IN the Philippines, “technology transfer” is associated with factories, machines, patents and foreign companies setting up operations in the country, much like the vision for Pax Silica. We imagine ships unloading equipment, multinational firms opening plants and Filipino workers learning to operate imported technologies.
Such a view is not wrong, but it is incomplete.
Real technology transfer is not just about moving machines from one country to another. It is about transferring knowledge, skills and methods — and developing the ability to create value repeatedly. A machine can be purchased. Expertise cannot. A factory can be built. Capability must be developed.
This is why I find the observations of investment banker Stephen CuUnjieng thought-provoking. He has repeatedly pointed out that the Philippines has failed to develop strong manufacturing and technology sectors, and remains heavily dependent on labor exports and services. He has also raised a fundamental question: Beyond malls and consumption-driven businesses, what can investors do when the country lacks a deep industrial base?
Many would conclude that the answer is to build more factories. Manufacturing remains important, but I believe our understanding of technology transfer needs to evolve.
The world has changed.
Today, some of the world’s most valuable businesses create products and services that are largely digital. Artificial intelligence (AI), data engineering, cybersecurity, cloud computing, software development and analytics have become major sources of economic value. In these fields, technology transfer does not necessarily happen through containers arriving at a port. It happens through people.
A Filipino data engineer working for a global company gains experience in modern data platforms, governance frameworks and advanced analytics. An AI engineer learns to design, deploy and monitor large-scale machine learning systems. A cybersecurity analyst develops expertise in protecting critical infrastructure.
When these professionals eventually bring that knowledge to local companies, startups, universities or other employers, technology transfer has already taken place.
No physical asset changed hands, yet the country has become more capable. This is where the Philippines has a significant opportunity.
For decades, we have marketed ourselves as a source of talent. The business process outsourcing industry proved that Filipinos could compete globally in service-based work. The next step is to move higher up the value chain. Instead of exporting mainly labor, we should export expertise.
Imagine thousands of Filipino professionals working on global AI projects while based in Manila, Cebu, Davao or Iloilo. Imagine local companies providing advanced data engineering services to clients in North America, Europe and Asia. Imagine cybersecurity centers serving international companies while simultaneously developing Filipino talent. Every engagement becomes a channel for technology transfer.
The challenge is that policymakers often still think in industrial-era terms. Foreign direct investment is commonly measured by buildings, equipment and land. These investments remain valuable, but the modern economy rewards countries that can develop intellectual capital.
Some successful technology ecosystems emerged not because foreign companies transferred factories, but because local professionals learned from global companies and eventually created businesses of their own.
India’s software industry is a prominent example. Technology hubs in Eastern Europe followed similar paths, while several Southeast Asian startup ecosystems were built by founders who first gained experience with multinational technology companies.
The Philippines can follow a similar path, but it requires a different mindset. First, we need to invest heavily in technical education. As CuUnjieng has emphasized, population alone is not an economic advantage. A large population becomes an asset only when supported by education, productive employment and rising productivity.
Second, stronger partnerships are needed between industry and universities. Too many graduates enter the workforce without sufficient exposure to the tools and platforms actually used by companies. AI, data engineering, cloud computing and cybersecurity should no longer be treated as niche disciplines. These must become part of mainstream workforce development.
Third, Filipino companies need to invest in expertise, not just technology. Many organizations spend millions on software licenses but comparatively little on developing their own people. The result is technological dependence. Companies may own sophisticated systems without having enough internal expertise to improve or innovate with them.
Finally, government incentives should recognize knowledge-intensive industries. A company that creates hundreds of high-value jobs in AI, analytics, cybersecurity or engineering can contribute as much to long-term economic capability as a company building a factory.
Perhaps the most important lesson is that technology transfer is no longer a spectator sport. We do not have to wait for foreign companies to hand us advanced technologies. Filipinos can participate directly in developing and improving them.
The future of technology transfer in the Philippines may not arrive in crates and containers. It may come through laptops, cloud platforms, online collaboration and highly skilled Filipino professionals working with some of the best organizations in the world.
The author is the founder and CEO of Hungry Workhorse, a digital, culture and customer experience transformation consulting firm.
