Technology transfer is the passing of knowledge from one person or group to another. We can have the most innovative and useful technologies in the shop or the lab, but unless the word is spread about them they remain unknown. We often cannot count on the inventors to tell us about their creations. Their skills like in making the technology or the discovery, not in marketing or publicity. Besides, a publicity effort would take their valuable time away from further development of their ideas.

Economist Paul Zane Pilzer has written about the “technology gap”: a backlog of technologies in various stages of development that have not yet made it into widespread use. The technology gap exists because the public does not know about these inventions or discoveries. Another reason is because the need for them is not pressing enough; the problems they solve are not urgent problems. While many new products are interesting and even pretty cool, unless they meet a genuine need, they are likely to languish in the development stage.

We’ve had alternative fuel vehicles in development for many decades, but with our petroleum fueled vehicles we had no need for electric or solar-powered cars. Now that there are grave concerns about the climate and the use of fossil fuels, the problem of clean energy is much more acute. Solutions are being actively sought. Money is being funnelled into development of alternative power sources at a rapid rate.

Pilzer has also said that the level of our technology use is determined by our ability to process information. What he means is that we have the technologies we know about and can use and understand. Again, these are products and designs that meet our needs in some way, even if only for entertainment. Without any media coverage, we don’t know enough to ask for them, even though they might solve a problem we’ve been struggling with.

For most products, it takes substantial funding to get them through the stages from idea and prototype to product release and distribution. Investors are universally shy about putting their money into something they don’t understand. Once someone makes it clear to them what the technology is and how it can be useful to society, i.e., how many people are likely to buy it, the purse strings open and money becomes available to propel development.

That’s why skilled writers and communicators are important in an increasingly technological world. We need people like technical communicators who can understand the new technologies sufficiently to popularize them in mainstream media. You’ve probably even contributed to technology transfer yourself. Did you ever have a new gadget that you just couldn’t wait to show off? You impressed your friends with it, and pretty soon they were buying one too.

We need that same enthusiasm for technologies in development. We need people with communication skills who are also geeky enough to want to learn all they can about these new technologies, processes, products and discoveries and then talk them up in the media. Fortunately, we have many communication channels that provide for that.

Most of the top blogs are gadget blogs, successfully transferring information and knowledge about new products to people who are looking for the next cool thing, or something to solve a particular problem. We have active people on Twitter like @GuyKawasaki and @Brainpicker who alert us to new products and ideas. Technical marketers tout the benefits of new products but they also give us the technical explanations of how they work and why.

Technology transfer not only gets products out of the lab and into the hands of consumers, it helps raise the technology level of other groups who lag behind the early adopters and even mainstream users. Our technology coverage in North America is so broad we often don’t think of other areas of the world where more recent technologies could really be of use. Again, it often comes down to a money issue and lack of information.

Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat reactor and other products in development need attention from the media so that the right people can scrutinize them, endorse them, fund them, mature them into working products, and get them to market if they deserve it.

Our continued technological progress and the solutions to the world’s problems depend upon it.

I am sure (and you can tell this is true if you scroll down that blog a bit) that this process is uncomfortable for Rossi and his colleagues. It should be.

Science is nothing if it cannot be scrutinized and validated. Unless independent researchers can replicate any process, the conclusion is that it simply doesn’t work. Rossi can certainly provide a “black box” version of his reactor to reputable scientists to test and evaluate. His proprietary processes can be protected.

Scientific investigation is not easy, but it is necessary. I need only mention Thalidomide to make it clear that lack of complete research and testing has devastating consequences. Nobody wants to waste time, energy, or money on something that does not live up to its claims, nor rush to market something that has not been thoroughly investigated.

But we also need to give new technologies a chance. Prototypes don’t always work perfectly. Small scale versions of what should be much larger mechanisms can obscure results. Incorrect conclusions can be drawn from tests that aren’t adequately designed, monitored, or executed. Unexpected results can occur if all the variables are not rigorously accounted for and controlled.

That’s why broad interest and attention is necessary. Anything with the potential to radically change our world for the better needs to be analyzed by major reputable scientific and technical authorities. A couple of prestigious university labs should be sufficient. There are organizations with the resources to determine if Rossi’s claims have merit. They should take up the challenge and do so. This is too important to ignore.

Strangely, the scientific press are remaining silent on this discovery. Perhaps having been burned by previous “cold fusion” claims that remained unproven, they are twice shy. However, when scientific heavyweights no less than Nobel prize winner for Physics Brian Josephson of Cambridge University talk about an invention, we need to pay attention. Rossi is clearly on to something. Given the size of the reaction chamber, it can’t be other than…fusion.

I am surprised that the scientific media are declining to cover this story. It is their responsibility to publicize science news so that the broader scientific community can become aware, then question, probe, investigate and even validate any claims. If something attracts the attention and support of respected scientists such as Josephson it deserves its moment in the spotlight.

According to NASA Chief Scientist Dennis M. Bushnell, reactors of the Rossi type are already in production and may be capable of “completely changing geo-economics, geo-politics, and solving climate and energy.”

Video on UCAM site with transcript.

We often become de facto project managers on the projects to which we’re assigned. In managing our documentation projects, we encourage, inspire, assist, and even require others to meet their production and development deadlines so we can take that deliverable and add its information to our documentation. Another rule of our craft is that a product never, never, never is delayed for release because of documentation. When that product is ready to go, so is the documentation, and often it’s that the docs are done and just waiting on the final touches to the product. (Cleanup, not changes.) 

Another way we exhibit the traits of a gadfly is that we never give up on trying to make products better. An organization I’m involved with recently suffered a significant data loss from their enterprise software. This was not human error but an inherent flaw in the system. No program should ever, EVER allow such a data loss without making the humans work really hard to achieve it. Sure, there are situations one can envision, such as fiddling with a directory on the server, that could make a lot of data disappear quickly. But in this case it was an attempt to perform a task with the product that the developers had not anticipated.

For a technical communicator, that sets off warning bells right away. Task-centered (i.e., user-centered) design of products and software requires that all the possible tasks a user might want to accomplish have been addressed by the product’s design and interface.  With our user focus, technical communicators analyze user tasks to ensure that our documentation covers everything the user wants to do. Inevitably, we discover tasks that may not have been included in the specifications and design, so we lobby to have them covered. Unless, and until, the product meets user needs, we don’t give up.

I also liken what we do to fire prevention. Fires are costly. Much better to prevent them in the first place. If you find you’re putting out too many fires in your company, maybe you need to hire more technical communicators. Just a thought.

Since the Stone Age, products have been developed based on need. They were meant to solve problems and assist us in completing tasks. To begin with, it was survival tasks, soon followed by transportation tasks, trading tasks, and leisure tasks. In design, form closely followed function.

As we developed greater technical skills, we began to innovate. We refined designs to be more usable and more attractive. Occasionally, because of cost and demand for the products, designs were adjusted based on ease of manufacture. When we had to get something to market quickly, we concentrated on making it work and shipping it as soon as we could.

Design-Driven Development

With automation and the assembly line, speed of manufacture was handled so we concentrated once more on making things attractive as well as functional. We were still tied to the products-as-solution imperative, but we could add features that we thought were fun. Features became selling points, even though marketers kept reminding us that it was benefits, not features, that sold products.

With improved technology mid-way through the 20th century we started making things just because they were cool. Nifty features overshadowed concrete benefits, and many products were built and purchased because they caught public attention. This intensified when computers became popular, and hit its peak at the zenith of the dot-com development period. By then, we were creating simply because we could. In our arrogance, we thought that if we built it, they would come, no matter what it was we built. Anyone who built without knowing precisely where the revenue would come from quickly found that the bursting bubble hurt.

Demand-Driven Development

Wisely retreating to a meet-the-needs development model we re-established a solid foundation for our businesses. The economy stabilized, wealth grew, and investors once again began to look around for technologies in which to place their capital. While most products were still being created based on an answer to a question, a solution to a problem, or to help someone perform a task, we couldn’t shake that heady feeling of developing products that simply were fun and interesting. Facebook solved a problem — helping new students connect on campus — and became a phenomenon. Twitter didn’t solve a problem at all, it was (and still is) fun. There was no real need to communicate in 140 characters or less, unless you felt it was the answer to information overload (possible).

Innovation Development

The success of products that we didn’t really NEED but that we overwhelmingly enjoyed fueled a move into Innovation Development. Currently, we are seeing the development of innovative products that are mostly cool and fun, but may not have any value other than that we assign to them. We impose usefulness on them because we want to use them (microwave oven, for example). As we adapt to these new products we come to rely on them, and they become “necessities” rather than just luxuries.

Enter the Connected Age, where products that enhance our relationships are becoming necessities indeed. To get and stay connected, to remain competitive, to be in touch with one’s market and aware of trends we MUST use connective technologies. Many of these technologies arose out of a desire (a want, not a need) to make it easier to build our relationships and network with others. Some also were intended to assist with filtering the glut of information coming at us from all sides. We didn’t NEED filters, the brain is quite capable of managing that task, but we found them useful for reducing the informational clutter that we were confronted with on a daily basis. Reviews, recommendations, retweets, and endorsements make life easier by allowing us to cherry-pick what we want to acquire.

Endorsed Development

What prompted my thoughts on this was a Mashable post on video glasses that stream what you see. Development is being endorsed by a multitude of small investors who believe in the product and want to see it realized. Endorsing it via Kickstarter.com, anyone can invest a small (or large) amount of money to get the project going.  This not only funds development but establishes a ready market of people who are extremely likely to purchase the product when it ships. Their early adoption of the product will also be broadcast to their networks, spreading the word and broadening the potential market.

This is the perfect development model for the Connected Age. We can come up with ideas that are innovative, fun and cool, and whether they meet a need or not, we can find people who are willing to invest in development and create a market for the products. This reduces development risks and allows more people to invest in technology. It doesn’t keep the big players out, yet it provides a place for smaller players to invest as well. For all investors it establishes a network of people willing to talk up the product to increase sales.

Are you already engaged in Endorsed Development? Let me know.

Here are some ideas that have worked for me:

1. Determine how much you’re willing to do the job for. You will have a sense of how much it costs you to work (transportation, child care, clothing, lunches, etc.) and about how much per hour you’d need to earn to make it worth your while to take the job. That figure is your low end, rock bottom amount. See what they’re willing to offer above that figure. If they offer less, you must realize that you’ll be losing money by taking that job. Unless there’s a compelling reason to take that particular job, or if you have some other way of making up your shortfall, tell them thanks but you really need to be making at least $XX.00 per hour.
   
2. Simply ask them what their budget is for this work. Sometimes they will tell you. They usually have a figure in mind, but want to see if the person they hire will require less so they can save money. Since nobody likes the game of I’m Not Telling You Until You Tell Me, you can say that you are very interested in doing the job (if you are, of course!) and that you don’t want the money question to be the deal breaker. You can tell them that as long as they tender their best offer within their budget you’d certainly be willing to work for that, or at least consider it. If their figure is enough above your rock bottom price that you feel good about it, it should be satisfactory. I usually say that working at a great company, doing challenging work, and having awesome colleagues is more important to me than money, as long as I am making enough to keep my cat fed (or put gas in the Maserati).
3. What is the usual range for the work you’ll be doing? This can depend on the industry, size of the company, what salaries they are typically paying their full time staff, and so on. Depending on your skills and experience, pick a figure within that range that gives them room to maneuver. Choose a number that you think is fair to both of you. Cite the range for them, and if they come in at the low end of that range, if you’re okay with doing the work for that price, then you can accept it if you want, or negotiate a higher figure. Say “My research (or my experience) shows that the typical range for this kind of work is $XX to YY per hour. I’d be willing to accept a figure within that range.”
4. If the complexity of the job and the work involved is still somewhat unknown, and you think that once you get working it might turn out to be more complex than you anticipated, you might want to build in an opportunity to review the rate either as soon as you see it’s becoming more, or at the 3-month mark, whatever seems reasonable. If they don’t know themselves, it’s good to just raise that as a question … “If this turns out to be a lot more work either technically or as far as complexity or volume, will there be the possibility of revisiting the hourly rate at some point?”
5. You might also want to think about the length of the contract, etc. If they are going to guarantee you work for a longer period, you might be okay with a slightly lower hourly rate than if you were only going to be working for a couple of months. Also, as a contractor, you are responsible for your own benefits, so the hourly rate should reflect those additional costs. If a full time employee with benefits gets $35.00 an hour for doing the same work, they should be offering you more like $45-70, for example.
6. Ultimately, figure out what hourly rate they could offer that would make you happy doing the job. You know your rock bottom, you know the range for that type of work, and you know more or less what the job entails. Ballpark for yourself what a weekly or monthly paycheck might look like, and see how you feel about that number. Does it make you feel content and smiling, or are you starting to think that you’re being a little taken advantage of? It’s those subtle internal signals we get about money that tell us a lot, even if we’re not conscious of any particular issues with the rate. What amount pushes you over from “this is a grind” into “ooh, nice boost to the bank account”?

As long as you’re getting paid enough to feel good about the job and keep yourself healthy and happy, you’re off to a good start. Honest communication with your employer about what is appropriate pay for your skills and experience as well as the requirements of the job will help focus the discussion on an hourly rate that pleases you both. Getting a win/win is always a good goal. If they aren’t able to come up with a number that makes you happy, tell them “I’m sorry we weren’t able to work out the details for compensation, but if your situation changes, I’d be glad to reconsider any offer.” Always leave the door open for the conversation to be revisited, and keep that relationship cordial. You never know when circumstances might change to give you another opportunity to work together.

If you use air travel, whether for work or pleasure, what do you say when you’re going through airport security screening? Is your attitude one of cheerful co-operation or surly resentment? Do you treat service personnel in a hotel or restaurant that same way? Think about it.

It’s not the screeners or the process that we hate, really, it’s the terrorists who caused it all. Don’t take it out on the screeners. Their morale is low, understandably, and turnover in that occupation is a whopping 17%. People cannot stay in jobs that continually bring them down. Even though the TSA has invested in programs to help screeners deal with passenger resentment, individually we can each do a lot to make that process less onerous for everyone.

I dance going through the metal detector — how about you?

A cheery word for the airport screeners, a simple thank you for being alert on our behalf, or even a smile is not too much to ask. How about a little empathy for airport security personnel? Would you want to have to do that job every day to keep your children clothed and fed? If not, a little understanding is called for.

Read and obey the TSA rules for air travel. Read “What to Know Before you Go” and arrange your belongings accordingly.

Those of us who continually harp on usability and good design, on better communication, leadership, technology, human rights and a host of other topics to make the world better need to pay attention to what’s right under our noses.

You can create an everyday miracle where you are. Next time you go through airport security screening, make it a pleasant experience for all concerned. Good karma will result.

I was mostly involved with the research and development departments, but I frequently spoke to or worked with marketing to understand the customer they were trying to reach, and to sales to find out what aspects of the product(s) buyers were most interested in. This information gave me a sense of who the end user would be and what their needs were for the product or service they were purchasing. In that way, I could orient my documentation more effectively toward the user’s tasks.

Because I had early versions of products and found many bugs or errors, I was well acquainted with the quality assurance department. With my mindset aligned toward the end user, I interacted frequently with customer support, getting to know the sorts of problems our customers encountered. That information prompted me to rewrite documentation to help customers avoid problems, and I participated in refining the user interfaces and features to eliminate problems altogether. The training department would often use my documentation as the basis of their training manuals, so I got to know the trainers well, too.

With knowledge of all the operational divisions of the company, it was normal for me to find myself in conversations with senior management as well as administration and finance folks. I don’t think I’m unusual as far as technical communicators go. Nearly everyone I know in the profession has realized that their reach penetrates into multiple areas of the companies for which they work.

Add to this the research, analysis, planning, project management, and interviewing skills technical communicators have, as well as their ability to walk into the unknown and make sense of it, and you have a resource that not only accesses and holds knowledge but knows how to transmit it to others.

If you have a technical communicator on staff, start looking at new ways in which they can benefit your company. If you don’t have a technical communicator or someone who performs those duties, get one. The value to your bottom line will be evident.

A ripple spreading out across a pond takes time to travel, too. It may collide with other ripples, started by other stones — yours or someone else’s. Our social media activities are small gestures, just 140 characters, or a short status on Facebook, maybe even a brief comment on a blog. This is far less work than traditional business networking activities. You can achieve more with less effort.

Your reach is longer, too. Today’s social media tools are global; space and time are no longer restrictions. In a flurry of activity you can write and schedule a number of blog posts or tweets to be sent at times you specify.

If you’re not seeing the opportunities for your business or career that you would like right now, get up to speed with social media and start pitching a few stones into the pond of your choice. There are multiple communities and conversations going on. You should be part of at least one.

In reading the book Branding Yourself: How to Use Social Media to Invent or ReInvent Yourself, I was confused by a paragraph on blog templates. I tweeted my question to the authors via their Twitter contact info provided in the book. Within moments, I received an answer to my question, which generated a follow-up exchange.

At the end of that brief conversation, one of the authors, Erik Deckers, invited me to write a review of the book on Amazon.com. It was the least I could do considering how helpful they’d been in answering my question.

Not only have I written a positive review, but I intend to use the book as the text for my CUL203 class Communicating with Social Media. Between the review and adopting it as my course text, those actions account for potential sales of at least 60 additional copies of the book.

I should mention that our Twitter conversation occurred while Erik was otherwise occupied at the Indy 500! Although my question intruded on his day, his gracious response was timely and pertinent — proving the value of Twitter as a conversational tool and a way to immediately connect. He was able to continue with his activities while also responding to a reader (customer — I bought the book, it wasn’t a desk copy). Our tweets were broadcast to his network and to mine, making the conversation available to others who might be interested.

Remember the old days when contacting book authors required sending a letter to the publisher in hopes that it would eventually make its way to the author weeks or even months later? Not anymore. Through social media we have near-instant connection, as well as a real sense of both the author and the reader. This is marketing at its best. I am much more likely to buy other books by these authors and this publisher (Pearson, one of my favorite educational publishers anyway!). I am very likely to recommend this book to others, and I am already adjusting my social media strategies because of some new techniques I learned from my close reading of the book.

As Deckers and Lacy point out, the tools are just the beginning. How you use them to tell your story is what counts, and by example the authors have demonstrated that their story is authentic and valuable to anyone who wants to use social media for promotion.