their institutions. Table 2

Technology transfer

Description of technology transfer NIHORT FIIRO NIOMR NNMDA CRIN IAR&T FRIN Technology transfer policy

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Technology transfer office/extension office

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

yes

Yes

yes

No of years of establishment of technology transfer office (extension)

(34)

5(54)

(35)

NA

(47)

(34)

(57)

No. of professional staff

7

1

6

NA

NI

15

20

No. of support staff

15

2

2

NA

NI

20

10

Notes: ( ) Year of establishment of extension office NA Not applicable NI No information Source: Field survey (2010)

Technology transfer process in Nigeria

223

The effort of NOTAP has yielded good results as all the seven research institutes surveyed had technology transfer offices (Table 2). The technology transfer office at FIIRO was established in 2006. This was carried out under the WIPO-sponsored project on developing intellectual property policies and establishing IPTTO in tertiary and research institutions in Nigeria. Prior to the establishment of IPTTO, the institutes had offices of Extension Research and Liaison Services (NIOMR and NNMDA) and agricultural extension and economics (NIOMR, CRIN, FRIN, and IAR&T) and technology transfer division (FIIRO) which had been established since 1956. These offices were responsible for technology marketing and extension functions. The years of establishment of these offices are shown in Table 2. The ages of the technology transfer office/agricultural extension research and liaison offices are as follows: FIIRO (54 years), NIHORT (34 years), NIOMR (36 years), NNMDA (13 years), CRIN (47 years), IAR&T (3 years) and FRIN (57 years) (Table 2). Table 2 also presents the number of professional and support staff obtained for five out of the seven research institutes. The technology transfer offices are responsible for obtaining patents, negotiating, license agreements and helping guide faculty through the intricate process of establishing start-up companies (Nasser et al., 2005), and for these operations to succeed, technology transfer offices need skilled managers in addition to innovative technology (Kotkin, 2004). Patents issued by universities and research institutes in the USA increased from 177 in 1979 to 3,673 in 2003 and start-up companies formed from 1,169 in 1980 to 3,151 in 2002 (Carlsson, 2006). The success of technology transfer offices in USA depended on the linkages between the research institutions and the business community, receptivity in the surrounding community, the culture, the organisation, and incentives (research grants, awards, etc) within the universities themselves and the most significant organisation factors was the technology transfer office staffing and compensation practice (Carlsson, 2006).

3.3 Technology transfer strategies The technology transfer strategies employed by the research institutes included licensing agreements, cooperative R&D agreement/contract research, joint ventures, self/exploitation, spin-out/spin-off, training workshops, technical assistance services and consultancy services (Table 3). The most frequently used technology transfer strategy by all the research institutes was found to be training workshops. Six of the research institutes indicated that they transfer R&D results to entrepreneurs through technical assistance while four were involved in contract research for transfer of R&D results to the end users. The effectiveness of the use of training workshops was rated very effective (4.0–5.0) by all the research institutes (Table 4). Similarly, all the four research institutes that were using contract research as a means of technology transfer rated the strategy as effective (3.0–4.0). This agrees with earlier findings of empirical research in Japan and USA where small firms were found likely to exploit university knowledge via technical consultations and contract research for the purpose of immediate problem solving (Santoro and Chakrabarti, 2002; Motohashi, 2004; Arundel et al., 2008; Rammer et al., 2009).

Source: Field survey (2010)

Training workshops (100)

Consultancy services (22) Technical assistance services (200)

Spin-out/spin-off

Technical assistance services (20)

Consultancy services

Self-exploitation (50)

Training workshops (26)

Joint ventures (20) Consultancy services

Technology assistance services

Training workshop

Cooperative R&D agreements (20)

Self-exploitation by researcher (8)

Spin-out/spin-off (12)

Self-exploitation (3)

Agreements (50)

Cooperative R&D agreements (7)

NNMDA Cooperative R&D agreements (4)

NIOMR Licensing (1)

FIIRO

Licensing (7)

Technical assistance services

Training workshops

Cooperative R&D agreements

CRIN

Joint ventures

Training workshop

Agreements

Licensing

IAR&T

Technical assistance services (100)

Training workshops (1,000)

FRIN

Technical assistance services

Training workshops (17)

Self-exploitation (6)

Table 3

NIHORT

224 B.O. Oyedoyin et al.

Technology transfer strategies and number of technologies transferred by the research institutes

Technology transfer process in Nigeria

225

Three research institutes indicated the use of consultancy services, licensing and self-exploitation as technology transfer strategies (Table 3). Licensing of the R&D output is usually to one or more existing companies for the purpose of commercialisation. Two research institutes indicated the use of joint venture and R&D agreements (Table 3) with the small manufacturing businesses as a strategy for transfer. Two of the research institutes also indicated the use of spin-out/spin-off technology transfer strategy by their organisations (Table 3). The strategy was rated as effective (Table 4). Start-up or spin-off companies are important means of moving technology from research institutions to private companies (Rogers et al., 1999). In order to substantiate the findings from the research institutes, a study of the small manufacturing businesses that acquired R&D outputs from FIIRO was carried out. The strategy employed by the entrepreneurs in acquiring R&D output from the research institute was through training workshops conducted by the institute. All (100%) the respondents acquired R&D outputs from FIIRO through this strategy (Table 5). The technologies acquired by these enterprises were soap production, kunu preservation and bottling, plantain flour production, palm wine bottling technology and meat preservation. Their year of acquisition ranged between 1995 and 2009 (Table 5). Table 4

Ratings on effectiveness of technology transfer strategies

Technology transfer strategies

NIHORT FIIRO NIOMR NNMDA CRIN IAR&T FRIN

Technology licensing Cooperative R&D agreements Technology transfer training workshops Technology assistance service (TAS) Spin-out/spin-off

4 4

3 4 4

3 3 4

5

4 4

3 4 4

5

-

4

4

3

4

5

5

-

3

-

-

-

3

-

Notes: Highly effective – 5; very effective – 4; effective – 3; fairly effective – 2; not effective – 1 Source: Field survey (2010) Table 5

Types of technology acquisition from FIIRO and technology transfer strategy

Types of technology acquired from institutes Soap production technology transfer Kunu preservation and bottling Plantain flour production Palm wine technology Heat treatment of metals Palm wine bottling and preservation

Year acquired

Methods of technology transfer

1995 2006 2009 1996 2004 2006

Workshop Workshop Workshop and TAS Workshop Workshop and TAS Workshop

Source: Field survey (2010)

3.4 Technical and business support services offered to small businesses before and after technology transfer The list of technical and business support services offered by the research institutes is presented in Table 6. These include design and fabrication of equipment, maintenance of equipment, spare parts production, analytical services, provision of technical information,

226

B.O. Oyedoyin et al.

business advisory services, entrepreneurship development, feasibility studies preparation, product quality control and market research. Table 6

Support services offered to small businesses before and after technology transfer by the research institutes

Types of services Design and fabrication of equipment

NIHORT FIIRO NIOMR NNMDA CRIN IAR&T FRIN Yes

Yes

Yes

Maintenance of equipment

Yes

Yes

Spare parts and production

Yes

Yes

Analytical services

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Provision of technical information

Yes

Yes

Yes

Business advisory services

Yes

Yes

Yes

Entrepreneurship development

Yes

Yes

Yes

Feasibility studies

Yes

Yes

Yes

Product quality control

Yes

Yes

Yes

Market research

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Source: Field survey (2010)

The average ratings of the severity of the problems confronting small businesses that acquired technology from FIIRO is presented in Table 7. The most severe (5.0) problem was inadequate funding; followed by moderately severe (3.0, 3.50 and 3.60) problems, namely market competition, inadequate infrastructural facilities, and inconsistent/poor implementation of fiscal and industrial policies respectively. The severe (2.75 and 2.65) problems were lack of technical capability for technology adaptation and cultural differences between research institutes and companies. The fairly severe (1.75) problems were availability of input materials and acceptance of products (Table 7). Table 7

Ratings of the severity of the problems encountered in the process of technology acquisition and exploitation

Problems Lack of technical capability for technology adaptation Inadequate funds Inadequate infrastructural facilities Inconsistent and poor implementation of fiscal and industrial policies Acceptance of products Market competition Availability of input materials Communication problems Cultural differences between research institutes and companies

Ratings 2.75 5.00 3.50 3.00 1.75 3.60 1.75 1.00 2.67

Notes: 5 – most severe; 4 – moderately severe; 3 – severe; 2 – fairly severe; 1 – not severe

The rating of adequacy of support services offered shows that design and fabrication of equipment was rated very adequate (4.0) by FIIRO, NIOMR and IAR&T; adequate (3.0)

Technology transfer process in Nigeria

227

by NIHORT, CRIN and FRIN (Table 8). Maintenance of equipment was rated very adequate (4.0) by FIIRO and NIOMR, adequate (3.0) by CRIN, IAR&T, NIHORT and FRIN. Spare parts production was rated as very adequate by FIIRO and NIOMR, adequate by NNMDA and fairly inadequate by NIHORT and CRIN, while it was rated not adequate by FRIN and IAR&T. Provision of analytical services was rated as highly adequate (5.0) by FIIRO and IAR&T, very adequate (4.0) by NIOMR and CRIN and adequate (3.0) by NIHORT and NNMDA. Provision of technical information was rated as highly adequate (5.0) by FIIRO, very adequate (4.0) by NIHORT, NIOMR and CRIN and adequate (3.0) by FRIN. Business advisory services were rated as highly adequate (5.0) by FIIRO, very adequate (4.0) by NIOMR, adequate (3.0) by CRIN and IAR&T and fairly inadequate (2.0) by NIHORT and FRIN. Entrepreneurship development was rated very adequate (4.0) by FIIRO and NIOMR, adequate (3.0) by CRIN and IAR&T and fairly inadequate (2.0) by NIHORT. Conduct of feasibility studies for entrepreneur was rated as highly adequate (5.0) by FIIRO, very adequate (4.0) by NIHORT and NIOMR, adequate (3.0) by CRIN and fairly inadequate (2.0) by IAR&T. Product quality control services was rated as highly adequate (5.0) by FIIRO, very adequate (4.0) by NIOMR, NNMDA and CRIN while product quality control was rated as adequate (3.0) by NIHORT and FRIN. Market research was rated as highly adequate (5.0) by FIIRO, very adequate (4.0) by NIHORT and NIOMR and adequate (3.0) by CRIN and IAR&T. Table 8

Ratings of adequacy of support services offered to small businesses before and after technology transfer

Types of services

NIHORT FIIRO NIOMR NNMDA CRIN IAR&T FRIN

Average rating

Design and fabrication of equipment

3

4

4

1

3

2

3

2.85

Maintenance of equipment

3

4

4

1

3

3

3

3.0

Spare parts production

2

4

4

3

2

1

1

2.43

Analytical services

3

5

4

4

4

1

1

3.14

Provision of technical information

4

5

4

1

4

1

3

3.14

Business advisory services

2

5

4

1

3

3

4

3.14

Entrepreneurship development

2

4

4

1

3

3

1

2.57

Feasibility studies

4

5

4

1

3

2

1

2.86

Product quality control

3

5

4

4

4

1

3

3.43

Market research

4

5

4

1

3

3

1

3.0

Notes: Highly adequate – 5; very adequate – 4; adequate – 3; fairly inadequate – 2; not adequate – 1 Source: Field survey (2010)

228

B.O. Oyedoyin et al.

Table 9

Ratings of the impact of business and technical support services on the operation and product performance

Phases of innovation

Ratings

Design and fabrication of equipment/equipment sourcing

3.57

Maintenance of equipment

1.80

Spare parts production

1.75

Product quality control

3.80

Analytical services

3.80

Business advisory services

2.83

Entrepreneurship development and business mgt training

2.33

Feasibility studies/ business plan preparation

2.20

Market research/ market information

2.33

Technical support during production

2.71

Provision of information on raw materials

2.00

Support in developing R&D

1.83

Assistance in sourcing for financial support

1.00

Notes: 5 – very high impact; 4 – high impact; 3 – moderate impact; 2 – fairly low impact; 1 – no impact Source: Field survey (2010)

In summary, the support services rated as very adequate (3.43 and 3.14) by all the research institutes were product quality control, business advisory services, provision of technical reformation and analytical services, while market research, conduct of feasibility studies, design and fabrication of equipment, spare parts production and entrepreneurship development were rated as adequate (3.85, 2.86, and 3.0) by all the research institutes studied (Table 8). Effectiveness of support services offered by the research institutes to small businesses was investigated based on the perception of the researchers. The perception of the small businesses was investigated through the ratings of the impact of business and technical support services on the operation and product performance of small businesses that acquired R&D outputs from the research institutes (Table 9). Design, fabrication and sourcing of machinery and equipment, product quality control and analytical services had high impact on the operation and product performance of the companies that acquired FIIRO technologies and established small manufacturing businesses; while business advisory services and technical support during production, entrepreneurship development, conduct of feasibility studies, and market research had moderate impact on the businesses.

4

Conclusions

The involvement of stakeholders like entrepreneurs and financial institutions in technology transfer for commercialisation is very low. This could be responsible for low commercialisation of research outputs from these institutes. It could even be responsible for the failure of those that were commercialised.

Technology transfer process in Nigeria

229

Five of the research institutes namely NIHORT, FIIRO, NIOMR, IAR&T and FRIN indicated the existence of technology transfer policy for their organisations. All the seven (7) research institutes surveyed had technology transfer offices. The technology transfer strategies employed by the research institutes included licensing agreements, cooperative R&D agreement/contract research, joint ventures, self/exploitation, spin-out/spin-off, training workshops, technical assistance and consultancy services. The most frequently used technology transfer strategy by all the research institutes was found to be training workshops and this strategy was rated very effective. In conclusion, it was discovered that not all the stakeholders were involved in the innovation process as well as R&D transfer. For instance, the involvement of financial institutions such as banks and venture capitalists were very low. The mostly used technology transfer strategy i.e. training workshops and was found to be effective.

5

Policy recommendations

1

The quality of R&D at the research institutions should be enhanced through increased funding by formulating a national policy and legislation on improvement of R&D expenditure by the government. Industry and NGOs should also be encouraged to fund research.

2

A policy instrument is needed to encourage all companies (indigenous and multinationals) to collaborate closely with appropriate departments at research institutes. Such a policy would encourage the productive sector to intensify their interaction with the RIs within a set time frame and, hence, play a more significant role in generating innovations for the Nigerian economy.

3

An enabling environment should be created for commercialisation of R&D results by entrepreneurs. There is need for formulation of policy or legislation for sufficient funding of entrepreneurs that commercialised R&D results in the form of loan guarantee as banks do not usually fund start-ups.

References Araba, F. (2006) ‘NOTAP guidelines on development of intellectual property policy’, WIPO/NOTAP Workshop on Establishment of IPTTO in Tertiary Institutions, October, Abuja, Nigeria. Arundel, A., Bordoy, C. and Kanerva, M. (2008) Neglected Innovators: How Do Innovative Firms that Do Not Perform R&D Innovate? Results of an Analysis of the Innobarometer 2007 Survey, No. 215 INNO-Metrics Thematic Paper, MERIT. Bremer, H.W. (2003) ‘University technology transfer evolution and revolution’, Presentation at the 50th Anniversary of the Council on Government Relations, 3 November. Carayanis, E.G. and Alexander, J. (1998) ‘Technology transfer – what is technology transfer – why technology transfer’, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 17, Nos. 3 and 4 [online] http://uni-klu.ac.at/wiho/downloads/CARAYANNIS_TECH_TRANSFER_IJTM.pdf (accessed 17 November 2013). Carayanis, E.G., Rogers, E.M., Kurihara, K. and Allbritton, M.M. (1998) ‘High-technology spin-offs from government R&D laboratories and research universities’, Technovation, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.1–11.

230

B.O. Oyedoyin et al.

Carlsson, B. (2006) ‘Universities, entrepreneurship and public policy: lessons from abroad’, in Shane, S. (Ed.): Economic Development through Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. European Community (EC) (2007) Improving Knowledge Transfer Between Research Institutions and Industry Across Europe: Embracing Open Innovation. Implementing the Lisbon Agenda [online] http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download-en-/final-crest-reportmarch2006.pdf (accessed December 2013). Kotkin, J. (2004) The Corps of Rediscovery: St. Louis in the 21st Century, Regional Talent Project Report Prepared for the St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association and Greater St. Louis Economic Development Council. Motohashi, K. (2004) Economic Analysis of University-Industry Collaborations: The Role of New Technology Based Firms in Japanese National Innovation Reform: Discussion Paper No. 04E001, Tokyo Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry. Nasser, A.H., Harris, A. and Thomas, F.G. (2005) Technology Transfer and the Modern University [online] http://www.umsl.edu/services/org/pdfs/Technology Transfer (accessed 7 July 2013). Rammer, C., Czarnitzki, D. and Spielkamp, A. (2009) ‘Innovation success of non-R&D – performers: substituting technology for management in SMEs’, Small Business Economics, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp.35–58. Rogers, E.M., Hall, B.J., Hashimoto, M., Steffessen, K.L., Speakman and Timko, M.K. (1999) ‘Technology transfer from university-based research centres, University of New Mexico experience’, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 70, No. 6, pp.687–705. Santoro, M. and Chakrabarti, A. (2002) ‘Firm size and technology centrality in industry-university interactions’, Research Policy, Vol. 31, No. 7, pp.1163–1180. U.S. Department of Commerce (2001) Technology Transfer to Small Manufacturers: Literature Review, National Technical Information Service. Weber, L.E. and Duderstadt, J.J. (2004) ‘Reinventing the European higher education and research sector: the challenge for research universities’, in Weber, L.E. and Duderstadt, J.J. (Eds.): Reinventing the Research University, Economica, London. WIPO (2002) Research and Innovation Issues in University-Industry Relation, Background Information Document, Prepared by the SME Division, World Intellectual Property Organization, 12 November [online] http://www.wipo.int/sme/document L106 ipr issues (accessed 7 July 2013).