Research-Technology Management

ISSN: 0895-6308 (Print) 1930-0166 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urtm20

Transferring Technology at General Motors

Hazem A. Ezzat, Larry J. Howell & Mounir M. Kamal

To cite this article: Hazem A. Ezzat, Larry J. Howell & Mounir M. Kamal (1989) Transferring
Technology at General Motors, Research-Technology Management, 32:2, 32-35, DOI:
10.1080/08956308.1989.11670585

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.1989.11670585

Published online: 27 Jan 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=urtm20
 TRANSFERRING TECHNOLOGY AT GENERAL MOTORS
Certain newly graduated engineers and scientists transfer to an operating division after
receiving special training at GM Research.
Hazem A. Ezzat, Larry J. Howell and Mounir M. Kamal
Perhaps the single greatest challenge facing a central
research facility is ensuring that technological advances
achieved in the laboratory materialize in the company’s
products and processes. Success in these efforts requires
careful planning, continual interstaff communication, and
determination on the part of the research staff.
The General Motors Research Laboratories (GMR),
recognizing the need to develop fast and effective ways
to transfer newly developed technology to key corporate
locations within General Motors Corporation, in late
1982 initiated a novel approach to technology transfer.
GMR instituted a personnel training and transfer program
to move critical technical expertise into other GM staffs
and operating units.
The uniqueness of the GMR technology transfer program
stems from the fact that its primary component is
people. Through the program, certain newly graduated
engineers and scientists (approximately 10—15 percent
of total GMR recruitment) are hired with the
understanding that they will receive intensive on-the-job
training at GMR and then transfer to an operating
division. Participants assist GMR researchers in the final
stages of a specific research project that involves
technology sought by an operating division.
Thus, the program stresses the transfer of capabilities
rather than products. The highly intensive training,
which takes place over an extended period of time (one
Hazem Ezzat is a departm ent head at the General Motors
Research Laboratories in W arren, Michigan. He holds a B.Sc. in
mechanical engineering from the University of Cairo (Egypt)
and an M.S. and Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the
University of Wisconsin-Madison. He has been w ith GMR since
1970 and has conducted research in engine friction, lubrication
theory, rotor dynamics, and mechanical system analysis and
design. In the last six years, he has managed a variety of
engineering research program s and currently heads the Power
Systems Research D epartm ent at GMR.
Larry Howell received his education at the University of Illinois
in Champaign-Urbana, com pleting the Ph.D. in aeronautical and
astronautical engineering. From 1970 to 1972 he was
employed by General Dynamics Convair Division conducting
NASA supported research in structural dynamics related to the
Space Shuttle program. He has been w ith the General Motors
Research Laboratories since 1972, w here he is currently head
of the Engineering Mechanics Department. He is responsible
for research in applied m echanics including structural analysis,
crashworthiness, acoustics, and mechanics of manufacturing
processes.
Mounir Kamal is executive director at GMR. He is a graduate of
the University of Michigan w ith a Ph.D. in engineering. His
current responsibility is the direction, planning and
administration of five research departm ents (Electrical and
Electronics Engineering, Engine Research, Engineering
32 Mechanics, Fluid Mechanics and Power Systems Research).
to two years), provides the participants with an
opportunity to acquire unique technical skills and to
develop confidence in the application of those skills
prior to transfer.
GM’s T e c h n o lo g ic a l C lim a te
The need for technology transfer is born out of the
division of responsibilities in a large corporation. For
example, the role of a central research staff such as GMR
includes:
• Advancing the technological state-of-the-art in areas
critical to GM;
• Anticipating and capturing future technological needs;
• Providing technical information to help establish
corporate priorities and policy;
• Solving pressing and recurring problems; and
• Conveying to the public a technologically progressive
image of GM and its commitment to technology, both of
which reflect product value and quality.
The most important of these functions for GMR and the
one that distinguishes it from other units of GM is
advancing technology in areas critical to GM. If GMR is
doing its job, its technical leadership will keep the
Corporation ahead of the R&D efforts of its competitors.
Further, if duplication of effort is minimized within GM,
GMR will be well ahead of the operating units, at least in
most areas of technology, because those units will be
concentrating on the development of products rather
than the development of technology. Thus, a
technological gap between GMR and the GM operating
units is to be expected.
It is this technological gap that creates the need for
technology transfer.
T e c h n o lo g y T r a n sfe r I s s u e s
Research • Technology M anagement
But how is technology transfer most effectively carried
out?
Before discussing the GMR program, it is useful to briefly
review what others cite as technology transfer problems.
The problems preventing the flow of technology from a
central research unit to operating divisions have been
examined, for example, by Morone and Alben ( 1), Bulat
(2), Cohen, Keller, and Streeter (3), Gartner and Naiman
(4), and White (5). Many similarities can be noted
among the various companies.
 Some of the problems most frequently mentioned
include insufficient manpower and resources at the
division to deal with the new technology, premature
selling of the technology by the research unit (usually
due to inadequate development of the concept),
insufficient incentives at the division to employ new
technology, lack of a champion who will persevere from
inception to product application, lack of appreciation of
divisional problems by the research staff, and too great
an emphasis on the short term at the production unit.
Many solutions to the problems of technology transfer
have been proposed in the literature. The need for
increased communication is cited frequently, with this
occurring as personal communication or any of a variety
of exchanges of technical information. Our own
experience suggests that personal communication is a
must—technical reviews as well as frequent discussions
among the management group are essential for
technology transfer.
Also cited as factors that favorably influence technology
transfer are: proper assignment of responsibility to see
that the transfer occurs, or advocacy of the technology
by a champion; an incentive system that promotes
technology transfer; externally created incentives, such
as those provided by competitive forces in the
marketplace; and permanent transfer of technical
personnel.
The GMR technology transfer program is based upon the
permanent transfer of technical personnel, but the
program’s structure has been developed purposely to
encompass several other of the key ingredients for
technical exchange mentioned above. These will be
discussed in the section describing the structure of the
program.
M o tiv a tio n : T r a n s fe r r in g E x p e r tise
If a technological advancement consists of a new
stand-alone product, the transfer may simply involve
transferring prototypes or hardware to be duplicated in a
“turnkey” operation. However, for General Motors, new
stand-alone product introduction is not the primary
focus—we continue to concentrate on improving our
primary products, automotive vehicles. The technologies
needed for product improvement usually consist of new
functional capabilities that typically are incorporated in
complex computer software, or new techniques for
manufacturing, assembly and quality control.
Thus, the technology transfer process is complicated by
the fact that capabilities rather than specific products
must be transferred. Experience has shown that one of
the most expedient ways to transfer capabilities is by the
physical transfer of personnel who have acquired
expertise in the technology. And this premise is the basis
March—April 1989
for the GMR program.
Since a greater degree of technical sophistication than
ever before is required to design, develop and
manufacture today’s automobile, our program was
established as a means of dealing with the problems
Technical review s a s w ell
a s fre q u e n t discussions
am ong m an agem en t a r e
essen tial f o r technology
transfer.
encountered in trying to transfer complicated
technology and techniques to other divisions.
An obvious example is the significant progress in
powerplant technology that has resulted in improved
fuel economy within the constraints required to meet
emission regulations. Similarly, significant advances in
structural analysis technology have been required to
guide the development of lightweight vehicle structures
subject to crashworthiness criteria.
Vehicle structures technology also serves as a good
example of why the technologies in question are not
readily available outside of GM. There are two primary
reasons. First, advanced research at the university
requires a few years before it becomes formalized as part
of classroom instruction. Therefore, newly graduated
engineers, while having mastered the fundamentals, will
not generally be practitioners of the latest state-of-the-art
technology. Second, the specialization of the technology
required for automotive applications typically does not
exist in the university curriculum. An excellent example
is the specialized training required to transform a
structures engineer—who may have studied civil or
mechanical engineering—into an engineer capable of
dealing with the unique complexities associated with
predicting the crashworthiness of an automobile. The
GMR program addresses both issues.
S tr u c tu r e o f t h e P r o g r a m
To accomplish the objectives of the program, technical
areas for transfer are first determined in cooperation
with the participating divisions. The areas are selected
from among mature research projects for which
application has become feasible within the program time
frame. Then, entry-level engineers and scientists are
recruited into GMR. The recruitment activity is
cooperative between GMR and the sponsoring division,
with either party having the right to veto a prospective
candidate. Program participants join GMR at a level and
at a starting salary commensurate with experience and
education. Although some salary variation occurs
throughout GM, the objective is to move participants to
their sponsoring division at a salary comparable to that
of a fellow engineer of equal seniority who started at the
division rather than at GMR. This salary parity can be
achieved at the time of transfer.
After recruitment, the technology transfer engineer
(TTE) joins GMR as a member of a technical 33
 department. Each TTE is assigned to a technical group
and works with a senior engineer who is conducting
research closely related to the particular technology
subject of interest.
Introductory training is general in scope and relatively
structured. It begins with an introduction to facilities,
the most important of which are GMR’s computer
resources, and includes structured short courses and
seminars. TTEs attend both internal GM seminars and
computer training programs and external seminars and
technical conferences.
Although these training programs are useful, the heart of
the GMR experience is the participation in the
structured research project directed by an experienced
senior engineer. This portion of the program challenges
the TTEs with an environment that permits them to
become intimately familiar with a particular technology.
It also provides them with an opportunity to
demonstrate their ability to extend the technology
beyond the conventional state-of-the-art. This experience
not only enhances the expertise of the TTEs but enables
them to develop confidence in their ability to use the
technology in complex applications.
As an example of a structured research project, two
TTEs were assigned to participate in the development of
a computer based method for designing compression
molds for making fiberglass (sheet molding compound)
body panels. Using a mathematical optimization
approach, the new method permits the mold designer to
determine where the mold heating lines should be
located to maintain a uniform mold surface temperature
during processing, thereby reducing the production
cycle time. Other examples included the development of
computer based structural-acoustic techniques for
designing quieter vehicle interiors, the development of
crashworthiness simulation methods, and the use of
finite element analysis to reduce the mass while
improving the performance of engine components, such
as connecting rods and crankshafts.
The research environment has the added benefit of
promoting the development of generic problem-solving
skills. It is this aspect of the training that is quite unlike
conventional “job rotation” programs, and makes the
GMR program unique. Our experience since the
program’s inception convinces us that this intensive
K e y F e a tu r e s o f T e c h n o l o g y T r a n sfe r P r o g r a m
• Divisions select key technical areas from a menu of
maturing research topics that reflect critical technical needs.
• GMR and the divisions co-recruit entry-level personnel,
ensuring career path satisfaction.
• Participation in an R&D program (18 m onths) provides
the TTEs w ith unique skills seldom provided through formal
educational curricula or displayed by new hires.
• A transition project during the last several m onths of the
34 program, provides a structured application of these skills.
One o f the m ost ex p ed ien t
ways to transfer
capabilities is by the
ph ysical transfer o f
person n el who have
acq u ired specific expertise
in the technology.
training is essential to the development of a technical
work force that can have a significant impact on GM’s
future success.
The training portion of the program is completed in 12
to 18 months. At that point, participants are ready to
apply the technology in a production environment. This
is accomplished during the last four to six months of the
program through a “transition” project. As the name
implies, this project not only provides practical
experience, it also serves to bridge the move from the
GMR work environment to the division. Although regular
contacts with divisional personnel are maintained
throughout the program, the transition period facilitates
exposure to the division just prior to transfer.
Typically, the transition project is selected by the
division and involves assignment of a TTE to an
advanced development activity or to a production
(vehicle) program. During this project, the TTE
maintains an office at GMR but also takes up residence at
the division as well. Thus, the TTE is able to develop a
closer working relationship with divisional engineers
without cutting off consulting help from GMR. At the
conclusion of the transition project, the TTE transfers to
the division as a permanent employee.
As an example of a transition project, a TTE who had
worked with researchers developing a new approach to
vehicle structural design, called structural optimization,
was assigned to a new car program. By using structural
• The program supplies the divisions w ith outstanding
personnel w ho have expertise in technical areas critical
Research • Technology Management
to GM.
• The program further prom otes close w orking
relationships betw een GMR and the divisions.
• The program helps the divisions com m it to establishing
and maintaining a solid base covering those “co re”
technologies that are critical to operations. Thus, it creates a
“pull” for new technological advances.
• The program also fosters an environm ent w ithin General
Motors that prom otes shared technological objectives,
thereby improving the integration of R&D.
 optimization at this early stage, he was able to specify a
structure which met the required design criteria while
reducing vehicle weight.
As the TTEs transfer to their sponsoring divisions (our
first “graduates” moved into various GM units more than
three years ago) they become part of an important
communications network for GMR. It is GMR
management’s intention to maintain close contact with
program alumni in order to facilitate the transfer of
future technology, and to keep GMR abreast of important
product problems and anticipated divisional
technological needs. We are finding that our alumni have
become valuable contacts who provide continual
constructive'critiques of our research programs and
objectives.
I m p l e m e n t a t io n a n d S tatu s
The GMR Technology Transfer Program was formally
initiated during the Fall of 1982. The first step was to
secure the support of other GM units. Presentations
were made to several GM units outlining the structure
and objectives of the program and identifying mature
technologies ready for transfer.
Divisional response was overwhelmingly positive. Not
only were the car divisions enthusiastic about the
concept, they were prepared to participate immediately.
They saw the program as an opportunity to bring in
critically needed technical expertise in a more
dependable way than normally occurs through
year-to-year recruitment. The program gave them the
means to plan, with a high level of confidence,
technology recruitment strategy two years in advance.
Once the divisional commitments were obtained, GMR
was challenged with the responsibility of recruiting
engineers and scientists for a new, untested career path.
An extensive recruiting campaign aimed at attracting the
highest quality candidates was mounted, targeting B.S.
and M.S. level engineers and scientists.
Student response was excellent. Many found the idea of
working for an extended time in a research environment
and then taking a specific technology to a production
division appealing. As a result, we succeeded in
attracting outstanding personnel. Our initial group of 15
TTEs, for instance, had an average undergraduate
grade-point of 3.6/4.0. The acceptance rate for our
recruiting program also was high— 50 percent.
To date, 32 engineers and scientists have been recruited
into the GMR technology transfer program. Of these, 20
have completed their research experience and
transferred to the sponsoring operating division.
Although it may take several years before we can
accurately assess the merits of the program, we believe
that its primary objectives are being achieved. As just
March—April 1989
one example, the new computerized approach for
designing lightweight vehicle structures has been
transferred to a central vehicle concept group by means
of a TTE. This structural optimization capability
currently is in place for use for all new GM vehicles.
Another TTE, who is now with Chevrolet-Pontiac-GM of
Canada’s Advanced Manufacturing Engineering Group,
was instrumental in developing new technology to
improve an innovative crankshaft machining method
called turnbroaching. Although the method itself is not
new, it was never satisfactorily adapted to high-volume
manufacturing. But as a result of a new design strategy
developed by the TTE—working in collaboration with
manufacturing engineers at CPC and research engineers
at GMR—the method is now being applied to
high-volume production.
“The whole process of implementing this new
technology—taking what we learned at GMR and
developing the technology further once I transferred to
CPC—has been exciting and challenging,” he says. “The
technology transfer program was extremely beneficial to
me, but I think the key to its success is the selection of a
good transition project.”
A third TTE, now a senior analyst on the GM Logistics
Staff, was recruited into the GMR technology transfer
program while earning her master’s degree in
transportation engineering at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. As a TTE in GMR’s Operating Systems
Research Department, she was involved in research on
optimization techniques for logistics decisions. “What
drew me to accept the offer from GM was the
opportunity to view business analysis and management
decision-making from a technical orientation. I was
anxious to see how the theories and applications I’d
learned in school fit into the ‘real w orld’ of business.”
Of her two years at GMR, she says: “The research in and
of itself was interesting, but implementation—in which I
am involved on the Logistics Staff—is also a big
challenge. The affiliation with GMR is good; to have
worked there is to anyone’s advantage because it is so
well-regarded throughout the Corporation. But one of
the biggest pluses of the research environment was the
opportunity I had to think seriously about and develop
my own philosophy about decision-making in business.”
Several other examples of transferees taking new
technologies with them and putting these in place could
be cited. Moreover, in several instances, TTEs have
become “centers of technology” at the divisional unit
and have shared their expertise through consulting or
formal training programs. ®
R eferen ces
1. Morone, J., and Alben, R., “Matching R&D to Business
Needs,” Research M anagem ent, Sept.—Oct. 1984, pp. 33-39.
2. Bulat, T.J., “Ways to Better Liaison Betw een Corporate
Research and O perations,” Research M anagem ent, January
1979, pp. 35-36.
3. Cohen, H., Keller, S., and Streeter, D., “The Transfer of
Technology from Research to Developm ent,” Research
M anagem ent, May 1979, pp. 11-17.
4. Gartner, J., and Naiman, C. S., “Making Technology Transfer
Happen,” Research M anagem ent, May 1978, pp. 34—38.
5. White, W., “Effective Transfer of Technofogy from Research
to D e v e lo p m e n tResearch M anagem ent, May 1977, pp.
30-34.
35