1 / 29

The technology transfer debate

Explore the historical models and strategies behind technology transfer, examining both successful and failed cases, and the gaps between design and actual implementation. Gain insights into the complexities of technology translation and the importance of knowledge transfer.

ralejandra
Télécharger la présentation

The technology transfer debate

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The technology transfer debate Monday 25/9 2017

  2. Technology transferoutline • How to approachthereadings • Background; why is thisimportant • Historicalmodelsexplainingtechnologydiffusion • Understanding it better: • Technologytranslation and other variants • Success and failures. Challengesofdesign-actuality gaps. Design from nowhere • Translationsgobothways: the case of DHIS2

  3. Guide to thereadings • Main narrative is from Nhampossa’s thesis • Chapter 2 nicely summarize discourses around technology transfer and translation • Chapter 6 presents more in-depth on translation, strategies to manage it etc. • Heeks: Presents a reasonable framework to understand aspects of sustainability. Design-actuality gaps • Recommended readings • Suchman: technology use is re-contextualization of technologies “designed from nowhere” • Laet and Mol: very nicely written! Shows translations (assembling of networks) through the concept of fluidity. Also relevant for “frugal technologies” session • Braa et al: technology learning. No tech transfer without knowledge transfer, and knowledge creation • Sahay et al: circulating translations. Deals with technology translations between multiple locales. Relevant for understanding DHIS2 and implementations in countries

  4. Background • Technology transfer, in a widesense, meanstransferringtechnology from originator/group, to widerdissemination. Can be from universities to private sector, from large businesses to smallones, from government to business, across borders, etc. • In our case, it is usually in additionseen as transferring from ”developed” country to ”developing”. • International development has been, and continues to be, focusedon «moving/developingtechnology from onecontext to another» • From earlydaysofinternationaldevelopment • Agricultural machinery. Someindustrialization (perhaps more in theSoviet camp?) • A verycommonthemealso in ICT4D, almost by definition • ICT (from developedcountry) 4 D (in developingcountry)

  5. Why transfer ofICTs from developed to developingcountries (summary in Heeks) • Economicsofinnovation: dominationofindustrializedcountriesresearch and development • Economicsof business: industrialized-countrybusinessesable to invest more and earlier in ICT • Economics and politicsofaid: flowofresources and artefacts from developed to developing • Belief in superiorityofimporteditems • All oftheaboveenabled and strengthened by globalization: carriedideas and systems from developed to developing

  6. Billions of $ goinginto ”technology transfer”, led by developmentagencies • http://www.who.int/phi/programme_technology_transfer/en/ • http://www.worldbank.org/projects/P101928/health-sector-technology-transfer-institutional-reform?lang=en&tab=overview • https://www.usaid.gov/ghana/news-information/press-releases/official-launch-feed-future-usaid-agriculture-technology • IT is seen as a key tool in achieving [economic growth], and becomes part of a technically rational and technologically determinist agenda that focuses on the digital divide, on “eDevelopment,” and on IT infrastructure (Wilson & Heeks, 2000). • Question 1: How is this seen from the various perspectives on development (from lecture 1)? • Question 2: How do we transfer technology?

  7. Historicalmodels • Rogers’ DiffusionofTechnology • TAM • Critiques, and therealizationthatbetterexplanationsareneeded

  8. Diffusion of technologyRogers (1983) Focus on individuals (”early adopters”, ”laggards”) Does not deal with social systems in which the diffusion takes place Critiqued for failing to account for complex technological innovation (ICTs). Technology as material object

  9. TechnologyAcceptanceModel (TAM)(Davis et al 1989) • Buildsontheideasof, amongothers, Rogers • Tailored to thecontextof ICT, designed to predicts ICT acceptance • Perceivedusefulness • Perceivedeaseofuse

  10. Limitationsofthemodels • Diffusionoftechnologymodel and TAM wouldworkwell for facebook • Suggested extensionofthemodels (indicatetheyare not veryprecise) • Endorsementoftopmanagement • Technologicalculturation • Accessibility • Exposure to ICT (computer literacy) • Perceivedsocioeconomicprospects • ++

  11. Critiqueof TAM(summarized by Nhampossa) • Considering the characteristics of the technology itself • Technology is black-boxed. Are they all the same? • TAMs applicability to large, complex and interconnected systems remains questionable • Socio-technical mismatch • All the suggestions in previous slide really say that context matter • When context/culture is considered, it is reduced to a limited set of variables, that are assumed measurable and standardized. • A focus on voluntary use situations • Perhaps useful for individuals • Ignore the socio-political realities of organizations • (UiO and microsoft exchange…, MS Outlook for email) • Snapshot instead of process perspective • ICT adoption is not phenomena easily understood in snapshots • Process perspectives needed (why did Johan adopted Outlook just recently?)

  12. IntroducingTechnologyTranslation • Need a broaderviewoftechnology • Socio-technical • Culture • Organizations, institutions • Language • In short, context matters • Originally from ANT, theconceptoftranslation has seenwideuse in terms ofexplaininghow, why, and whathappenswhentechnology is ”transferred”

  13. Akrich’sexample (1992): There is nosuchthing as technology transfer A woodwastemachine is ”transferred” from Sweden to Nicaragua The social and technicalrelations (actornetworks) around it aredifferent, and start to change: Little wood in Nicaragua, forests held by rebels. Can’tusericewaste. Butcottonwasteworks! How to collect it? Machine from Sudan works ok. Anothermachine is built to harvestalsowaste under ground. Butcottonwasteonlyavailable a shortperiodeachyear. Warehousesbuilt! Then, AmphiserusCornutu! The Sudanesemachine have to be modified to compactthewaste more. And so on….. The network in Nicaragua is different from theone in Sweden. Technology is passed from hand to hand: a series ofsmalltranslations. Alsothetechnology is translated.

  14. TechnologyTranslation • Clarification: In ANT, technologyalso has agency(thepower to act, to influence, to impose, to play a role). Thinkofhowfacebookruleyou all • Technology transfer should be seen as an outcomeofhowactorstranslatetheinterestsofothers so thattheybecomealigned in thecomplexheterogeneousnetworkof human and non-humanactors (Nhampossa) • Whatdoes he mean? • With thisperspective, effectivenessoftechnology transfer process is dependent onhowtheactornetwork is created and strengthened over time

  15. Howthetranslationperspectiveaddressessomeofthecritiquesof TAM • Technology treated as black box • Characteristics of technology important, how they shape and are shaped by socio-technical networks • Technology transfer is one big step from North to South • Technology translation focus on small incremental steps of co-adaptation between actors (”users and technology”) • Socio-technical mismatch • Translation perspective emphasize the socio-technical nature of any system. Translation processes include technology, politics, culture, institutions, history etc. • Diffusion of technology is measured in terms of rate of adoption • Translation perspective instead focus on stability of network, and alignment of interests. Individuals are treated as part of the network • Diffusion perspective ignores challenges of scaling and sustaining over time • In translation perspective, scaling and sustainability are core concerns.

  16. Cultivatingsustainablenetworks Meanswhat? Examplesofsustainablenetworks? • HISP Uganda?

  17. Nhampossa’sviewoftechnologytranslation

  18. Heeks (2002) • Looks at reasons for failuresofinformation systems in developingcountries • Partialfailure, total failure, etc.. • Sustainabilityfailure, particularlyaffecting DC • Initiallysucceeding, butthen falling apart • End offunding • Whenkey staff quit • When senior-level champions moveon • 1/5 to ¼ IS projects in developedcountriesare total failures • 1/3 to 3/5 fall in thepartialfailurecategory • Failure rates in DC might be (considerably) higher

  19. Design-actuality gaps

  20. Design-actuality gaps • With technology transfer, the gaps aretypically large • Extreme cases whentechnology is designedwithin and for an industrialized country setting, and transferred to a developing country context • Example: introductionoffieldhealthinformation system in Philippines, designedaccording to an American modelassumingthepresenceofskilled programmers, skilledproject managers, a sound technologicalinfrastructure, and a need for outputs like those in an American health-careorganization • Even whenefforts to developan information system specifically for a developing country organization, therecan be similar problems. Industrialized country consultants, IT vendords, aid donors etc. «If it works for us, it willwork for you». Even iftheytry, theirpoorunderstandingofthe DC conditionswill lead to gaps

  21. How to limit gaps • Actualityimprovisation: changingthelocalactuality to make it closer to the IS design • Design improvisation: changingthe (oftenimported) IS design to make it closer to DC useractuality • Theseimprovisationsshould be locallysituated • How doesthiscomparewithtranslations?

  22. Complementingviews • Fluidity as concept to understand attachment and detachment • The need for learning • Designer/user relationships. Design from nowhere, detached intimacy, located accountability • Non-linearity of transfer and translation; circulating translations

  23. The Zimbabwe Bush Pump type ‘B’ Introduce Fluidityinsteadofnetworks: «an objectthatisn’ttoorigorouslybounded, thatdoesn’timposeitselfbuttries to serve, that is adaptable, flexible and responsive – in short, a fluid object – maywell prove to be strongerthanonewhich is firm» High interpretiveflexibility Heeks’ pointaboutlocalimprovisation? How doesthisrelate to translation? Steel and wood. Locallyreplacable parts

  24. Technology learning (Braa et al) • Not only «will have to learn» to usethetechnology, but «must learn» to be able to catch up withtheindustrializedcountries • Additionalpoint: ICT developmentshould be sheltered from internationalcompetition. Need to developcapacitythemselves • Heeks’ pointaboutdeveloping in and for DC: whowilldevelopthis? The peoplewhoknowthecontext and assumptions

  25. Suchman’sLocatedacountabilities in technologyproduction • Pointing to threecontrastingpositions for design: • Design from nowhere: • A viewthat designers can make commodifiedtechnologiesdetached from anycontext • Led to a rise ofintermediaries (trying to make the system fit) • Detachedintimacy • A cadreofdevelopers turn back towardsthemselves. • Youcan make a careeronlyengagingwithlikeminded • Locatedaccountability • Weseethe world from ourown (limited) location • Weareresponsible for creatingcollectiveknowledgeaboutlocalitiesofbothdevelopment and use • Whataretheimplications for ”technology transfer”?

  26. Pointing to somepossibleimplications for technologyproduction • Understandingtechnologyuse as recontextualizationoftechnologiesdesignedanotherplace (similar to translation) • Acceptingthe limited powerofanyactors or artifacts to controltechnologyproduction/use (fluidity, networks)

  27. Circulatingtranslations Stresses theneed for learning and localadaptations, or translations. Translationsalsoaffectwhat is transferred (software) With digital artefacts (software, writtendocuments), thesetranslationscaneasily travel further, leading to furthertranslations in othercontexts. The global and thelocalmutuallyreinforceeachother Whatwould DHIS2 be like if it hadonlybeenimplemented in onecountry? Design from nowhere? Design from everywhere?

  28. Nhampossa’sviewoftechnologytranslationrevisited Flexibility Design improvisation Fluidity Design-actuality gaps Circulatingtranslations Technologylearning Creatingnetworks, aligninginterests

  29. Take-awaypoints • Transfer as translation • Focusontheprocess; small-stepincrementalcultivationofnetworks. Transferredtechnologieschangetheirnewcontext, and arechangedthemselves. • Flexible, improvisable, fluid, technologies make design-actuality gaps less dangerous. Alloweasierrecontextualization • Learningthetechnology, and how to develop it, is important • Translationscirculate. We live in a global world, it influencesus

More Related