Talk:Technology transfer/Archives/2012

Commercials and entities

This article needs to break down commercialization entities by region. Also, there is little distinction between some assns and entities; hence the need to combine them. Help welcome.Journalist1983 16:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

MaxInno 22:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC) First comment: commercialization is only ONE arm of TT; inventions also come into public use without a commercialization process - "open source".

Secondly, concerning the breakdown of commercialization entities by region, the starting point could be comparing the members of US AUTM (not only universities!) with those of ProTon Europe, and look at the [Responsible Partnering Initiative]. This comparison would include the famous "surveys" of performance which would teach us the differences between Europe and North America. I know too little of how commercialization entities work in BRIC nowadays

English

This article has been in both US and UK english. This topic is NOT peculiar or unique to UK or to the US. My only opinion, consistent with WP policy, is that the article be CONSISTENT throughout. If you're going to change to UK english, then do it throughout. Comments welcome. Thanks! Journalist1983 21:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any other examples of US-only spelling, apart from the change you made to the verb "practise". Can you point them out please? Thanks, Clicketyclack 07:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. You changed practise once but didn't change it the second time. Also, the word "organisation" is how the brits spell that word, which is used at least twice (maybe more) in the article. I am not a brit, so i don't know every word. for example, i think specialised is spelled differently, as is favour. If you're not an expert in UK english, then i recommend we keep the article for now in US english, since I am an expert in that. Cheers, Journalist1983 14:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. In British English, "practise" is the verb, and "practice" is the noun [1]. Also, "organization" is actually the correct British spelling (see American and British English spelling differences#-ise / -ize), and though the lazy usage -ise for -ize verbs is common here in Britain, -ize is correct in all written English and therefore the one we should stick with on WP.

I occasionally have arguments with fellow Brits over the -ize ending, and they're always amazed when they check an OED and learn (to their inevitable horror) that -ize is not "American usage" after all. It's an easy way to win money in a bar-room bet, next time you're over here. :-)

You're right about "favor" though, which you also added yesterday. Reverting to article's original spelling "practise", and amending "favor" to "favour", for consistency. Best, Clicketyclack 20:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the education! I always appreciate learning, and I always like solutions. As mentioned, i am not an expert in UK english; glad I was right on one account anyway. I will certainly keep this in mind next time I am in a pub. I will say that your view appears to be a minority one. All my UK friends would disagree with you (which probably speaks to my level of friends!), and WP admits American and British English spelling differences#-ise / -ize that OED and you are probably fighting a losing battle. Moreover, "In Australia and New Zealand -ise spellings strongly prevail; the Australian Macquarie Dictionary, among other sources, gives the -ise spelling first," accding to WP.

Therefore, in the spirit of compromise, here is my suggestion: that the article stand for one year in UK english, and that if any American desires (it won't likely be me, although you never know) to revert to US english, then we can do that. Do you (or any others who want to join in) agree to this fair compromise? Conversely, let me know if you think the US should go first. Cheers, Journalist1983 01:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy to compromise, but it's not really up to me to decide something like that- I don't own the article, and established WP policy (in spirit, more than letter) should guide how the article's maintained as far as reasonably possible. Proposing a policy change on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style is preferable to making special cases per-article.

Regarding the -ise ending, it is also an acceptable variant according to the OED (see ref above), so if anyone from the UK, Aus or NZ wants to change them to -ise, that's fine too.

I've no cultural axe to grind, just a preference for reasonable due process. I've defended US-style original spellings in other WP articles and, in one amusing instance, been accused of American bias for using Harvard referencing. :-) Clicketyclack 14:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If you don't feel some ownership of the article, why did you revert the article to UK english, and then dig in on it? No one else has weighed in on the UK/US issue. I will take this positive exchange, which has both been enjoyable and educational, as your agreement that -- in the absence of others who have strong opinions -- you at least agree to the compromise.  :-) Kind regards, Journalist1983 14:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree to your proposal. I reverted your spelling change in order to stick reasonably to policy. The same will be true a year from now, or ten, or whenever the WP Manual of Style changes. We may be the only two people reading this talk page at the moment, so the absence of other strong opinions here has little to do with the wider attitude to spelling policy on WP. If you want the WP:Manual of Style to change, then please lobby for a change. Thanks, Clicketyclack 16:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

How does WP policy support the view that this article ought to remain in UK english? Thanks, Journalist1983 17:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:ENGVAR, "the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic." Sorry, I'd thought I'd linked to that earlier in this thread. Best, Clicketyclack 19:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's possible that that could be a subjective matter. The article was started in US english. Many from all countries have had inputs, including a recent reorg by me. I respectfully submit the best practice, to use your good guidance, is to remove the only two words that conflict, which is easily done, per the WP section you cite:

"Opportunities for commonality

"Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English.

"In choosing words or expressions, especially for article titles, there may be value in making choices that avoid varying spellings, where possible."

I have gone ahead and made such proposed changes. If you want to change it back, you of course are free to do so. Cheers, Journalist1983 01:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

MaxInno 16:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC) I think the current introduction is missing a point of the historical context, which I have tried to establish here in the following text. It also needs an emphasis to the effect that technology transfer is a profession, but rather more art than science. I would also mention that there is no deterministic way of predicting the outcome of the TT process. We cannot "pick winners.

Technology transfer is a broad concept covering processes and tools involved in turning inventions into innovation no matter from where the initial idea or discovery comes from. In a mind-map, technology transfer would have important other neighboring concepts such as diffusion of innovations, commercialization, open innovation, patent, competitiveness, startup companies, valuation. Companies such as Procter & Gamble have changed their concept and now refer to C&D (Connect & Develop) instead of R&D

Historically, technology transfer is closely linked with two recent trends: firstly the growth of public and corporate R&D budgets since the middle of the 20th century (Cold War?) and secondly - with the beginnings of the era of Open Innovation (end of ColdWar?)- an increasing importance of outsourcing, even of corporate R&D.

Technology transfer is not only about creating new techniques ("hardware") in public/commercial use but also the social and organizational context, which determines the usefulness (success?) of any invention.

MaxInno 16:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Michael Porter has taught us the importance of competitiveness being linked with how value chains are structured (help me here...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxinnowiki (talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

MaxInno 16:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Keith Pavitt (deceased) taught us that different types of companies innovate in different ways and coined important terms in innovation studies, eg. incremental innovation and radical innovation.

Main content - minor change

Technology transfer is the process of developing practical applications for the results of scientific research
Actually, it should be:
Technology transfer is the process of developing practical applications from the results of scientific research
('for' should be changed to 'from')
I dont know how to change this, the administrator or anyone who knows how to change this, can change this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omegapowers (talk • contribs) 07:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeking a consensus opinion

Is there a place for a See Also wikilink to Computer technology for developing areas in this article? Simesa (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)