View
215
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
199
CHAPTER 6
CASE STUDIES: MODEL VALIDATION
6.1 Introduction
A pilot study of 29 respondents and a primary study of 734 respondents were used for
identifying the influential factors affecting technology transfer. A model for managing
technology transfer in terms of the identified influential factors was developed and the model
was statistically validated using SEM approach from the empirical data collected through a
questionnaire survey. This chapter presents further evidence to support the findings outlined
in the previous two chapters. The research approach adopted to obtain such evidence
comprised a series of case studies involving technology transfer from publicly funded R&D
institutions to industry during the last ten years. In total, twenty technology transfer case
studies were selected to validate the developed SEM model.
The chapter contains a number of sections. First, the research approach is described. The
second section briefly describes the technology transfer projects used as case studies. The
third section analyses the absence or presence of the 22 critical variables/factors of the model
in the above twenty selected case studies. Furthermore, the technology transfer assessment
tool developed and presented in Chapter 5, based on the model factors was also tested using
these case studies to estimate the technology transfer success.
In summary, this final stage of research sought to further validate the developed model for
managing TT from publicly funded R&D laboratories to industry. Technology transfer
agencies/government R&D laboratories, industry and government may use these findings to
enhance technology transfer success.
6.2 Research Approach
With an objective of further validating the developed model, seven experts from the
stakeholders group, i.e. publicly funded R&D institutions, industry and funding agencies,
were invited to participate in the validation interview/meeting to review the results derived
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
200
from the SEM model and to examine the extent of the model variables/factors that are present
or absent in the technology transfer case studies considered. The researcher acted as a
coordinator. The profiles of the experts involved in the validation interview are summarized
in Table 6.1. During the interview/meeting, the findings of the research, particularly the
influencing model factors and model fit indices were presented to the experts along with the
salient features of the cases chosen for validating the model in terms identifying the presence
or absence of the 23 critical variables, 19 from the five facilitating/enabling factors/constructs
and 4 from the one outcome factor/construct, i.e. successful technology transfer) that were
emerged from the current research. Subsequently, the experts were also requested to rate the
degree of agreement of the model variables/factors that were present in each case study on the
technology transfer assessment tool format shown in Table 5.19 so that the technology
transfer assessment tool developed and presented in Chapter 5 can also be validated.
Wherever some further clarifications were required, while examing the case studies,
promoters/entrepreneurs were also contacted over phone to clarify those issues. This
facilitates to ensure that the information collected from the validation interviews/meetings
was useful and valuable. Local experts with extensive hands on experience (atleast 5 years) in
technology transfer projects, at the managerial position were approached. The interviewees
were identified through various sources including author’s network, participants in the
questionnaire survey and also referrals from the interviewees who also met the criteria for
inclusion in this study.
Table 6.1 Profile of interviewees for model factors validation
Interviewee Designation Organization Sector 1 Head, Technology
Transfer Publicly Funded R&D Institute
Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals
2 Chief Executive Officer Private Sector Food & Agriculture 3 Project Coordinator Government Funding
Agency Project Financing
4 Managing Director Private Sector Healthcare & Pharma 5 Professor Autonomous
Management Institute Academic/Management
6 Manager (R&D) Private Sector Materials/Engineering 7 Scientist Publc Funded R&D
Institute Materials
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
201
6.3 Case Studies:
Case studies have been widely used as examples to evaluate the technology transfer and
commercialization effectiveness (Carayannis and Alexander, 1999). Furthermore, case studies
are unique in their ability to provide rich descriptive and prescriptive detail beyond that
available from surveys or other quantitative approaches. The lack of generally accepted theory
of technology transfer/management (Rogers, 1982; Geisler, 1993) also promotes the use of
case studies. The case study approach, also often provides the relevant information to validate
the existing theories (Hartley, 1994). The following case studies have been compiled based on
the literature review (Purushotham, 1999, 2012; Ramaswami, 2005; Visalakshi, 2009) and as
a part of this research and they were used to validate the model factors there by the developed
model in Chapter 5.
Case 1: Hepatitis B Vaccine
M/s. Shanta Biotechnics (P) Ltd., was established by the first generation entrepreneur Dr.
K.I.Vara Prasad Reddy, in the year 1993 with the sole purpose of developing efficacious and
cost effective vaccines and therapeutics that are within the reach of the common man. The
technology development, transfer and implementation was completed in 1998. The case of
Shanta Biotechnics (P) Ltd is one of the most successful cases of technology transfer in India.
This case involves R-DNA based vaccine development, by Osmania University and a start-up
company in Biotechnology i.e. Shanta Biotechnoics (P) Ltd, Hyderabad. The two were helped
at different stages by Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB). The interesting
feature is that the collaboration among these three was close from the initial stages itself and it
went to the extent that the scientist who generated the technology took a sabbatical to work in
the recipient company and saw through the development phase, which led to the successful
transformation of transferred technology into a product. This was further helped by the
CCMB, which did validation studies and toxicological studies. The technology was
transferred on exclusive basis to M/S Shanta Biotechnics (P) Ltd. Angel funding and
government sponsored seed funds have helped it to launch the product at affordable costs.
Intervention and support of government departments by recommending this vaccine to be part
of the Universal Immunization Programme (UIP) created a market for the product that was
needed. Further, this product also created a history. The price of Hepatitis B vaccine, which
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
202
was earlier determined by an MNC (holding monopoly on this product), was reduced by about
200% and this became affordable to a larger section of population. This case also
demonstrated the possibility of creating a vaccine for a lesser price, which encouraged about
half a dozen companies to get involved in this business. Most of them succeeded leading to
increased access to this vaccine at more affordable prices. The salient features of this case are:
• Close and continued collaboration between public institutions and private enterprise
• Availability of funding at initial stage and pre-commercialization stage can lead to
success of TT
• More responsive government and its policies have a lot to contribute to success of TT.
The technology transfer was a great success and company reported huge profits. For the
successful commercialization of indigenous technology, the company received technology-
day National Award in the year 1999 from Government of India for successfully
implementing the indigenous technology. The company was acquired by Sanofi–Aventis, a
leading global pharmaceutical company in July, 2009. Further details can be found at
http://www.shanthabiotech.com.
Case 2: Heart Valve
M/s. Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum, an
autonomous institute under Department of Science & Technology, Govt. of India, designed
and developed a first of its kind Heart Valve Prosthesis over 12 years of Research &
Development work. M/s. TTK Health Care Ltd an established company obtained an exclusive
license to commercialize the Heart Valve technology. After obtaining the regulatory
approvals, the company could successfully produce and market the first Indian made Heart
Valve at an affordable price compared to imported Valves. The Heart Valve branded as “TTK
Chitra Heart Valve” has been successfully implanted in over 50000 patients. The life saving
Heart Valve meets the most stringent international health care standards and costing half of
the imported product. For the successful commercialization of indigenous technology, TTK
Healthcare was given a technology day National Award in 2001. Further details can be found
at http://www.ttkhealthcare.com.
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
203
Case 3: Detonation Spray Coatings
M/s. International Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy & New Materials
(ARCI), Hyderabad, an autonomous R&D Centre, under the Department of Science &
Technology, Govt. of India, developed a pilot/semi commercial detonation spray coating
(DSC) technology system in collaboration with Institute of Problems in Materials Sciences
(IPMS) Kieve, Ukraine (former USSR), for coating of different types of engineering
components with ceramic, metal and alloy powders to improve the wear, abrasion and
corrosion resistant properties which in turn enhances the component life by several folds. As a
policy of ARCI, all the technologies transferred by ARCI to industry for commercialization
are usually scaled-up to a demonstration scale to achieve the following objectives:
• To establish reliability and consistency of technology
• To supply sizeable quantity of products to user industries and get feed-back on quality
and usability
• To assess the market size
• To estimate the correct size of commercial plant and the cost effectiveness at that size
• To enhance confidence of not only technology receiver but also the financial
institutions giving loans
• To allow establishment of raw material sources, their quality levels, etc.
• Up-scaling from demonstration facility to commercial plant is easier and more
predictable than from lab-scale
Adapting this strategy successfully has made it possible for ARCI to bridge the gap between
conventional research institutes and hi-tech industry. After re-establishing the optimum
process parameters in the scaled-up process/equipment, reliability of the equipment and
consistency of the product are checked. Once the reliability and consistency is established,
large number of trial runs and job works were undertaken to sensitize the market, to assess the
market size and to estimate the cost effectiveness. For example Detonation Spray Coating
system was operated on a demonstration mode for about 2 years before the technology was
finally transferred for commercial exploitation. Indeed over 13,000 turbine blades of
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd have been coated by ARCI on job work mode using the
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
204
demonstration unit and they were successfully used in nearly 150 aircraft engines. The DSC
system was made available to strategic and civilian sectors for carrying out job works.
This was the most crucial phase in ARCI’s march towards commercializing the DSC
technology since it afforded multiple benefits and provided crucial inputs through sustained
job-work over a long period, the ARCI staff gained considerable expertise in optimizing and
depositing a wide variety of coatings, handling actual components of industrial dimensions
and addressing such component-specific issues as job manipulation and masking. Valuable
inputs concerning the robustness of the equipment, longevity of various DSC systems accrued
during this period. At the same time, the job work mode provided an opportunity for several
potential user industries to prove to themselves the efficacy of the detonation sprayed coatings
and this contributed significantly to the market sensitization efforts. While achieving the
multiple objectives listed above, ARCI has also generated revenue of Rs. 200 lakhs through
its job work activities with the DSC systems till the technology was transferred to industry.
During the course of the job-work phase, it became abundantly clear that the DSC system was
extremely versatile in its capability to deposit a large variety of coatings, virtually trouble-free
during prolonged operation, could be operated with great ease by trained operators and
commercially very attractive because of low operational costs. This only served to further
reinforce the original conviction that the DSC technology was tailor-made for
commercialization in India. As a consequence, ARCI decided to indigenize the DSC
technology in collaboration with the Ukrainian collaborating institute. Based on the long-term
operating experience at ARCI, additional safety interlocks and some advanced operations
features were incorporated in the refined version of the DSC system finalized for
manufacture. Accordingly, fabrication of five DSC units was completed in August 1999 and,
following extended operational tests, the units were made available in the year 2000 for
transfer/acquisition by the private industries as part of a comprehensive technology transfer
package. With prior efforts of ARCI having already enhanced national awareness regarding
the DSC technology and created significant commercial interest among the industries, the
technology was transferred to four private entrepreneurs within 2 years. This technology was
not available in India, and the Indian industry was getting this service from Singapore at an
exorbitant price.
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
205
As a result of the substantial demand created for the technology, ARCI also had the luxury of
ensuring that the DSC technology is transferred in a regionally exclusive manner so that the
technology receivers can all flourish. This approach is being already seen to bear fruit as it has
ensured significant growth of the DSC-based job shops currently in operation in a very short
time span. The list of DSC technology receivers are given table 6.2.
Table 6.2: The list of DSC technology receivers
Entrepreneur City (Region) Status M/s. Shafel Tech Chennai (South) Technology transfer completed M/s. Sai Surface Coating Technologies
Hyderabad (Central) Technology transfer completed
M/s. Associated Plasmatron Mumbai (West) Technology transfer completed M/S SVX Powder M Surface Engineering
Noida (North) Technology transfer completed
With the considerable technical expertise developed by ARCI during the DSC technology
generation period, ARCI has been able to provide wide ranging services to the technology
receivers. This includes extension of complete technical support for suitable coating material
selection for any end application, process parameter development, coating characterization
and certification of coating quality to potential customers, demonstration of coating on
prototype components etc., in addition to routine assistance in the matter of installation &
commissioning, rectification of operation related problems and quick supply of spare parts.
All the four units are fairly doing well.
One of the recipients of this technology and fast growing one, is M/s. Sai Surface Coatings
Technology, Hyderabad, which was promoted by a first generation entrepreneur but had over
15 years industry experience. The entrepreneur had initially established his unit in the
Advanced Materials Technology Incubator (AMTI) set up by ARCI in its premises in the year
2000-01 and later shifted to his own premises in the year 2004-05. The entrepreneur utilized
the incubator facility for about 3 years and absorbed the technology and developed market for
the product/service. The incubator helped him to reduce his initial capital investment on land
and buildings. The entrepreneur got full post transfer support as he was located in the
incubator adjacent to the Laboratory and financial assistance from government funding
agencies. M/s Sai surface Coating Technologies subsequently acquired M/S SVX Powder M
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
206
Surface Engineering Company at an attractive price. The technology was transferred
successfully as the start-up posted a turnover of Rs. 25 crores in the year 2012. Further details
can be found at http://www.smscoatings.com.
Case 4: Broadband Access Technology
M/s. Midas Communication Technology (P) Ltd. was founded by alumni of the Indian
Institute of Technology (IIT), Madras and the first company to be incubated by IIT, Madras
and the TeNet group, Midas Communication Technologies has championed by the
telecommunication revolution through rural and urban India since 1994. The corDECT
(Midas flagship wireless product) technology was developed jointly by IIT and Midas
Communication Technologies and was licensed to Midas Communication Technologies on
exclusive basis. The corDECT wireless technology, which is very cost effective and used to
connect over 3 million people around the World through global economy and grown into a
prominent player in the global telecom market. Technology Development Board (TDB)
provided soft loan for commercializing this broad band access technology by Banyan
Networks. For the successful commercialization of indigenous technology, Midas
Communication Technology was given a technology-day National Award in 2005. Further
details can be found at http://www.midascommm.com.
Case 5: Recombinant Human Epidermal Growth Factor (rhEGF)
M/s. Bharat Biotech International Ltd was established in the year 1996 by the first generation
entrepreneurs Dr. Krishna M. Ella & Mrs. Suchitra Ella. They have commercialized a number
of technologies licensed from India & abroad and became a multi-product company. They
obtained a license for the technology to produce recombinant human Epidermal Growth
Factor (rhEGF) through a public-private partnership for diabetic foot ulcers, burns and skin
grafts from Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology, a prominent institute under CSIR.
After obtaining all the necessary regulatory approvals, the company started producing the
products under the brand names REGN-D-150 for diabetic foot ulcers and REGN-D-60 for
burns and skin grafts. These products were introduced first time in India and confirm to global
standards of quality and have competitive advantages of both affordability and availability to
meet the requirement of the common man. The project was successfully implemented by
using internal accruals and financial assistance from Banks and Financial institutions. For the
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
207
successful commercialization of indigenous technology, Bharat Biotech International Ltd was
given a technology-day National Award in 2005. Further details can be found at
http://www.bharatbiotech.com.
Case 6: ZenScan & VehiScan for Vehicle Traffic Monitoring
M/s. Kritikal Secure Scan (KSS) was set up in 2007 based on IIT, Delhi technology in the
Technology Business Incubation Unit (TBIU) of IIT, Delhi. KSS is in the security and vehicle
traffic monitoring space. They have developed two products i.e. ZenScan & VehiScan, based
on the know-how/license granted to them by IIT, Delhi. ZenScan is an automated under
vehicle scanning system and VehiScan is intelligent vehicle monitoring system, which uses
optical character recognition technology of global standards to detect any foreign bodies in
real time, e.g. explosives, arms, contrabands, etc. that might be hidden under the underside of
a vehicle and automatic number plate reading for tracking and identification of hot listed
(stolen, suspected and barred) vehicles as a part of surveillance solution respectively. The
company received ‘NASSCOM’ Innovation Award in 2008 for their innovative products. The
company was funded by Technology Development Board (TDB) for commercializing the
technology and started marketing its products in India and abroad. Further details can be
found at http:/www. Kritikalsecurescan.com
Case 7: Palm Oil Technology
The commercialization of the Palm oil technology is an example of a know-how transfer
involving the technology developers, technology takers and the intermediaries. It is well
known that the yield of palm oil per hectare as compared to other oils such as groundnut,
coconut, mustard etc. is the highest (about 10 times) and this is more particularly so in the
tropical-cum-coastal areas. The Palm trees were not grown in India till recently as the
technology of extracting Palm Oil from the bunches of fresh fruits was complex, and was
available only internationally. This technology needed minimum plant size of capacity 50
tons/hour, which required a 10,000 Hectares (approx.) palm tree plantation to feed the plant.
Malaysia, the largest producer of Palm Oil in the world has many such large plantations. But
due to the Indian social structure where the farm holdings are 0.5 to 5 Hectares, large
plantations could not suddenly come up. Thus, on the one hand, the small farmers would not
plant the tree unless they were assured that a palm oil processing plant nearby would buy the
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
208
fruits. The oil in the fruit would become rancid if it was not processed within 24 hours, which
necessitated the need of the processing plant near the plantation sites. On the other hand, the
industry would not set up such plants until it was assured of adequate quantity of raw
materials. It is to be noted that the first fruition of palm trees take place after 3-4 years.
Realizing these limitations, the government intervened in a very pro-active manner to make
the palm oil production a commercial reality in the country. The significant step was taken by
launching the National Oil Seeds Mission Programme that provided linkages amongst several
players for successful development and commercialization of the palm oil technology.
Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kasargode, Kerala under the Indian Council for
Agricultural Research for developing the crop variety; Regional Research Laboratory,
Thiruvananthapuram (RRL-T) for process development; Central Mechanical Engineering
Research Institute (CMERI), Durgapur for developing the Expeller; and Mechanical
Engineering Research & Development Organization (MERDO), Ludhiana for developing
Twin Screw Press, formed as a consortium and developed the technology in late 1990s. The
technology was transferred to Andhra Pradesh Oil Federation, Pedavegi for its
commercialization in the year 2002.
DBT, GOI in collaboration with Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra established
three demonstration plantations of 1000 hectares each for growing palm trees; and NRDC to
up-scaled the know-how further to 5, 10 and 20 tons/hr capacity plants with the help of
engineering consultants and fabricators. The first commercial plant of 10 tons/hr capacity
costing Rs. 12 Cr., was supported by financial assistance from TDB (Rs. 340 lakhs), Oil
Missions (Rs. 100 lakhs) and National Cooperative Development Corporation (Rs. 820 lakhs).
The mission concept provided an apex level coordination between technology developers, and
technology receiver. The technology was diffused widely and plants are under operation
successfully in India. This was one of the major successful technology transfer projects often
quoted in the technology transfer literature in agriculture sector (Rama Swami, 2005).
Case 8: Rice Husk Particle Board
This case study involved the technology for producing rice husk boards (RHB) developed by
the Indian Plywood Research Institute (IPRI). IPRI approached NRDC for the transfer of this
technology. IPRI had obtained Indian patent rights and assigned the rights to NRDC. This was
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
209
necessary as NRDC takes up only those projects for which patent rights are assigned to it.
This facilitates the task of NRDC in searching for technology taker. This was a new agro-
waste product in the world and hence the IPR strategy was very crucial for success of this
technology. NRDC licensed these patents and know-how to Padmavati Panel Boards Ltd.
(PPBL), a newborn industry and designated PPBL as ‘mother licensee’. In the ‘mother
licensee concept’ the industry setting up the first project based on the invention holds the
rights to further transfer the technology to other manufacturers and shares the benefits by
subsequent licensing.
NRDC invested 50% equity in PPBL to facilitate up-scaling and also arranged Rs. 40 lakhs
loan from VCF-IDBI. PPBL set up a technology plant at the cost of Rs.l.2 Cr. A Consultant
was also hired at a cost of Rs. 3 lakhs. PPBL carried out the up-scaling of the process;
improved the product through incremental innovation, further developed 5 new RHB based
products, viz. wood veneer laminated RHB, bamboo mat veneer laminated RHB, jute
laminated RHB, paper laminated RHB and composite RHB using coconut leaf stems;
increased the range of products to cover different sizes and different types (tops covered with
bamboo etc.) for better acceptability; provided proven plant scale technology to subsequent
licensees; and provided training to personnel of subsequent licensees in its plant. The market
feedback was sought through test marketing after the commercialization of the husk board
based products. New ‘add-on’ patents were filed by NRDC in India and ten other rice
producing countries jointly with PPBL. New technologies covering the above RHB based
products were licensed to five more Indian companies. At this stage, there were three partners
of this technology, namely, IPRI, NRDC & PPBL. PPBL as mother licensee had 50% of
technology share and shares revenues earned from licensing the technology to the subsequent
licensees.
NRDC later licensed this technology to a Malaysian client, MHES, which paid a lump sum
premium of US$50,000 and royalty of 2.5% on sales for 10 years. The MHES plant was set
up by NRDC using PPBL as the turnkey sub-conductor (plant-to-plant technology transfer)
during late 1990s. MHES also made incremental innovation by developing coloured RHB.
New joint patents have been filed by NRDC and MHES. MHES has also become a partner in
technology making a total of 4 parties as partners in this technology. Now the patents have
been licensed to an Indonesian company for setting up rice husk particle boards. In this case
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
210
study, NRDC used the IPR protection strategy for the technology in building linkages, firstly
by identifying an industry from India who would commercialize the technology and assume a
role of a mother licensee for subsequent transfer of this technology to other entrepreneurs in
India and abroad. For subsequent developments in technology, the patents were obtained and
the technology was jointly owned by IPRI, NRDC and PPBL. This strategy further helped in
its transfer to companies abroad. The role of NRDC as an intermediary was significant as it
also evolved a balanced approach for distribution of the royalties between technology
developer, technology taker and the intermediary.
Case 9: Clot-Busters (Streptokinase (SK))
The technology for developing the clot buster was not available in India and hence it was
being imported. Uses of the clot-buster drugs such as Streptokinase (SK) have potential to
save up to 30-40% of lives if given at very early stages. Therefore, Institute of Microbial
Technology (IMT) a premier institute under the council of Scientific & Industrial Research
(CSIR) focused its R&D efforts on streptokinase (SK), which was being used worldwide
since the 1970’s but; it was very costly in the Indian market after import from the West. IMT
developed the technology for natural SK over a period of approximately three years (1995-98)
from its native source, a bacterium that causes sore throat (Streptococcus species).
Search for the technology taker has not been easy. It took nearly two years to find a suitable
industrial partner, although the lab scale technology for natural streptokinase was ready and
most of the pre-clinical and clinical trials were completed and patent was filed. The
experience of IMT suggests that most Indian companies are interested in biotechnology but
seem reluctant to make partnerships with national institutions. Moreover, many companies,
including the major players, prefer taking the 'safe route' of shaking hands with partners
overseas to market a few well-entrenched drugs or vaccines, instead of jointly developing
indigenous technologies either for known molecules or for modified / novel ones.
Subsequently, with the active involvement of the business development unit of IMT and the
researchers themselves the developed technology for natural SK was licensed/transferred to
M/s Cadila Pharma Ltd., Ahmedabad. Remarkably, despite its limited experience in biotech
drugs, this adventurous and bold company could successfully absorb, upgrade and
commercialize the licensed technology in the year 2002. As a result, it could begin marketing
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
211
natural streptokinase within a short period (approximately one year) of the technology transfer
and the first indigenous clot buster drug (STPase) successfully entered the Indian market at a
highly competitive price. Directly due to the cost advantage that this technology offered to
Cadila, the average price of this life saver drug (all of it was imported from MNCs abroad
prior to STPase) has come down by nearly 50%, a highly significant advantage for the
economically depressed Indian consumer. Currently, nearly one lakh doses per year are being
produced by the licensee.
Case 10: Specialty Monomers
M/s Vinati Organics Limited (VOL) in Lote, Maharashtra has been working in the chemical
sector since 1990’s. The company decided to diversify and approached, NCL seeking transfer
of some new technologies. NCL suggested to VOL to sponsor development of specialty
monomers, namely, 2-Methlyallyl Sulfonic Acid Sodium Salt (SMAS) and 2-Acrylamido-2,
Methyl-1-Propane Sulfonic Acid (AMPS) i.e. ATBS, as they had expertise in this area and
they were not being imported by Indian industry. These specialty monomers find applications
in the acrylate fiber industry for imparting dye-affinity to the fiber. Polymers prepared by
using ATBS as co - monomer are also extensively used in the Enhanced Oil Recovery.
Similarly ATBS is used in water treatment chemicals and in the preparation of specialty
polymers. In May 2000, VOL signed an agreement with NCL to develop a commercially
viable technology for producing specialty monomers and paid the entire Rs.40 lakhs
sponsorship fee at the time of signing of the agreement itself. This highlighted the confidence
of VOL in the capability of NCL. NCL for the first time gave guarantee for product quality,
production capacity and raw material consumption. The deliverables broadly defined as:
a) to develop and demonstrate the process on bench scale; b) to validate and demonstrate the
process on pilot scale with recovery and recycles of excess solvents and reactants; c) to
deliver a basic engineering package; and d) to provide assistance for start-up and
commissioning of the plant.
The dedicated team of NCL put in their best efforts and just in three months time developed
an entirely new process, which was found commercially feasible. Further the process was
successfully demonstrated to VOL on the pilot plant scale for SMAS (8.00 kg/batch scale)
and ATBS (A continuous process of ATBS at 0.5 kg/h scale). NCL delivered the basic
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
212
engineering package to VOL for 750 TPA SMAS and 1000 TPA ATBS. VOL then obtained
Rs.10 crores soft loan for commercializing the technology. There had been turmoil during the
entire course of project implementation. NCL was failing to provide all the three committed
guarantees as it was the first experience of NCL in this area and both the NCL and VOL
lacked expertise for commercialization of specialty monomers. There was no such plant
existing in India till then. It extended comprehensive assistance to the detailed engineering
firm during engineering, procurement and construction phases of the project. NCL continued
to assist VOL for start-up and commissioning of the plant.
As TDB had provided 10 Cr. for the commercialization plant, it was a difficult process to
justify the money to the reviewing committee of 6 experts of this area. The dedicated team of
NCL with total support of the VOL could solve all the teething problems and operationalized
the plant and fulfilled all the guarantees they had agreed. The industry was involved in
developing the technology development from the bench level itself. The project staff was
trained on all the technical aspects. During the preparation of the basic engineering package,
special equipments were identified for few specific steps. Trials for these were conducted at
vendor’s site at the additional cost of VOL. These vendors extended help by providing
process/performance guarantee for the specialized equipment. Samples were collected at each
technology stage, i.e. bench stage, pilot stage and commercialization stage and sent to the
secondary customer for certification. The next stage was initiated only after such certification.
The SMAS and ATBS, two separate dedicated process plants were constructed at the same
site with common utilities separated by a common walkway. The ATBS plant was
commissioned in October 2002. The recovery and recycle of excess acrylonitrile was
established. The material produced is having >98.6% (by HPLC) purity which is useful for
acrylic fiber Industry. The SMAS plant become operational in July 2003 for crude production
as well as for purification on campaign basis. VOL through its market trials has identified
different market segments, which require different grades of these products.
The material prepared on the ATBS commercial plant was submitted globally to various
customers for their testing and approval. In general it was found that each customer had his
own demand in terms of the product purity and impurity profile. After getting feedback from
the customer about the quality of the product, various issues were identified with respect to
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
213
these market needs, and were resolved by NCL through additional process development work.
In general, the extra purification methods were developed and demonstrated on plant-scale for
various grades of ATBS.
The SMAS plant also faced similar difficulties in terms of market demands on quality aspects.
Therefore extra purification methods were developed and demonstrated at plant scale. ATBS
is used for absorbing the colour for synthetic wool and for enhanced oil recovery and
specialty polymers (used for making body lotions, contact lenses etc.). SMAS is also used for
absorbing the colour for synthetic wool. The product is being mostly (~ 90%) exported. In
four years time (2000-2003) the production reached a level of 2500 tons/annum capacity of
ATBS; 1000 tons/annum SMAS.
Even after commercialization of technology the two partners were interacting. The VOL is
paying a royalty of Rs 25 lakhs annually to NCL. The technology is backed up by three US
Patents.
This case study highlights the initiative of the industry in looking for technological
opportunities for diversification, which led to building up of initial linkages with R&D
agency. The important aspect, however, was that as the interaction evolved the relationship
between them strengthened. One of the reason for this could be that the industry was more
keen to have the technology developed, had confidence in the capability of the researchers,
and motivated the researchers to develop confidence and accept challenges of technology
development. The R&D agency on its part accepted the challenge and for the first time signed
a contract to provide guarantee on process feasibility, product quality and raw material
consumption. It also continued its contributions to the partnership by providing incremental
innovations even after successful commercialization of the contracted technology and offering
improved by-products and enhancing the production capacity. The business development
group of NCL played a significant role in nurturing the partnerships.
Case 11: Drug (Amlodipine) Molecule
Emcur Pimpri, an industry in Pune, has been in the business of preparation of formulations
since long. It wanted to expand its business by entering into manufacturing of drugs in
addition to their formulations. It approached NCL for technological assistance. A contract
research project to develop drug (Amlodipine) molecule was sponsored by Emcur Pimpri for
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
214
5 lakhs in June 2000. The partnership was forged by signing a formal agreement by the
industry with NCL. At that time the drug Amlodipin was already developed by Pfizer and was
available in the market. The drug molecule could exist in two chiral forms, one chiral would
treat the hypertension and the other would cause the side effects. The drug developed by
Pfizer had the mix of the two chiral forms of the molecule, which caused lot of side effects.
The existing drug thus had a technical flaw.
In one year’s time, NCL developed a process to separate the desired chiral form from the
mixture of two chiral forms of the drug molecule, which already existed. The process
separated both isomers from asgenic. NCL gave the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API)
to the industry in the scheduled time of one year. In another one year the industry further
carried out formulation studies followed by the phase III trials and converted the lab scale
process into a commercialisable process. Thus in two year time the improved drug called S (-)
Amlodipin was launched in the market. Huge quantity of drug was not required as the dosage
required was only 2.5 mg. With production quantity of ~2.5 tons/ annum, the drug captured
80% of market share in the year 2003. The industry, i.e., Emcur Pimpri is paying royalty to
NCL. It was case of very successful and effective technology transfer from publicly funded
R&D institution to industry.
Case 12: Leaf Cup Making Machine
A large number of technologies are in the form of simple know-how or a simple machine and
cater to the needs of SSI or rural sector. Leaf Cup Making Machine is one such simple rural
technology, which has been developed by the Central Food Technology & Research Institute
(CFTRI), Mysore for moulding different type of natural forest leaves into plates, cups, saucers
etc. It is a simple machine / process based technology of no IPR value, which has an
advantage that local raw materials can be utilized with low investment. However, it has to be
physically demonstrated to rural people and essentially requires the involvement of NGOs.
Moreover it needs the partnership of machine/process plant fabricator, which becomes the
licensee not the user.
The machine was initially installed in a village for demonstration purpose. In the beginning
these cups were used in the wedding parties etc. and gained popularity. Later, various
mechanisms were used for giving popularity to this simple technology, which included
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
215
demonstration of 55 machines by Rural Technology Demonstration Centre (RTDT) of
NRDC, SISI, NGOs and polytechnics and also through exhibitions and rural fairs. The
technology took about 10 years in getting fully commercialized i.e. in 2003, and presently it
has been licensed to 10 machine fabricators and now there are 1.5 lakh such machines
available in the country each one giving employment to two persons.
Case 13: Biodegradable Plastics
The need for the development of biodegradable plastics arose because of the nuisance created
by waste plastic materials and the ensuing government intervention through legislation to ban
use of plastics at least for some applications. A number of State governments had banned the
use of thin plastic bags like in Delhi, where the use of plastics with less than 20µ thickness
has not been allowed, and an all-out ban has been imposed on the use of plastics in view of
the havoc caused by the clogging of the drainage system in the rainy season. Central Tuber
Crops Research Institute developed the technology for biodegradable plastics through
development of basic formulations containing 40%, 30%, 20% and 10% starch. Central
Plastic Research Institute developed at pilot scale different grades of films and injectables.
Being a new development, it required setting up new standards to be established for quality
and degradation testing and Shriram Industrial Research Institute joined hands in testing the
products for bio-degradability and standardization. Among other technology partners were
NRDC, which was made the overall coordinator for management of IPR and licensing to
industry and DST, which under its HGT scheme provided 50% financial assistance to first
licensees of NRDC. Hindustan Levers agreed to use the material for packing their detergents
even at higher cost. A consultant was hired for market survey.
The technology was licensed in the year 2006 to one industry in each State for making bio-
degradable pellets under license of NRDC. Existing plastic industry was allowed to use
biodegradable pellets to produce any type of product without license of NRDC. Market
testing is however still required. It may be noted that it is not a new product and imported
products from Carnegie, USA are available. The developed biodegradable plastic is much
more costly as compared to normal plastics, which is a major hindrance to commercialization,
though multiple uses of such plastic are possible, for example as mulch bag, disposable
shopping bag, disposable apron, gloves, caps used in hospitals, in pharmaceutical and
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
216
electronic industry, as moulded articles and packaging material. However, different grades are
needed to meet the requirements of different applications.
The case study highlights the need for development of the technology necessitated by changes
in the government policy viz. ban on use of plastics for some applications. The R&D institute
developed the technology, facilitated by other R&D institutes in further developing it to pilot
plant scale and in setting up of new standards for quality and degradation testing. The
intermediaries, namely, NRDC and DST played an effective role in facilitating the building
up of partnerships with industry and subsequent commercialization of the technology.
Case 14: Catalytic Process for Butadiene Conversion
The Gharada Chemical Limited (GCL), Mumbai is in the business of developing, upgrading
and commercialising the technologies / processes in-house since inception. The owner of
GCL was a technocrat and not an entrepreneur. GCL planned to convert butadiene to
cyclooctene and cyclooctene to nylone-8 (used for making special engineering plastic) and
approached NCL to develop such a process. This process involved two steps, (a) conversion
of butadiene to cyclooctadine; and (b) conversion of cyclooctadine (COD) to cyclooctene
(COE), both being catalytic process. As per the agreement, GCL had set a target of 95%
process efficiency and wanted a commercially viable process at the cost of RS 20 lakhs. GCL
offered additional royalty to NCL so that all the IPR belong to GCL only. GCL could
terminate the agreement for non-performance of technology/time. GCL was to provide
butadiene and catalyst, the raw materials for the first step of the process that was to be
procured from USA. As the raw material for the first step was not made available to NCL, it
took decision to go ahead with the 2nd step process to cut corner on time schedule and to
deliver the 2nd phase product to GCL. GCL provided the required raw material for the 2nd
step.
NCL delivered the process know-how during the year 2003 for the 2nd step with 98%
efficiency and complete conversion of the raw material. It could deliver the process at 5 litre
scale within 6 months. GCL gave Rs 10 lakhs, half the money of the contracted cost, to NCL
and took away all the IPR. GCL however, did not produce / commercialize the project. NCL
was at a total loss, as its technology never reached the market, and did not get the royalty.
This was a unique experience in which NCL was dealing with a technocrat, who was also a
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
217
member of the Research Council of NCL and had maintained a constant pressure on the
implementing team at NCL. The discussions with concerned NCL team suggests the reasons
for success of part of the project being the timely delivery of the raw material and the
presence of mind demonstrated by the implementing team by offering to go in for the 2nd
step, as cyclooctodine, raw material for the 2nd step, was available in the market. The first
step could not be completed as there was a complete lack of foresightedness for availability of
raw material on part of the industry. The technology transfer was not successful as the
company did not implemented the transferred technology.
Case 15: Heat Pipe based Heat Sinks
Heat pipes are two phase counter current heat transfer devices. The heat pipe programme was
initiated in by International advanced Research centre for Powder Metallurgy and New
Materials (ARCI) in collaboration with Luikov Institute of Heat & Mass Transfer, Bellarus,
Under this collaboration, ARCI established a full-fledged pilot plant facility with a capacity to
produce about 100 heat pipes per day. After carrying out extensive R&D for about 3 years,
ARCI developed technology for different types of heat pipes for different applications. One
such application was in power electronics for cooling the electronic circuits. One of the
techno-entrepreneur who was in the business of power cables/electronics (M/S Capri Cables,
Hyderabad) approached ARCI for heat pipe technology and requested for few samples of heat
pipes to test them in power electronics application. After evaluating their suitability, the
entrepreneur signed technology transfer agreement with ARCI for transfer of technology. As a
part of the technology transfer agreement, large number of heat pipes suitable for the specific
application of interest to the entrepreneur, were produced at ARCI pilot plant on a continuous
basis and field tested for their performance. The personnel from the entrepreneurs company
were also trained on various aspects of manufacturing heat pipes and quality control at ARCI
pilot plant before transfer of technology. Subsequently the entrepreneur has purchased the
technology along with the pilot plant on lease-cum-sale basis in 2004 and established the
production line by adding the balancing facilities in the Advanced Materials Technology
Incubator set up by ARCI, close to its premises, by 2006. ARCI has helped the entrepreneur
in installation, commissioning and trial runs and demonstrated the method of manufacturing
heat pipes of different sizes and specifications at the relocated place. The entrepreneur also
obtained financial assistance from TIFAC under Home Grown Technology programme for
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
218
commercializing the technology. Although the entrepreneur could develop heat pipes for very
unique and niche applications, he could not increase the volume of production due to lack of
adequate working capital and resources for marketing. He operated the plant with limited
manpower. The technology and its implementation was successful but it was a commercial
failure on account of the technology receivers inability to pool the required resources on time.
Case 16: Ceramic Crucibles for Carbon and Sulphur Analysis
Ceramic crucibles are used for carbon and sulphur analysis in various industries and R&D
laboratories. One of the entrepreneur (M/S Advanced Ceramics, Hyderabad) who has been in
the business of marketing imported brands of crucibles approached International Advanced
Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) with a request to develop
crucibles having high refractoriness and resistance to thermal shock and corrosive
atmosphere, using indigenous raw materials. ARCI then developed the technology for
alumino silicate crucibles with the required properties in one years time and secured Indian
patent for the same. The crucibles produced using ARCI technology were extensively field
tested at several metallurgical industries and R&D organizations for evaluating their
performance against the imported crucibles jointly. As the crucibles met the required
specifications M/S Advanced Ceramics entered into an agreement for transfer of this
technology on exclusive basis with ARCI in 2002. The technology was transferred
successfully by ARCI to the company by way of demonstrating the process know-how at
commercial scale with the product meeting the mutually agreed technical specifications.
Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation and TIFAC have provided the financial
assistance for setting up the commercial plant of 6 lakh ceramic crucibles for year. The plant
was under operation since 2003 for about two years, thereafter it became sick unit as the
maintenance costs were gone up, and the company could not increase the volume of
production due to financial problems.
Case 17: Magnesia Aluminate Spinel (MAS)
Magnesia Aluminate Spinel (MAS), on account of its superior properties and cost
effectiveness, has emerged as an important refractory material for steel and cement industries.
A Hyderabad based technopreneur in the refractories field undertook the challenge to develop
MAS aggregates by adapting the principles of in-situ spinelisation. The technopreneur could
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
219
achieve limited success in terms of degree of spinelisation (only up to 40-50%) and physico-
chemical properties. In order to achieve almost 100% spinel phase and the required physico-
chemical properties, the technopreneur (M/S White Circle Oxide Ltd) collaborated with
International Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and New Materials (ARCI)
to develop the technology for MAS. The unique feature of this collaboration was that the
partner was fully aware of and very familiar with the market and also worked with ARCI
scientists on an equal footing since he also had technical expertise in the field on the basis of
his long experience. Thus, ARCI has no problem with regard to assimilation of the technology
by the technology receiver. The technology for MAS was successfully developed by ARCI
and a joint Indian Patent was obtained. After large number of successful field trials with the
refractory bricks made out of MAS in steel and cement plants M/S White Circle Oxide
entered in to technology transfer with ARCI. The technology was transferred on exclusive
basis and the company established the commercial plant for producing 3000 metric tones/year
at Peddapuram in East Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh by obtaining loans from TDB,
IDBI and other banks to the tune of Rs.25 crores in 2003. Although there were some teething
problems in scaling up of the process, they were however solved by further R&D by ARCI
and the technology was transferred successfully during the year 2005. The plant was operated
for a period of one year and later it was closed temporarily due to increase in fuel cost, which
was the major component of manufacturing cost and aggressive marketing by Chinese
manufactures of MAS in India. The company reported its sickness to BIFR in 2006.
Case 18: Nano Silver Suspensions for Antibacterial Textiles
Nanosilver suspensions are being widely used by the textile industry to manufacture odour-
free antibacterial textiles that find applications in hospitals, innerwear, sportswear, socks,
active wear, baby care products etc. and have huge market potential. M/s. Resil Chemicals
Pvt. Ltd. (Resil), Bangalore, a company that supplies chemical finishes to the textile industry
sensed the business opportunity and collaborated with ARCI to develop a highly stable nano
silver suspension for antibacterial textile applications.
ARCI successfully synthesized nanosilver suspensions having particle size of 20-50nm by
adopting a chemical route. The suspensions, first made at laboratory-scale (100 ml batch),
were tested by Resil for antibacterial textile application and approved for further
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
220
development, involving large scale synthesis. ARCI has subsequently up-scaled the process to
produce nanosilver suspension of 15 Liters per batch. The process parameters to get a
consistent quality and physico-chemical properties of the nano suspension with respect to
stability after dilution, packaging and transport were optimized. The prepared suspensions
demonstrated wash-durable antibacterial activity up to 100 washes, even at concentrations as
low as 1wt% nano silver suspension in the treatment bath. The nano suspension produced at
the ARCI pilot plant was tested by Resil, which demonstrated reproducible results and met all
the industry requirements. Figure.6.1 shows the pilot plant facility to produce nanosilver
suspension and Figure. 6.2 shows the nanosilver treated antibacterial textiles being marketed
by some of the textile companies in India.
ARCI has transferred this technology to M/s Resil Chemicals, on exclusive license basis and
the company prepared one tone of nano silver suspension using the pilot plant facility of
ARCI. Resil has successfully commercialized this technology by establishing an in-house
facility to manufacture about 60,000 kgs/batch nanosilver suspension. The product is sold
under the brand name of “N9 Pure Silver”, which is being marketed by N9 World
Technologies (a marketing arm of Resil). The company is supplying these finishes in India
and abroad to many textile/garment manufacturers for the last 3 years. The technology
development and transfer has been completed by ARCI over a period of 2 years. The
company is manufacturing and selling the product profitably for the last 3 years i.e. 2009
onwards.
Figure 6.1 Pilot plant facility to produce nano silver suspension
Figure 6. 2 Nano silver treated anti bacterial textiles
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
221
Case 19: Nanosilver Incorporated Ceramic Candle Filters for Water Disinfection
Since ancient times, the antibacterial properties of nanosilver are known. ARCI has developed
a technology, incorporating nanosilver in to the traditional ceramic water filter candles to
provide safe drinking water in rural areas, where the main sources of water (ponds and canals)
are contaminated and existing water purification systems are expensive and unaffordable.
Considering the social need and huge market opportunity, ARCI developed a simple and
inexpensive method to synthesize nanosilver coated ceramic candle filters. The pores of the
candle filters were coated with nanosilver, which acted as flow channels for water to be
filtered and killed the bacteria present in water, rendering safe drinking water.
These nanosilver coated candle filters were extensively tested for their antibacterial activity at
two accredited laboratories and a hospital. All the test results proved the ability of the
nanosilver coated candle filters to reduce bacterial concentration from 105cfu/ml to 0 or nil
cfu/ml after filtration. ARCI conducted a life cycle analysis to evaluate silver leaching into the
filtered water as a function of usage time and long-term antibacterial activity of the candle
filters. The amount of silver leaching out of freshly prepared candle filters was carefully
monitored and the values for five successive filtrations were noted. The results were found to
be well within the WHO limits for silver in drinking water and US EPA limits for colloidal
silver intake by humans. The WHO limit for silver in ionic form in drinking water is 0.1
mg/L. After the laboratory test demonstrated high antibacterial action of the nanosilver
incorporated candle filters, field trials were conducted in 40 villages in collaboration with a
Non-Governmental Organization (NGO). These field trials yielded extremely encouraging
results. The filtered water was tested by H2S vial test every day to ascertain the presence of
bacteria after filtration. The data obtained using canal and pond water from one village over a
seven month period revealed the total absence of bacteria in the filtered water even after its
storage for 72 hours, throughout its use. Similar data was obtained for tap and tank water.
The candle filters used in the field trials were tested for silver leaching by Inductively
Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometer (ICPOES) analysis which demonstrated that
the silver leaching out of the used filter was far less than the WHO limits even after one year
of usage, thereby indicated the strong adherence of silver to the candle surface. Accelerated
tests, carried out on fresh candle filters by immersing them in boiled water for 30 minutes,
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
222
showed release of less than 0.08 ppm of silver (below the WHO prescribed limit) into the
water. This indicates strong adherence of nanosilver on candle filters.
After satisfactory completion of field trials, the technology was successfully transferred to
M/s SBP Aquatech Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Since the technology was developed in-house and
has huge potential for its application for common people in the society, ARCI has chosen a
policy of transferring the technology on non-exclusive license basis to entrepreneurs/industry.
The company has set up a plant in Hyderabad with a production capacity of 1000 filters per
day and the product is in the market with the brand name of PURITECH®. Technology
Development Board (TDB) or Government of India has extended financial assistance to the
company for commercializing the technology. Figure 6.3 shows mass production of
nanosilver coated water filter ceramic candles and Figure 6.4 shows the nanosilver coated
water filter candle, being marketed in the Indian market.
Although the technology was successfully transferred and the product was commercially
launched in the market in the year 2007, the company could not sustain its growth in the
market due to several financial, management and marketing problems. ARCI is looking
forward to transfer this technology to few more entrepreneurs who have strong financial
background and marketing skills so that the innovative product is made available across the
country.
Case 20: Undecenoic Acid and Heptaldehyde from Castor Oil
India is one of the largest producers of Castor Oil (accounting for 70% of the global
production) and is a large exporter of castor oil. Indian Institute of Chemical Technology has
developed a technology for converting the castor oil into various value added products like
Figure 6.3: Production of nanosilver coated filter candles
Figure 6.4: Nanosilver coated filter candles
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
223
Undecenoic Acid and Heptaldehyde. These products are used in cosmetics and
pharmaceuticals. Realizing the potential for commercialization of the technology, M/s Gujarat
Oleo Chem Ltd., obtained the license for commercializing the technology from IICT. The
company obtained financial assistance from TDB to set up a commercial plant at a cost of
about Rs. 30 crores. IICT demonstrated the technology at its pilot plant and provided required
training to the staff of Gujarat Oleo Chem Ltd., in the year 2004. Subsequently the company
established the commercial production facility in the year 2006, but could not produce a
product of acceptable quality and became sick. The plant is closed in the year 2008. The key
components of all the 20 case studies used in this research are presented in
Table. 6.3.
Table. 6.3. Summaries of case studies
Case No.
Technology Developed
Technology Transferor
Technology Receiver
Financing Agencies
Year of Technology
Transfer
1 Hepatitis B vaccine
Osmania University
& CCMB-CSIR
Shanta Biotechnics
Pvt. Ltd.
Technology Development Board (TDB)
1998
2 Heart Valve
Sri Chitra Tirunal Institute for
Medical Sciences & Technology
TTK Healthcare NA 2000
3 Detonation Spray Coatings
International Advanced
Research Centre for Powder
Metallurgy & New Materials (ARCI)
Sai Surface Coatings
Technologies
Technology Information
& Forecasting Assessment
Council (TIFAC) &
TDB
2005
4 Broadband
Access Technology
Indian Institute of Technology,
Madras
Banyan Networks/
Midas Communication Technologies
TDB 2005
5
Recombinant Human
Epidermal Growth Factor
(rhEGF)
Institute of Genomics and
Integrative Biology (CSIR)
Bharat Biotech International
Ltd. TDB 2005
6
ZenScan & VehiScan for vehicle traffic
monitoring
Indian Institute of Technology, New
Delhi
Kritikal Secure San Ltd. TDB 2007
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
224
7 Palm Oil Technology
RRL – T, CMERI (CSIR)
MERDO, CPCRI (ICAR)
AP Oil Federation
TDB, NCDC,
Oil Mission 2002
8 Rice Husk Particle Board
Indian Plywood Research Institute
(IPRI)
Padmavathi Panel Board
Ltd.
NRDC IDBI 1998
9 Clot Buster SK Institute of Microbial
Technology (IMT)
Cadila Pharma Ltd. NA 2002
10 Specialty Monomers
National Chemical Laboratory
(NCL-CSIR)
Vinati Organics Ltd. TDB 2003
11 Drug
(Amlodipine) Molecule
NCL (CSIR) Emcur Pimpri NA 2003
12 Leaf Cup Making Machine CFTRI (CSIR) 10 Machine
Fabricators NA 2003
13 Biodegradable Plastics
Central Tuber Crops Research
Institute (CTCRI) & CPRI
Hindustan Lever
TIFAC-HGT 2006
14
Catalytic Process for Butadiene
Conversion
NCL (CSIR) Gharada Chemical Ltd NA 2003
15 Heat Pipe based Heat Sinks
International Advanced
Research Institute of Powder
Metallurgy & New Materials (ARCI)
Capri Cables Ltd. TIFAC-HGT 2006
16
Ceramic Crucibles for Carbon and
Sulphur Analysis
ARCI Advanced Ceramics Ltd. TIFAC-HGT 2003
17 Magnesia
Aluminate Spinel (MAS)
ARCI White Circle Oxide Ltd. TDB & IDBI 2005
18
Nano Silver Suspensions for
Antibacterial Textiles
ARCI Resil Chemicals Ltd. NA 2009
19
Nanosilver Incorporated
Ceramic Candle Filters for Water
Disinfection
ARCI SBP Aquatech Pvt. Ltd. TDB 2007
20 Undecenoic Acid and Heptaldehyde from Castor Oil
Indian Institute of Chemical
Technology (IICT)
Gujarat Oleo Chem Ltd. TDB 2006
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
225
6.3.1 Verification of Variables in Case Studies to Validate the Model/Factors
The variables found to be critical for achieving successful technology transfer as emerged
from the empirical study of 734 survey respondents and determined using exploratory factor
analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM)
were presented to the seven focused group of experts. The experts were given the case study
material before the scheduled interview/meeting to enable them to understand the contents. In
all the cases the technology was transferred by a publicly funded R&D institution to industry
and they were all implemented few years ago and matured cases to be used as bench marks to
examine the present research outcomes. On the meeting day, the experts were given the table
containing all the critical variables on one side and the company name on the other side. Each
case was analyzed to see whether the identified 23 variables were present or absent in the
given case of technology transfer project. Once a consensus was reached, the experts were
asked to mark on the case summary table whether the variable was present (√) in the case or
absent (x). Table 6.4 shows the summary statement of verifying the presence or absence of
model variables/factors in the implemented technologies at commercial scale (case studies).
The analysis and discussion on validation of model factors is presented along with validation
of technology transfer assessment tool below.
6.4 Analysis of Results
In case study 1 (Hepatitis B Vaccine), it was found that all the 19 enabling/critical variables
were present in the project (see Table 6.4) and the technology transfer was a great success.
Apart from the technology transferor and transferee meeting all the critical variables strongly,
the main factor contributed for the grand success of the TT project was that the product was
internationally very competitive. Morevoer, the proactive government policy i.e. introducing
Hepatitis-B in the universal immunization programme created a huge market for the product
and the startup company. The application of technology transfer assessment tool on the TT
project further revealed that each factor/construct weighted score (Figure 6.5) exceeded the
minimum threshold weight i.e. 3/4 of the maximum of each factor/construct weighted score
(which is a positive sign for achieving successful technology transfer) and estimated overall
successful technology transfer potential index was 83% (Figure 6.6). The project is a
successful one as it is doing very well even today.
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
226
Table 6.4 Verifying the presence or absence of model variables in the cases
Model Factor/ Construct
Observed Variable Case No. / Company Sl.No Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Technology Transferor Factor (TF)
1 Strong IPRs √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 2 Prototype field tested √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ x √ √ √ √ √ √ 3 Exclusive Licensing √ √ √ √ √ √ x x √ √ √ x x x √ √ √ √ x √ 4 Training & Demonstrated √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 5 Performance guarantee √ √ √ x √ x √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ x 6 Effective communication √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Technology Receiver Factor (RF)
7 Top management champions the project √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
8 Having competent team √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ x x √ √ x x 9 Strong financial background √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ x √ x x x √ x x 10 Marketing capability √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ x x x x x √ x x
Market Factor (MF)
11 Large market size √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 12 Product meeting user needs √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ x x √ x √ √ √ x 13 Competitive price and quality √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ x x √ x x √ √ √
Finance Factor (FF)
14 Techno-economic feasibility/variability √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ x x √ √ √ √ √ √
15 Easy access to finance √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ x √ x x √ √ √ √ √ √ 16 Longer repayment period of debt √ x √ √ √ √ √ x x √ x x x x √ √ √ √ √ √
Government Policy Factor (GF)
17 Proactive legislative acts √ x x x x x √ x x x x x √ x x x x x x x 18 Fiscal incentives √ √ x √ √ √ x X x x x √ x x x x x x x x
19 Availability of the incubation facility √ x √ √ x √ X x x X x x x x √ x x x x x
Successful Technology Transfer (ST)
20 Commencement of Commercial Production √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ x √ √ √ √ √ √
21 Attractive return on investment √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ x x x x x √ x x 22 Launch of product in the market √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ x √ √ √ √ √ x 23 Socio-economic development √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ x x √ √ x √ x x
Present Status (S=Successful, F= Failure) S S S S S S S S S S S S F F F F F S F F
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
227
In case study 2 (Heart Valve), it was noted that out of 19 enabling/facilitating critical
variables, 16 variables were present in the project (Table 6.4). The variables absent were long
repayment period of debt, support of proactive legislative acts/policy like M/s. Shantha
Biotechnics Ltd. had in case 1, and the availability of incubation facilities. Since TTK
Healthcare was an existing profit making company, absence of these three variables did not
affect the technology transfer success much. It is found that the enabling government policies
would tremendously contribute to the success of startup companies as the existing and
established companies could sustain and absorb some deficiencies. The application of
technology transfer assessment tool on the TT project, further revealed that except
Government Policy factor, the other 4 factors/constructs weighted score exceeded (Figure
6.5) the minimum threshold weight i.e. 3/4 of the maximum of each factor/construct weighted
score (which is a positive sign for achieving successful technology transfer) and the estimated
overall successful technology transfer potential index was 77% (Figure 6.6). The project is
moderately successful one as it is sustaining in the market.
While examining Case 3 (Detonation Spray Coating System), it was observed that 3 variables
out of the 19 critical variables, were absent in the project (Table 6.4). They are exclusive
licensing, support of pro-active legislative acts and fiscal incentives. Though the company
was not given exclusive license on the technology, the company was however granted a
regional exclusivity i.e. central zone of India for establishing the facility with a right to market
the product/service in India and abroad. The company was able to overcome the weaknesses
posed by the absence of the above 3 variables through its strong marketing capabilities and
strong financial background. The company could get strong support from the incubation
facility made available to them by the technology transferor. The application of technology
transfer assessment tool on the TT project further revealed that except Government Policy
factor, the other 4 factors/constructs weighted score exceeded (Figure 6.5), the minimum
threshold weight i.e. 3/4 of the maximum of each factor/construct weighted score (which is a
positive sign for achieving successful technology transfer) and the estimated overall
successful technology transfer potential index was 82% (Figure 6.6). The project is a
successful one as it is sustaining in the market.
In case study 4 (Broad Band Access Technology), it was noted that out of 19
enabling/facilitating critical variables, 17 variables were present in the project (Table 6.4).
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
228
The variables absent were performance guarantee of the technology and pro-active legislative
acts. However, they were able to manage the capital expenditure, in the initial stage of the
project by availing incubation facilities offered by IIT Chennai. The promoters were
technically very sound, having deep domain knowledge in the technology. This has facilitated
to achieve success by managing effectively the other weaknesses. The application of
technology transfer assessment tool on the TT project further revealed that except government
policy factor, the other 4 factors/constructs weighted score exceeded (Figure 6.5), the
minimum threshold weight i.e. 3/4 of the maximum of each factor/construct weighted score
(which is a positive sign for achieving successful technology transfer) and the estimated
overall successful technology transfer potential index was 82% (Figure 6.6). The project is a
successful one as it is selling the product and sustaining in the market.
In case study 5 (Recombinant Human Epidermal Growth Factor (rhEGF)), it was found that
out of 19 enabling/facilitating critical variables, 17 variables were present in the project
(Table 6.4). The variables absent were support of pro-active legislative acts and availability
of incubation facilities. Since M/S Bharat Biotech International Ltd was an established profit
making company with strong marketing and financial capabilities, the lack of government
support systems did not matter much in commercializing this technology. The application of
technology transfer assessment tool on the TT project, further revealed that except
government policy factor, the other 4 factors/constructs weighted score exceeded (Figure 6.5)
the minimum threshold weight i.e. 3/4 of the maximum of each factor/construct weighted
score (which is a positive sign for achieving successful technology transfer) and the estimated
overall successful technology transfer potential index was 83% (Figure 6.6). The project is a
successful project as it is selling the product and sustaining in the market.
In case study 6 (ZenScan &VehiScan for vehicle traffic monitoring), it was found that out of
19 enabling/facilitating critical variables, 17 variables were present in the project (Table 6.4).
The variables that were absent are performance guarantee by IIT on the transferred
technology and supportive proactive legislative policies. However, M/s Kritikal Secure Scan
Ltd could get the total support from the IIT incubation unit, which helped them to reduce the
initial capital investment on infrastructure and the technical support of the IIT staff in
addressing the scale-up issues. This has largely helped them to commercialize the technology.
The application of technology transfer assessment tool on the TT project, further revealed that
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
229
except government policy factor, the other 4 factors/constructs weighted score exceeded
(Figure 6.5), the minimum threshold weight i.e. 3/4 of the maximum of each factor/construct
weighted score (which is a positive sign for achieving successful technology transfer) and the
estimated overall successful technology transfer potential index was 72% (Figure 6.6). The
project is moderately successful as it is selling the product and sustaining in the market.
In case study 7 (Palm Oil Technology), it was found that out of 19 enabling/facilitating
critical variables, 16 variables were present in the project (Table 6.4). The variables absent
were exclusive licensing, fiscal incentives and availability of incubation facilities. Since the
project was emerged out of a government policy on creation of National Oil Seeds Machine
Program for promoting agri-business, the absence of above 4 variables did not matter much in
commercializing this technology. The National Oil Seeds Machine Program coordinated the
entire project implementation successfully and removed all the bottlenecks in implementation
of the project successfully. The application of technology transfer assessment tool on the TT
project further revealed that all the 5 factors/constructs weighted score exceeded (Figure 6.5),
the minimum threshold weight i.e. 3/4 of the maximum of each factor/construct weighted
score (which is a positive sign for achieving successful technology transfer) and the estimated
overall successful technology transfer potential index was 89% (Figure 6.6). The project is
not only successful but also diffused to many States.
In case study 8 (Rice Husk Particle Board), it was found that out of 19 enabling/facilitating
critical variables, 14 variables were present in the project (Table 6.4). The variables absent
were exclusive licensing, longer repayment period of debt, pro-active legislative acts, fiscal
incentives and availability of incubation facilities. Since M/s. Padmavathi Panel Board Ltd.,
was an established profit making company with strong marketing and financial capabilities
the lack of government support systems and absence of other variables did not matter much in
commercializing this technology. NRDC, the license holder of this technology, made
Padmavathi Panel Board Ltd, as a Joint Patent Holder for subsequent transfers and the
licensing option was in their control to protect the interests of Padmavathi Panel Board Ltd.
The application of technology transfer assessment tool on the TT project further revealed that
except government policy factor, the other 4 factors/constructs weighted score exceeded
(Figure 6.5), the minimum threshold weight i.e. 3/4 of the maximum of each factor/construct
weighted score (which is a positive sign for achieving successful technology transfer) and the
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
230
estimated overall successful technology transfer potential index was 76% (Figure 6.6). The
project is a successful one as it is selling the product globally and sustaining in the market.
In case study 9 (Clot Busters Streptokinase (SK)), it was found that out of 19
enabling/facilitating critical variables, 15 variables were present in the project (Table 6.4).
The variables absent were longer repayment period of debt, pro-active legislative acts, fiscal
incentives and availability of incubation facilities. Since M/s Cadila Pharma Ltd was an
established profit making company with strong marketing and financial capabilities, the lack
of government support systems did not matter much in commercializing this technology. The
application of technology transfer assessment tool on the TT project, further revealed that
except government policy factor and finance factor, the other 3 factors/constructs weighted
score exceeded (Figure 6.5), the minimum threshold weight i.e. 3/4 of the maximum of each
factor/construct weighted score (which is a positive sign for achieving successful technology
transfer) and the estimated overall successful technology transfer potential index was 83%
(Figure 6.6). The project is a successful one as it is selling the product and sustaining in the
market.
In case study 10 (Specialty Monomers), it was found that out of 19 enabling/facilitating
critical variables, 16 variables were present in the project (Table 6.4). The variables absent
were support of pro-active legislative acts, fiscal incentives and availability of incubation
facilities. Since M/s. Vinati Organics Ltd was an established profit making company with
strong marketing and financial capabilities, the lack of government support systems did not
matter much in commercializing this technology. The application of technology transfer
assessment tool on the TT project further revealed that except government policy factor, the
other 4 factors/constructs weighted score exceeded (Figure 6.5), the minimum threshold
weight i.e. 3/4 of the maximum of each factor/construct weighted score (which is a positive
sign for achieving successful technology transfer) and the estimated overall successful
technology transfer potential index was 81% (Figure 6.6). The project is a successful one as it
is selling the product globally and sustaining in the market.
In case study 11 (Drug (Amlodipine) Molecule), it was found that out of 19
enabling/facilitating critical variables, 14 variables were present in the project (Table 6.4).
The variables absent were easy access to finance, longer repayment period of debt, support of
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
231
pro-active legislative acts, fiscal incentives and availability of incubation facilities. Since M/s
Emcur Pimpri was an established profit making company with strong marketing and financial
capabilities, the lack of government support systems did not matter much in commercializing
this technology. The company invested internal accruals for implementing the technology.
The technology is more of a process know-how which is confidential. The application of
technology transfer assessment tool on the TT project further revealed that except financial
and government policy factors, the other 3 factors/constructs weighted score exceeded
(Figure 6.5), the minimum threshold weight i.e. 3/4 of the maximum of each factor/construct
weighted score (which is a positive sign for achieving successful technology transfer) and the
estimated overall successful technology transfer potential index was 80% (Figure 6.6). The
project is a successful one it is selling the product and sustaining in the market.
In case study 12 (Leaf Cup Making Machine), it was found that out of 19 enabling/facilitating
critical variables, 15 variables were present in the project (Table 6.4). The variables absent
were exclusive licensing, longer repayment period of debt, pro-active legislative acts and
availability of incubation facilities. Since the license was granted to many small entrepreneurs
in rural areas who were not having adequate financial strength and marketing capabilities, the
real potential of the technology could not be realized, though the technology has got good
market potential. The government support through its various mechanisms would go a long
way in diffusing the technology for its wider applications. The application of technology
transfer assessment tool on the TT project further revealed that except financial and
government policy factors, the other 3 factors/constructs weighted score exceeded (Figure
6.5), the minimum threshold weight i.e. 3/4 of the maximum of each factor/construct
weighted score (which is a positive sign for achieving successful technology transfer) and
estimated overall successful technology transfer potential index was 72% (Figure 6.6). The
project is moderately successful as it is selling limited volumes of product against huge
demand and sustaining in the market.
In case study 13 (Biodegradable Plastics), it was found that out of 19 enabling/facilitating
critical variables, 9 variables were present in the project (Table 6.4). The variables absent
were exclusive licensing, strong financial background of the promoters, marketing capability,
product meeting user needs, competitive price and quality, techno-economic feasibility, easy
access to finance, longer repayment period of debts, fiscal incentives, and availability of
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
232
incubation facilities. The technology was licensed to one industry in each State under the
overall coordination of NRDC. As there was a competition from US based supplier and the
product cost was not competitive, the technology could not achieve its potential of success,
though there was a policy of government to ban thin plastic bags in many major cities. The
application of technology transfer assessment tool on the TT project, further revealed that all
the 4 factors/constructs weighted score did not exceed (Figure 6.5), the minimum threshold
weight i.e. 3/4 of the maximum of each factor/construct weighted score (which is a negative
sign for achieving successful technology transfer) and estimated overall successful technology
transfer potential index was 58% (Figure 6.6). The project is a failure at present.
In case study 14 (Catalytic Process for Butadiene Conversion), it was found that out of 19
enabling/facilitating critical variables, 8 variables were very weakly present and 11 were
absent in the project (Table 6.4). Although NCL has developed the final product and
transferred the know-how, M/s. Gharada Chemical Ltd, could not commercialize the
technology, the reasons for which are not known. The application of technology transfer
assessment tool on the TT project further revealed that all the 4 factors/constructs weighted
score did not exceed (Figure 6.5) the minimum threshold weight i.e. 3/4 of the maximum of
each factor/construct weighted score (which is a negative sign for achieving successful
technology transfer) and estimated overall successful technology transfer potential index was
48% (Figure 6.6). The project is a failure.
In case study 15 (Heat Pipe based Heat Sinks), it was found that out of 19 enabling/facilitating
critical variables, 14 variables were present in the project (Table 6.4). The variables absent
were competent team, strong financial background, marketing capability, support of pro-
active legislative acts and fiscal incentives. Although the 16 variables were present in the case
study, but their presence was weak. Although, the entrepreneur got the incubation facilities
support, he could not aggressively market and bring in the required working capital into the
project, and as a result the project could not take off beyond the breakeven point. The
application of technology transfer assessment tool on the TT project further revealed that all
the 4 factors/constructs weighted score did not exceed (Figure 6.5) the minimum threshold
weight i.e. 3/4 of the maximum of each factor/construct weighted score (which is a negative
sign for achieving successful technology transfer) and the estimated overall successful
technology transfer potential index was 58% (Figure 6.6). The project is a failure.
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
233
In case study 16 (Ceramic Crucibles for Carbon and Sulphur Analysis), it was found that out
of 19 enabling/facilitating critical variables, 11 variables were present in the project (Table
6.4). The technology transferor and financial factors were relatively stronger than the other 3
factors. Since M/s Advanced Ceramics Ltd was a start-up company, managed by a non-
technical entrepreneur with limited financial and marketing capabilities he could not manage
the project successfully for a longer period. Perhaps the governmental support like availing
incubation facilities could have helped to manage the project towards successful
commercialization. The application of technology transfer assessment tool on the TT project
further revealed that except technology transferor factor/constructs, the other 4
factors/constructs weighted score did not exceed (Figure 6.5), the minimum threshold weight
i.e. 3/4 of the maximum of each factor/construct weighted score (which is a negative sign for
achieving successful technology transfer) and estimated overall successful technology transfer
potential index was 65%. (Figure 6.6). The project is a failure.
In case study 17 (Magnesia Aluminate Spinel (MAS)), it was found that out of 19
enabling/facilitating critical variables, 13 variables were present in the project (Table 6.4).
Though the technology transferor, receiver and financial factors were relatively stronger and
have required strength, the remaining 2 factors, i.e. market and government factors were not
having the required strength. Since M/s White Circle Oxide Ltd was a start-up company,
manage by a technocrat entrepreneur could not managed the project successfully for a longer
period due to changes in market conditions such as increased fuel cost and competition from
Chinese products. Perhaps the governmental support like imposing anti-dumping duties on
Chinese imports could have helped to sustain the project towards it successful
commercialization. The application of technology transfer assessment tool on the TT project,
further revealed that technology transferor, technology receiver and financial
factors/constructs weighted scores were exceeded (Figure 6.5) the minimum threshold weight
i.e. 3/4 of the maximum of each factor/construct weighted score (which is a positive sign for
achieving successful technology transfer) but not market and government factors. Although
the analysis resulted into an overall successful technology transfer potential index of 70%
(Figure 6.6), the project was a failure due to the fact that the product is no more competitive
in the market in terms of its price. The company reported its sickness to Board for Industrial
and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) for financial restructuring.
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
234
In case study 18 (Nanosilver Suspension for Antibacterial Textiles), it was found that out of
19 enabling/facilitating critical variables, 16 variables were present in the project (Table 6.4).
The variables absent were support of pro-active legislative acts, fiscal incentives and
availability of incubation facilities. Since M/s Resil Chemicals Ltd was an established profit
making company with strong marketing and financial capabilities, the lack of government
support systems did not matter much in commercializing this technology. The application of
technology transfer assessment tool on the TT project further revealed that except government
policy factor, the other 4 factors/constructs weighted score exceeded (Figure 6.5) the
minimum threshold weight i.e. 3/4 of the maximum of each factor/construct weighted score
(which is a positive sign for achieving successful technology transfer) and estimated overall
successful technology transfer potential index was 80% (Figure 6.6). The project is a
successful one as it is selling the product globally and sustaining in the market.
In case study 19 (Nanosilver Incorporated Ceramic Candle Filters for Water Disinfection), it
was found that out of 19 enabling/facilitating critical variables, 13 variables were present in
the project (Table 6.4). The 6 variables absent or weakly present were having exclusive
licensing, competent team, strong financial background, marketing capability (weakly
present), support of pro-active legislative acts, fiscal incentives and availability of incubation
facilities. Since M/s SBP Aquatech Pvt. Ltd, was a start-up company managed by non-
technical entrepreneur could not manage the project successfully because of the weak
financial and marketing capabilities. The application of technology transfer assessment tool
on the TT project further revealed that except technology transferor factor/construct, the other
4 factors/constructs weighted score did not exceed (Figure 6.5) the minimum threshold
weight i.e. 3/4 of the maximum of each factor/construct weighted score (which is a negative
sign for achieving successful technology transfer) and estimated overall successful technology
transfer potential index of 62% (Figure 6.6). The project was failure.
The case study 20 (Undecenoic Acid and Heptaldehyde from Castor Oil) also resembles case
study 19. It was found that out of 19 enabling/facilitating critical variables, 12 variables were
present in the project (Table 6.4). The 7 variables absent or weakly present were having
performance guarantee, competent team, strong financial background, marketing capability
(weakly present), support of pro-active legislative acts, fiscal incentives and availability of
incubation facilities. Since M/s Gujarat Oleo Chem Ltd, was a start-up company managed by
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
235
non-technical entrepreneur could not manage the project successfully because of the lack of
attributes mentioned under technology receiver factor. The application of technology transfer
assessment tool on the TT project further revealed that except technology transferor
factor/construct, the other 4 factors/constructs weighted score did not exceed (Figure 6.5) the
minimum threshold weight i.e. 3/4 of the maximum of each factor/construct weighted score
(which is a negative sign for achieving successful technology transfer). Although the analysis
resulted into an overall successful technology transfer potential index of 67% (Figure 6.6) the
project was a failure due to the facts that technology receiver did not have the required
attributes in enough measure mentioned under technology receiver factor/construct. The
technology transfer project was a failure and the company has closed its operations.
Figure 6.5 presents the strength of each dimension/factor compared to the minimum threshold
weight that is required to achieve the successful technology transfer. It can be seen from the
graph that in 19 cases (except case No.14) the technology transferor factor was strong
enough, i.e. more than the minimum threshold weight (3/4 of the maximum of each
factor/construct weighted score) that is required to achieve the successful technology transfer.
Fig. 6.5: Strength of each TT factor/dimension in the case studies
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Wei
ghte
d Sc
ore
Case
Technology Transferor Technology Receiver Market
Financial Government
36
24
18
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
236
Fig. 6.6: Estimated successful TT potential index
Where as in the case of other factors/dimensions, i.e. technology receiver factor-15 cases,
market factor-13cases, finance factor-10 cases and government factor only one case were
having enough strength, i.e more than the minimum threshold weight (3/4 of the maximum of
each factor/construct weighted score) that is required to achieve the successful technology
transfer. It can be seen from the above analysis that only one company that was M/S Shanta
Biotechnics Pvt. Ltd., was found to have the required strength in all the five factors/strengths
and achieved outstanding success. Few other projects were also successful, because they were
able to address the weaknesses present in respective factors/constructs appropriately. There
must be substantive strength in all five dimensions/factors for achieving successful
technology transfer (Heslop, 2001).
Figure 6.6 presents the successful technology transfer potential index estimated by applying
the technology transfer assessment tool/framework developed in the study in Chapter 5 on all
the 20 case studies. The tool has estimated the successful technology transfer potential index
for all the 20 technology transfer projects described in the case studies, which is ranged
between 48-89%.
6.5 Findings
The examination of critical variables in the form of their presence or absence in the above 20
case studies and the application of technology transfer assessment tool on the 20 case studies
revealed the following:
83 77
82 82 83 72
89
76 83 81 80
72
58 48
58 65
70 80
58 67
0102030405060708090
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Succ
essf
ul T
echn
olog
y Tr
ansf
er
Pote
ntia
l Ind
ex
Case
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
237
i) The case studies confirmed that all the 19 critical variables are important for
achieving successful technology transfer from publicly funded R&D laboratories to
industry as can be observed in case study number one, M/s Shanta Biotechnics Ltd.,
Hyderabad.
ii) One important lesson to be learned from the study is that there must be substantive
strength in all five dimensions/factors, i.e. technology transferor factor, technology
receiver factor, market factor, finance factor, government policy factor for achieving
successful technology transfer.
iii) The case studies established that presence of large number of these variables out of
the 19 critical variables led to successful technology transfer. For example, case study
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 18. These findings were also correlated with the
estimated successful transfer potential index which ranges from 71 to 89%.
iv) The case studies also established that absence of these variables in large numbers
resulted in the failure of technology transfer. For example, case study 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 19 & 20. These findings were also correlated with the estimated successful
transfer potential index which ranges from 48 to 70%.
v) It was found that the start-up companies required government support like incubation
facilities, easy access to finance and policies to create market for the products as
compared to established companies to make the transferred technology more
successful. (For example case No. 1, 3 & 6).
From the above findings, it is concluded that the model factors and thereby the model is
validated. Based on the results obtained from application of the Technology Transfer
Assessment Tool, the case studies are classified into 3 categories as shown in Table 6.5.
Table 6.5: Classification of successful projects based on index
Successful Transfer Index Degree of Success No. of Cases
>80 Successful 7
71-80 Moderately Successful 6
<70 Failure 7
Chapter-6: Case Studies: Model Validation
238
6.6 Summary:
The 5 factors/constructs determined from Structural Equation Model (SEM) in Chapter 5
were selected for model validation, namely, the technology transferor characteristics/factor,
technology receiver characteristics/ factor, market factor, finance factor, enabling government
policy factor. Already implemented 20 technology transfer projects during the period 1998-
2009 were used to analyze the presence or absence of these 5 significant dimensions/factors
and their associated 19 variables in these case studies and thereby validate the developed
model. The analysis in general confirmed that the presence of all the critical variables in any
given technology transfer and its management is necessary for achieving successful
technology transfer. From the above findings it was amply established that the model
variables/factors were valid and thereby the model is valid. It may however be noted that
there are some exemptions. For example if the promoter is having strong financial
background, and good marketing capability or in the case of an established profit making
company, absence of some of the variables like lack of government support, incubation
facilities or access to finance may not influence significantly and negatively the technology
transfer success, as observed in some of the cases studied above. For a first generation
entrepreneur and a start-up company fulfilling or meeting all the variables to the maximum
extent can facilitate to achieve successful technology transfer. This analysis determined that
the variables and the model factors are reliable for monitoring the TT process and evaluating
the degree of value that may result from such technology transfer processes.
Recommended