Dubickis and Gaile-Sarkane (2021) - Factors Influencing Technology Transfer

Factors Influencing Technology Transfer
in Companies at Emerging Economies
MIKUS DUBICKIS and ELĪNA GAILE-SARKANE
One of the ways how to catch up with developed countries is through innovation. Companies can
develop innovation in-house, but it has been determined that a more efficient approach is to acquire
new knowledge and technology from external parties. In the meantime, relatively few companies choose
to cooperate, therefore the aim of this research is to identify the key factors that need to be addressed
in order to facilitate new knowledge and technology acquisition. In a systematic literature review,
the scientific literature on technology transfer has been analysed, which determines an existing lack
of holistic approach on the different impact of factors. Therefore, in this article, through the analysis
of different sources, the innovation and technology transfer affecting factors have been summarised.
The empirical research is based on a survey of sixty-five companies that hypothetically work with the
technology transfer. Besides, an interrelationship analysis of the technology acquisition affecting fac-
tors was carried out. The research results indicate that acquisition of new knowledge and technology
is closely linked with the internal research and development (R&D) work and presence in a foreign
market, as well as indirectly with the fact whether the company is a part of a group. In the final of the
article, the acquired results and their implications have been explained.
Keywords: Research and development, internal R&D, technology acquisition, technology transfer,
innovation, performance
Introduction
Emerging economies are trying to catch up with developed countries. One way
is through innovation. It is widely believed that innovation is a driving force of
Acknowledgement: The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable suggestions received from the
anonymous referee in the earlier draft of this article.
Mikus Dubickis (corresponding author), Faculty of Engineering Economics and Management, Riga
Technical University, Riga, LV-1048, Latvia. E-mail: Mikus.Dubickis@rtu.lv
Elīna Gaile-Sarkane, Faculty of Engineering Economics and Management, Riga Technical University,
Riga, Latvia.
Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–31

SAGE Publications Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore/Washington DC/Melbourne
DOI: 10.1177/09717218211005615
2  Mikus Dubickis and Elina Gaile-Sarkane
economic development (see, e.g., Dutta et al., 2014; OECD, 2007; Van de Ven, 1986)
or even the key driver (see, e.g., European Central Bank, 2017; Mckinney, 2017).
It is the founding principle of the innovation economy concept (Schumpeter, 1943;
Tafti et al., 2012; Teece et al., 2016; Voelpel et al., 2006). Also, Ministry of Science
and Education of Latvia states that in emerging economies like Latvia the growth
can be achieved specifically through innovation (IZM, 2013). However, statistics
on innovative activity in Latvia (CSP, 2018; European Commission, 2019) shows
that it fails to achieve the stated objectives. Since 2010, the share of innovative
companies1 in Latvia is still around 30% (CSP, 2018), but it was expected that in
2020 it should have reached 40% (IZM, 2013). Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President
of the European Commission, explains the difficulties in keeping up with the pace
of innovation development, because Latvia has one of the lowest investments in
R&D in the European Union (Leta, 2019).
Openness to innovation is an important requirement for continuous develop-
ment (Yun, Park, et al., 2016; Yun, Won, et al., 2016; Yun & Yigitcanlar, 2017;
Roša & Lace, 2018 cited in Medne & Lapina, 2019). In the meantime—innova-
tion is not a single-sided term. Innovation can be understood as, for instance, the
process of creation and change (Dubickis & Gaile-Sarkane, 2015; Kotsemir et
al., 2013; Quintane et al., 2011), competence or ability (Center for Management
& Organization Effectiveness, n.d.; Kotsemir et al., 2013; PWC, 2017, Nikitina
& Lapiņa, 2019), results (Dubickis & Gaile-Sarkane, 2015; Kotsemir et al.,
2013; Quintane et al., 2011), the function of entrepreneurship (Drucker &
Maciariello, 2008; Porter, 2011), the driving force or strategic growth deci-
sion (European Central Bank, 2017; Mckinney, 2017), system (Dubickis &
Gaile-Sarkane, 2015) and field of research (Fagerberg & Verspagen, 2009).
In the context of this research, innovation is viewed as a process.
Companies can develop innovation in-house, but they do not always have the
knowledge and technology they need. The solution is to acquire new knowledge
and technology from outside (inbound technology transfer). Batternik (2009) found
that companies pursuing an open innovation strategy or technology transfer perform
better concerning innovation than firms that innovate exclusively in-house. Du et
al. (2015) found that all the dimensions of absorptive capacity (identification and
acquisition, assimilation and absorption and transformation and exploitation) had
a significant positive effect on technological innovation performance. BesidesYun,
Park et al. (2016) and Yun, Won et al. (2016) state that as the open innovation
efforts increase, the revenue ratio of the new products in the firm also increases.
At the same time, for example, innovation survey data show that in Latvia in
2016 only 29% of innovative companies were cooperating with other companies
or institutions (CSP, 2018). Data from Eurostat (2020) indicate that the situation
is similar in other European countries with few exceptions. Therefore, taking
into account the theoretical principles of innovation and the actual situation
in Latvia, the focus of this article2 is on inbound technology transfer or, more
specifically, on factors affecting the performance of the new knowledge and
technology acquisition. The study aims to identify the key factors that need to be
addressed to facilitate new knowledge and technology acquisition. Accordingly,

Factors Influencing Technology Transfer in Companie  3
the research question is: Which factors correlate with the inbound technology
transfer?
Systematic Review of Inbound Technology Transfer Performance Literature
The analysis of the technology transfer literature has been carried out while imple-
menting a systematic approach (Booth et al., 2012; Briner & Denyer, 2012; Grant
& Booth, 2009; Khan et al., 2003). It should be considered that the systematic
approach offers objective inference based on available evidence and not a descrip-
tion of everything on the subject (Hansen & Trifkovic, 2013 cited in Dubickis
& Gaile-Sarkane, 2015). In the meantime, using a systematic approach for the
literature analysis offers certain benefits over the conventional approach—in the
form of clarity, auditability, replicability, and transparency (Booth et al., 2012).
Taking into account the question of the research, publications defining the variables
affecting technology transfer were collected. The strategy for literature review was
based on the following aspects:
1. databases—EBSCOhost, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, Scopus, and Web of

Science;
2. keywords: technology transfer performance (allintitle);
3. period: researches that have been carried out and published during the period
until the moment when the literature search was carried out, namely, July
2017;
4. inclusion criteria: unit of analysis is the company, not the individual, regions,
national or international level. Also, the review discluded research papers in
which the unit of analysis is higher education institutions, scientific institu-
tions of technology transfer offices;
5. exclusion criteria: full text of the publication is not available in English, no
quantitative (correlation) analysis on the interrelationship of factors with the
technology transfer (technology acquisition) performance or unit of analysis
is not the company.
A flowchart of the systematic search results is presented in Figure 1.

As a result of the systemic literature search, the review included the results
of research on technology acquisition performance by Lin et al. (2004), Lin
et al. (2009), Li (2010), Jabar and Soosay (2010), Sazali et al. (2011), Grimpe
and Hussinger (2013), Nguyen and Aoyama (2014), and Iyengar et al. (2015).
The review is structured based on the Siegel and Wright (2015) research on the
technology transfer centres in the higher education institutions, technology licenc-
ing and start-up creation. The review includes the key results of each publication,
that corresponds to the research question of this article. Additionally, the review
portrays the theoretical basis and the research conceptual framework for defining
the logical connections between the variables, also the data acquiring is defined
(data sample, data collection period, variable measuring approach—objective or
subjective measures) and technology source (refer to Table 1).

Figure 1
Flowchart of the Systematic Search Process
Source: Authors’ construction based on Moher et al. (2009).
The literature review results show that every included research is different from
another in terms of methodology, variables, which relation with the technology
transfer performance has been analysed. The only factor that has been analysed in
several papers is the Absorptive capacity (Lin et al., 2004; Lin et al., 2009; Jabar &
Sosay, 2010). However, these researches are comparable on a relative level because,
in each of them, the Absorptive capacity has been defined differently. For measuring
the factors affecting technology transfer (refer to Annexure 1) in most cases, the
perception scale has been used. Meanwhile, technology transfer performance (refer
to Annexure 2), in most cases is understood as a different technology transfer out-
come and not the technology transfer itself. In most cases, the perception scale has
been used, in which respondents have stated the positive impact of the technology
transfer process or the efficiency in certain topics, including the capacity increase

Table 1
Review of Inbound Technology Transfer Performance Research
Theoretical
Background/Research Technology
Source Framework Data Source Key Results
Lin et al. (2004) Absorptive capacity, Data from the survey No information Absorptive capacity affects technology transfer performance.
organisational culture/ with 110 respondents of The use of different technology transfer mechanisms (formal and
created by the authors Taiwanese electronics and informal) does not affect technology transfer performance.
chemistry sector companies The interaction mechanisms (inter-organisational and intra-
organisational) affect technology transfer performance.
Investments in R&D affect technology transfer performance.
Lin et al. (2009) Organisational Data on 110 companies in Other members Partly approved positive relation between trust in a consortium
learning, network an R&D consortium funded of R&D between the members (relationship dimension) and technology
embeddedness (social by the Taiwanese-backed consortium transfer performance.
capital)/opportunity– Industrial Technology Partly approved positive relation between a larger network of
willingness–capability Research Institution. acquaintances between the members of the consortium (structural
(Adler and Kwon, Subjective (perceptual) dimension) and performance of technology transfer.
2002) measurement Partly approved positive relation between balanced goals and norms
(cognitive dimensions) and technology transfer performance.
There is a positive link between commitment to learning and
technology transfer.
There is a positive link between absorptive capacity and technology
transfer performance.
Li (2010) No information/ Data on medium and large No information No causal link between innovation performance and technology
created by the author manufacturing companies transfer has been detected.
in China, acquired by the
national statistics bureau of
China during period from
1991 to 2007.
(Table 1 continued)
(Table 1 continued)
Theoretical
Source Framework Data Source Key Results
Jabar and Soosay Resource-based Data from surveys with the No information It cannot be determined that the availability of resources would
(2010) View, Organisational valid survey count of 335 positively affect technology transfer performance.
learning, transaction respondents (companies Absorptive capacity positively affects technology transfer
cost economics/ from production industry). performance.
created by the authors Subjective (perceptual) Opportunistic behaviour has negative causality with technology
measurement transfer performance.
Sazali et al. (2011) No information/ Data on 128 international Foreign MNCs It was determined that the location country of the head office of the
created by the authors joint ventures with at multi-national company affects the causality between the technology
least 20% foreign equity transfer and business performance of the company.
in Malaysia. Subjective However, the location of the head office of the multi-national
(perceptual) measurement company does not affect the causality between the technology
transfer and the human resource performance of the company.
Grimpe and Knowledge Survey of 2000 German Higher education The size of the company has a significant positive causality with the
Hussinger (2013) spillover theory of production industry and research use of knowledge and technology transfer mechanisms. The intensity
entrepreneurship companies—members institutions of investment in R&D has a positive link with the use of knowledge
(Audretsch et al., of Mannheim region and technology transfer mechanisms.
2005; Acs et al., innovation panel. The company age has a negative link with the use of formal
2009), the scientific Subjective (perceptual) knowledge and technology transfer mechanisms—more senior
and technical human measurement companies less often use formal knowledge and technology transfer
capital approach mechanisms.
(Bozeman & Corley,
The level of employees’ education has a positive link with the use
2004; Ponomariov
of knowledge and technology transfer mechanisms—companies
& Boardman,
where fewer people have higher education, less frequent use of such
2010)/theory of
mechanisms.
supermodularity
Companies that are part of a group less often use knowledge and
(Milgrom & Roberts,
technology transfer mechanisms.
1995)
(Table 1 continued)
Theoretical
(Table
Source1 continued) Framework Data Source Key Results
Nguyen and Organisational Data on 223 production Parent company Organisational culture affects a causality between technology
Aoyama (2014) learning (Huber, 1991; industry companies of a transfer performance and business performance.
Buckler, 1998; Sadler- Japanese companies branch
Smith et al., 2001)/ in Vietnam. Subjective
created by the authors (perceptual) measurement
Iyengar et al. Organisational Data on survey of 783 Franchisors The use of IT is an important learning mechanism, that positively
(2015) learning/created by franchisee holders. affects knowledge transfer.
the authors Subjective (perceptual)
measurement
Source: Authors’ construction.
of the company. However, considering the conclusions of sociopsychologists on

the human mind and objective memory, there is a high plausibility of acquiring
imprecise data. Therefore, for measuring the resulting variables, it is crucial to
create as unbiased, neutral evaluation scales as possible.
When analysing the research papers included in the literature review, it can be
concluded that all of them are limited—they do not include a wide spectre of vari-
ables. Thus they do not provide an overview of the most crucial factors affecting
the technology transfer altogether. Although these studies often use the same terms,
their understanding (characterisation and/or interpretation) is usually different. As
a result, these studies and the results obtained are difficult to interpret, compare and
replicate. Overall, the analysis of existing research reveals that the studies under
review do not give a clear picture of the relationship between various variables and
technology transfer, thus creating a so-called knowledge gap on the issue.
Methodology
For this study, both primary data (interviews)—within the research on cooperation
models of academia and industry (Dubickis et al., 2017) and secondary data—
through literature reviews on the relationship of various variables with technology
transfer and drivers and barriers to innovation (Rudzītis, 2017), as well as using
other sources of information (CIS Task Force, 2017; Personu apvienība, 2013) were
obtained. The aggregated factors influencing the acquisition of new knowledge
and technology were classified into context and input factors. The input factors
were grouped into hypothetically positive influencers and negative influencers or
constraints. The context, in this case, is the situation within which something exists
or happens, and that can help explain it (Cambridge University Press, n.d.), while
input means the resources (in cash, time, or in-kind) that a company provides to
support an activity (Corporate Citizenship, 2018). All the summarised innovation
and technology transfer hypothetically affecting context and input factors are shown
in Annexures 3, 4, and 5. Possibilities for the inclusion of each factor within the
empirical research was evaluated while taking into consideration the following:
1. compliance of factors with the aim and respondent population domain of this
article—managers of companies or their representatives, who are informed
about the companies functioning principles;
2. compliance of factors with the unit of analysis—functioning of the company
altogether;
3. as objective data collection as possible;
4. to ensure practical and outcome-oriented analysis of quantitative data
concerning the existing practice or the conditions of the functioning of the
company;
5. intended responsiveness (20%).
The study examined the correlation between knowledge and technology acquisi-
tion3 and the following contextual and input factors (see Table 2).

Table 2
Contextual and Input Factors Included in the Correlation Analysis
Group of Factors Factor Hypothesis

Context The company’s location in the urban centre (capital Positive correlation
city—Riga)
Age of the company
Level of technology and knowledge intensity
Market where the company is operating
The company being part of a group
Location of the parent company
Size of the company according to the number of
employees
Intensity of competition in the sector in which the
company operates
Input Receiving tax benefits
Existence of intellectual property rights policy in the
company
Level of commitment to acquire new knowledge and
technology
Membership in a networked organisation (industry
association or similar)
Degree of interaction in a networked organisation
Qualification of the company’s employees
Clarity of the company’s goals among the employees
Ability of the company’s employees to cooperate with
others
Motivating the company’s employees to cooperate with
other companies and organisations
Frequency of training for the company’s employees
Availability of information about success stories to the
employees
Performing internal R&D work and regularity of
performing internal R&D work
Carrying out fundamental research
Carrying out applied research
Experimental development
Various sources of financing for internal R&D work
Purchase of external research services
Purchase of fundamental research
Purchase of applied research
Purchase of experimental development
Various sources of financing for the acquisition of
external research services
Input (constraints) Job vacancies in the company (lack of qualified Negative correlation
employees)
Intensity of the company’s employees’ resistance to
change
Difficulties in establishing initial contacts for
implementing cooperation

The scales used for the measurement of defined research variables and their
sources are shown in Annexure 6. A survey was conducted for companies hypo-
thetically engaged in new knowledge and technology aquisition to obtain empirical
data. The general population consisted of companies that in the period 2014–2017
had any form of written (contractual) cooperation with one of the largest higher
education and research institutions in Latvia—Riga Technical University, the
companies have not ceased operations or have not started insolvency proceedings,
and their contact information is publicly or otherwise available. The total general
population consisted of 193 companies. The survey was conducted from July to
August 2018 in an electronic environment using the Google Forms platform.
Business representatives were phoned and asked to participate in the survey. Both
in similar technology transfer studies (see, e.g., Love & Roper, 1999; Henchion et
al., n.d.) and other business management studies (e.g., Ozoliņa-Ozola, 2017), usually
the response rate is around 20%. Such a rate was also expected in this study. Still
overall responses were received from sixty-five companies, approximately 34% of
the population, thus exceeding the expected response rate by fourteen percentage
points. Almost all, or sixty-three survey respondents, completed the questionnaire
online, while two agreed to answer the questions via telephone. Oral answers were
entered electronically in the same online form that was sent to the other respondents.
SPSS software was used to analyse the data obtained in the survey.
Results and Discussion
Correlation coefficients between the acquisition of new knowledge and technology

and context and input variables are shown in Annexure 7. There is a statistically
significant correlation (at the 0.05 level (two-tailed)) between new knowledge and
technology acquisition and only one contextual and one input factor, respectively,
the company’s presence in a foreign market (corr. coeff. 0.268) and performing
internal research and development (R&D) work (corr. coeff. 0.307). Regression
analysis (see Annexure 8) confirms the importance of performing internal R&D
work to promote the acquisition of new knowledge and technology.
The positive relationship between the company’s activity in foreign markets
and new knowledge and technology acquisition is likely to be logical since a
wider market both determines the need and provides more opportunities for
acquisition of new knowledge and technology. However, when analysing the
results obtained with other contextual aspects, it is surprising that performance
of new knowledge and technology acquisition is not more common in companies
belonging to a group of companies or in those whose parent company is abroad
(in this case—outside Latvia). In addition, although research into service innovation
and systems of innovation, especially, has shown that knowledge intensive business
services (KIBS) firms are playing a more central role for innovation as knowledge
carriers, producers, and mediators in national and regional economics (Bessant
& Rush, 2000; Hipp & Grupp, 2005; Miles et al., 1996; Toivonen, 2004; Wood,
2002 cited in Strambach, 2008), no statistically significant relationship was found

between the performance of new knowledge and technology acquisition and the
level of knowledge intensity in the context of the companies covered by this study.
The positive correlation with internal R&D work found in the study is in line
with the findings of Ayari (2013) that companies performing R&D themselves
are more able to use the externally acquired knowledge in the innovation process.
The significance of the correlation found could be explained, inter alia, with the
Learning curve, which is dealt with both in technology transfer (e.g., Davidson,
1983) and other contexts (see, e.g., Adler & Clark, 1991; Robbins, 2019). Whereas,
when analysing the results obtained with respect to the other input aspects, lack
of correlation with participation in and degree of interaction within a networked
organisation is particularly striking. The results also show that the cooperation
skills of the company’s employees and motivating them to cooperate do not mat-
ter in new knowledge and technology acquisition. The study found no negative
correlation with any of the hypothetical barriers (constraints).
Taking into consideration the fact that correlation analysis had shown a statisti-
cally significant link between the acquisition of new knowledge and technology and
only two of the analysed factors, an additional analysis was carried out—covering
the company’s presence in a foreign market and performing internal R&D work cor-
relation with other variables analysis. The acquired results are shown in Annexure
9 and schematically with the help of a Venn diagram in Figure 2.
The additionally performed analysis indicated that factors affecting the acquisi-
tion of new knowledge and technology—internal R&D and company’s presence in
Figure 2
Relationship Between Factors Affecting the Acquisition of New Knowledge
and Technology and Other Variables

foreign market have a correlation with different factors which indicates their indi-
rect connection with the acquisition of new knowledge and technology. However,
according to the Venn diagram, one of the factors—being a part of a group—has
a direct link with both analysed variables—thus underlining its indirect impact on
the process for the acquisition of new knowledge and technology.
To sum up, the results obtained in the study complement the latest results obtained
by Park et al. (2018), Kim et al. (2019), Quinones et al. (2019), and Zhang et al.
(2020) on the performance of new knowledge and technology acquisition and their
implications for business management.
Conclusion and Implications
In the study, data were only obtained from companies that are still operating, so
the results are limited in the context of overall business viability (survival bias).
Namely, the adherence to the important aspects identified in this study does not
guarantee the performance of new knowledge and technology acquisition in practice.
Given the results of the study on the market where a company is operating, it
would be useful to explore in future research whether and which of these explana-
tions prevails in practice—a wider market determines the need or provides more
opportunities for new knowledge and technology acquisition. At the same time, this
relationship should be further explored inversely by examining whether and to what
extent new knowledge and technology acquisition impacts on the market expansion.
The results of the study (positive relationship between new knowledge and
technology acquisition and internal R&D work) add to the knowledge of Absorptive
Capacity Theory (Cohen & Levinthal, 1989) and other articles examining R&D
expenditure (e.g., Seenaiah & Rath, 2018), as the results show that it is specifically
internal R&D work that is important, and not that much, for example, purchase of
external research services.
More than half or (63.1%) of the respondents have carried out internal R&D
work, which is a relatively high indicator. However, according to the Innovation
Survey (CSP, 2018), this proportion does not describe the situation in Latvia. Among
other things, investment in R&D in Latvian companies is critically low—it was
only 0.14% of GDP in 2017 (Eurostat, 2019). Therefore, taking into account the
results obtained, it would be advisable for those Latvian companies that do not
perform R&D work themselves or only purchase external research services to start
planning and performing internal R&D work. Besides, existing innovation support
tools should be reviewed by policymakers, with a particular focus on facilitating
internal R&D work. In the meantime, further research on R&D should underline
the following research questions:
1. How do research and development activities affect technology acquisition,

innovation, and business growth?
2. What determines how well research and development activities affect tech-
nology acquisition, innovation, and business growth?

Although the research did not indicate a correlation between being a part of a group
and the acquisition of new knowledge and technology additional analysis showed
that there is an indirect impact of this factor. The acquired factors indicate that the
acquisition of new knowledge and technology should be further analysed while
separating whether a company is part of a group of companies or not.
The study has not confirmed the importance of networked organisations for the
acquisition of new knowledge and technology, although this is usually one of the
objectives of such organisations. Consequently, such organisations are advised to
make sure of their effectiveness in addressing participants in the context of promot-
ing new knowledge and technology acquisition.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or
publication of this article.
FUNDING
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article: The article was supported by the European Social Fund project ‘Development
of the Academic Personnel of Riga Technical University’ No. 8.2.2.0/18/A/017.

Annexure 1
Measurement of Factors Affecting Technology Transfer
Factor Source Measurement

Use of information technologies Iyengar et al. (2015) The variable is characterised by the following statements—Our office always uses technology provided by RE/
MAX;
Our office makes use of the complete range of functionality provided by RE/MAX technologies;
RE/MAX technologies are completely ingrained in our business practices;
The technologies that we use are provided by RE/MAX.
Size of the company Grimpe and Hussinger (2013) No information.
Age of the company Grimpe and Hussinger (2013) Age of the firm in years.
Labor skills Grimpe and Hussinger (2013) Number of employees with a university degree over R&D expenses.
Being part of a group Grimpe and Hussinger (2013) Dummy variable indicating whether a firm is part of a firm group.
MNCs’ country of origin Sazali et al. (2011) MNCs’ country of origin—Western MNCs (United States and European countries) or Asian MNCs (Japan and
other Asian countries).
Technology transfer channels Lin et al. (2004) They are distinguished as follows—formal and informal, however, a more detailed explanation is not available,
so the possibilities for interpreting the results are limited.
Degree of interaction Lin et al. (2004) Interaction are distinguished as follows—intra-organisation and inter-organisation, however, a more detailed
explanation is not available, so the possibilities for interpreting the results are limited.
Investment in R&D Lin et al. (2004) The variable is characterised by—Asset and Capability, however, a more detailed explanation is not available,
so the possibilities for interpreting the results are limited.
Intensity of investment in R&D Grimpe and Hussinger (2013) R&D expenditure in 1000 EUR divided by full-time employees.
Resource availability Jabar and Soosay (2010) The variable is characterised by the following statements—firms with similar resources have a higher
possibility to form alliances with each other;
Our top management has an important role in deciding the need to form alliances;
Firms in weak situations have a higher possibility to form alliances;
Our organisation forms alliances to get access to resources that are not available in our own firm;
Firms with complementary resources have a higher possibility to form alliances with each other;
Both our firm and partner firm form alliances to combine our resources to improve our competitive advantage
in the market;
Firms that have resources desired by our organisation will become an attractive partner to form alliances with.
(Appendix 1 continued)
(Appendix
Factor 1 continued) Source Measurement
Opportunistic behaviour Jabar and Soosay (2010) The variable is characterised by the following statements—our partner carries out the strategic decision of our
alliance;
Our organisation believes that it is a good idea to sign a contract before an alliance is formed;
Our organisation believes that partners should allocate equity investment in alliances for protection;
Our partner will put the interest of their company first and ignore the decisions made for our alliance;
We trust our partner’s promises;
Our partner fully implements the decisions made for our alliances even if they don’t really agree with it.
Organisational culture Nguyen and Aoyama (2014) The variable is characterised by the following statements—our company culture places value on learning;
Our company encourages staff to participate in the decision-making process;
Our company transmits accurate and timely internal and external information about business operations;
Our company accepts risk;
Our staff cooperates with each other and readily offers needed help.
Absorptive capacity Jabar and Soosay (2010) The variable is characterised by the following statements—firms with experience in alliances will achieve
higher levels of knowledge in collaborations;
Our partner’s level of learning ability is an important factor in alliances;
Our organisation will select partners that are willing to transfer their tacit or unwritten knowledge;
Our partner’s organisation has the similar organisational structure with our firm;
Our organisation will select partners that complement our existing knowledge;
Our partner has the similar areas of research interests with our firm.
Lin et al. (2004) The variable is characterised by the Adaptation, Application and Production, however, a more detailed
explanation is not available, so the possibilities for interpreting the results are limited.
Lin et al. (2009) The variable is characterised by the following statements—the firm is knowledgeable about the technology
programmes and capable of generalising new technology/knowledge;
The firm can internalise its learned new knowledge well;
Newly acquired technology can be applied well in the firm’s existing process systems
Learning intent Lin et al. (2009) The variable is characterised by the following statements—the firm deems the technology programme as a
great chance for organisational learning;
Management executive actively send elite personnel in your company to participate in the ITRI project;
The firm set up new systems (technical and managerial) in order to learn new knowledge from ITRI projects.
Factor Source Measurement

The structural dimension Lin et al. (2009) The variable is characterised by the following statements—firms interact with each other in high frequency;
Between partner interaction duration is long;
Network ties generate significant influences on partners’ behaviour during alliance.
The relational dimension Lin et al. (2009) The variable is characterised by the following statements—all parties highly trust each other;
We believe all of the partner firms and ITRI will not act against the law of mutual benefits;
It is believed that all partners act with high transparency.
The cognitive dimension Lin et al. (2009) The variable is characterised by the following statements—all partners respect and act upon the shared goals of
ITRI projects;
Patterns of coordination are clear during the alliance;
Partner behaviours are not mainly restricted by regulation, but norms;
Partners shared norms of behaviours.
Innovation performance Li (2010) The variable is characterised by the new product sales (turnover).
Annexure 2
Measurement of Technology Transfer
Source Measurement
Iyengar et al. (2015) The variable is characterised by the extent to which the franchisee, based on their perception, acquires useful knowledge for its
operational activities.
Grimpe and Hussinger (2013) The variable is characterised by the—use of formal technology transfer mechanisms—collaborative research, contract research,
technology consulting, licensing and acquisition of technologies developed at universities;
Use of informal technology transfer mechanisms—activities, that do not involve any contractual relationship between the university
scientist and the firm (e.g., contacts between academics and industry personnel at conferences, or other informal contacts, talks and
meetings).
Jabar and Soosay (2010) The variable is characterised by the following statements—our organisation has benefitted from the transfer of technology from our
partners;
Our organisation has been able to develop new technology and processes.
Li (2010) The variable is characterised by the imports of technology un purchase of domestic technology.
Lin et al. (2009) The variable is characterised by—technology advantage and market advantage.
Technology advantage is characterised by the following statements—the firm advanced its core technology to a level that competitor
cannot easily substitute it;
The firm improved in its technological capability;
The firm gained increased number of new patents and application;
The firm improved in terms of NPD speed and new product volume.
Market advantage is characterised by the following statements—the firm achieved better sales performance;
The firm gained higher customer satisfaction;
The firm earned larger market share.
Lin et al. (2004) The variable is characterised by—Execute, Strengthen and profit, however, a more detailed explanation is not available, so the
possibilities for interpreting the results are limited.
Source Measurement
Sazali et al. (2011) The variable is characterised by—
1) tacit knowledge in terms of new product/service development, managerial systems and practice, process designs and new marketing
expertise, and
2) explicit knowledge in terms of manufacturing/service techniques/skills, promotion techniques/skills, distribution know-how and
purchasing know-how.
The respondents were asked to evaluate transfer of technological knowledge from MNCs to local firms in terms of tacit and explicit
dimensions of technological knowledge. Measured using ten-point Likert Scale (1 = very low transfer to 10 = substantial transfer)
Nguyen and Aoyama (2014) The variable is characterised by the following statements
The technical information and knowledge of the Vietnamese technical staff have improved significantly;
The operating skills to manufacture quality products of the Vietnamese technical staff have increased greatly;
The motivation for further study of the Vietnamese technical staff has increased greatly;
The Vietnamese technical staff has good ability to improve product quality.
Annexure 3
Hypothetical Context Factors Affecting Innovation and Technology Transfer
Factor Source
Government policy and regulatory framework for innovation Gupta and Barua (2016)
Sivertsson and Tell (2015)
Amara et al. (2016)
Dubickis et al. (2017)
Promoting the setting of ambitious goals in society Dubickis et al. (2017)
Promoting the setting of entrepreneurship in society Dubickis et al. (2017)
Bureaucracy in the country Sabuncu (2014)
Hadjimanolis (1999)
Bureaucracy in the institutions Dubickis et al. (2017)
Resource availability Jabar and Soosay (2010)
Organisational culture Nguyen and Aoyama (2014)
Bank credit policy Hadjimanolis (1999)
Intensity of competition Liu et al. (2014)
Cooper (1999)
Costa-Campi et al. (2014)
Rapidly changing market situation Zaninelli (2012)
Buyers’ attitude towards new goods and services Fedotova and Geipele (2009)
Regularity of public funding for university-industry Dubickis et al. (2017)
cooperation
Investment in R&D per 1000 employees Grimpe and Hussinger (2013)
Company age Grimpe and Hussinger (2013)
The experience of the respondent in the position Abidin et al. (2013)
Part of the country/region where the company is located Grimpe and Hussinger (2013)
CIS Task Force (2017)
Personu apvienība (2013b)
Scope/industry CIS Task Force (2017)
Being part of a group Grimpe and Hussinger (2013)
Location of the parent company Grimpe and Hussinger (2013)
MNCs country of origin Sazali et al. (2011)
Merger or acquisition CIS Task Force (2017)
Size of the company Grimpe and Hussinger (2013)
Company size by turnover Abidin et al. (2013)
Personu apvienība (2013b)
Company size by number of employees Personu apvienība (2013b)
OECD/Eurostat (2005)
OECD (2015)
Organisational structure Davidson (1983)
The company’s existing market CIS Task Force (2017)

Annexure 4
Hypothetical Input Factors Affecting Innovation and Technology Transfer
Factor Source
Degree of commitment Davidson (1983)
Ensminger et al. (2004)
Lin et al. (2009)
Sazali et al. (2011)
Da Costa et al. (2014)
Krasovska and Dreimane
(2014)
Johnsson (2016)
Investment in R&D Marsick and Watkins (2003)
Fedotova and Geipele (2009)
De Medeiros et al. (2014)
Lin et al. (2004)
Intensity of investment in R&D Grimpe and Hussinger (2013)
Own funding for innovation Dubickis et al. (2017)
Gupta and Barua (2016)
(2014)
Vasilenko and Arbačiauskas
(2013)
Sabuncu (2014)
Weenen et al. (2013)
Madrid-Guijarro et al. (2009)
Amara et al. (2016)
Karahan and Karhan (2013)
Meijer (2015)
Story et al. (2014)
Vermeulen (2005)
D’Este et al. (2012)
Lei et al. (2000)
Public funding for innovation Vasilenko and Arbačiauskas
(2013)
(2014)
Weenen et al. (2013)
Galia and Legros (2004)
Credit for innovation Dubickis et al. (2017)
Non-financial support for innovation Dubickis et al. (2017)
Tax benefits for innovation Vasilenko and Arbačiauskas
(2013)

Factor Source
Labor skills Gupta and Barua (2016)
Alinaitwe et al. (2007)
Zaninelli (2012)
Lei et al. (2000)
Cooper (1999)
Johnsson (2016)
Grimpe and Hussinger (2013)
Cooperation skills Dubickis et al. (2017)
Innovation skills Gupta and Barua (2016)
Johnsson (2016)
Motivation of the stakeholders Dubickis et al. (2017)
Ajayi and Morton (2015)
Najda-Janoszka and Kopera
(2014)
Vermeulen (2005)
The company’s employees are also employed by HERI Dubickis et al. (2017)
The management of the company is also employed by HERI Dubickis et al. (2017)
University—industry cooperation/technology transfer is a Dubickis et al. (2017)
responsibility of someone in the management of the organisation
Financial support for the stakeholders in innovation Dubickis et al. (2017)
Ensmiger et al. (2004)
Lei et al. (2000)
Clarity of IP rights issues Dubickis et al. (2017)
Availability of information on success stories Isenberg (2011)
Personal acquaintance of the stakeholders involved in the Dubickis et al. (2017)
cooperation
Mutual trust between the stakeholders involved in the cooperation Dubickis et al. (2017)
Organisational learning and regularity of training Marsick and Watkins (2003)
Lin et al. (2009)
Absorptive capacity Lin et al. (2004)
Lin et al. (2009)
Jabar and Soosay (2010)
Iyengar et al. (2015)
Social capital Dubickis et al. (2017)
Abidin et al. (2013)
Lin et al. (2009)
Liu et al. (2014)
Technology Transfer channels Lin et al. (2004)
The manager’s ability to make quick decisions in innovation Han and Lorenz (2015)
processes Lei et al. (2000)
The objectives of the organisation are clear Da Costa et al. (2014)
Positive microclimate in the organisation Da Costa et al. (2014)
Use of information technologies Iyengar et al. (2015)

Factor Source
Information flow in the company Da Costa et al. (2014)
External communication Ajayi and Morton (2015)
Johnsson (2016)
Participation in workshops, networking sessions and so on, on Dubickis et al. (2017)
University—industry cooperation
Organisation of meetings between industry representatives and Dubickis et al. (2017)
students
Industry representatives are involved as mentors in the study Dubickis et al. (2017)
process
Representatives of the University are involved as mentors in Dubickis et al. (2017)
solving the company’s problems
Annexure 5
Hypothetical Input Factors Hindering Innovation and Technology Transfer
Factor Source
Occupancy/lack of time for employees to innovate Dubickis et al. (2017)
Vasilenko and Arbačiauskas (2013)
Hadjimanolis (1999)
Krasovska and Dreimane (2014)
Employee resistance to change Hadjimanolis (1999)
Fear that the knowledge in the company will be Dubickis et al. (2017)
revealed to others
Differences in values between the skateholders involved Dubickis et al. (2017)
in the cooperation
Difficulties in establishing initial contacts for Dubickis et al. (2017)
implementing cooperation
Lack of control by manager Meijer (2015)
Lack of qualified workforce in the company Vasilenko and Arbačiauskas (2013)
Hadjimanolis (1999)
Amara et al. (2016)
Karahan and Karhan (2013)
D’Este et al. (2012)
Najda-Janoszka and Kopera (2014)
Vermeulen (2005)
Opportunistic behaviour Jabar and Soosay (2010)

Annexure 6
Scales Used to Measure Variables and Their Sources
Group of Factors Variable Source

Context The company’s location (actual Respondents indicate the statistical
address) region according to the order of
the Cabinet of Ministers (Ministru
kabinets, 2010)
Age of the company Respondents indicate the year
of establishment—the age
of the company is calculated
arithmetically
Level of technology intensity Respondents indicate the main
(manufacturing) activity by NACE. Data are coded
Level of knowledge intensity using Eurostat (2016).
(services)
Market where the company is Adapted from CIS Task Force
operating (2017)
The company being part of a group
Location of the parent company
Size of the company according to
the number of employees
Intensity of competition in the Statement created to be answered
sector in which the company in the affirmative or in the negative
operates (yes; no)
Input Receiving tax benefits
Existence of intellectual property
rights policy in the company
Level of commitment to acquire Adapted from CIS Task Force
new knowledge and technology (2017) (no commitment; low
importance; medium importance;
high importance; very important)
Membership in a networked Adapted from Frey et al. (2006)
organisation (industry association
or similar)
Degree of interaction in a
networked organisation
Qualification of the company’s Likert scale created (inappropriate;
employees rather inappropriate; rather
appropriate; appropriate)
Clarity of the company’s goals Statement created using Likert scale
among the employees (disagree; tend to disagree; tend to
agree; agree)
Ability of the company’s employees
to cooperate with others
Motivating the company’s Statement created using Likert scale
employees to cooperate with other (never; rarely; sometimes; often;
companies and organisations always)
Frequency of training for the
company’s employees
Availability of information about
success stories to the employees

Group of Factors Variable Source

Job vacancies in the company (lack
of qualified employees);
The company is afraid that the
knowledge at its disposal will be
disclosed to others
Intensity of the company’s
employees’ resistance to change
Difficulties in establishing
initial contacts for implementing
cooperation
Performing internal R&D work Adapted from CIS Task Force
Regularity of performing internal (2017)
R&D work
Purchase of external research
services
Type of internal research OECD (2015) classification and
Type of research services purchased definitions were used
Acquisition of new knowledge and Statement created to be answered
technology in the affirmative or in the negative
(yes; no)
Source of funding for the internal Possible sources of funding are
R&D listed (own funding; funding from
Source of funding for the other group entities; public funding,
acquisition of external research creditors; external support with non-
services financial instruments; other sources)
Annexure 7
Correlation Between the Acquisition of New Knowledge and
Technology and Context and Input Variables
Group of Variables Independent Variable [Q] Corr. Coeff.

Context The company’s location in the urban centre (capital city— −0.107
Riga)
Age of the company −0.156
Level of technology intensity (manufacturing) −0.433
Level of knowledge intensity (services) −0.041
The company’s presence in a national market 0.103
The company’s presence in a foreign market 0.268a
The company being part of a group 0.139
Location of the parent company −0.314
Size of the company according to the number of employees 0.046
Intensity of competition in the sector in which the company 0.092
operates
Input Receiving tax benefits −0.142
Existence of intellectual property rights policy in the company −0.054
Level of commitment to acquire new knowledge and 0.108
technology

Group of Variables Independent Variable [Q] Corr. Coeff.
Membership in a networked organisation (industry 0.049
association or similar)
Degree of interaction in a networked organisation −0.005
Qualification of the company’s employees 0.224
Clarity of the company’s goals among the employees 0.042
Ability of the company’s employees to cooperate with others 0.211
Motivating the company’s employees to cooperate with other 0.082
companies and organisations
Frequency of training for the company’s employees 0.182
Availability of information about success stories to the 0.187
employees;
Job vacancies in the company (lack of qualified employees) −0.071
Intensity of the company’s employees’ resistance to change 0.177
Difficulties in establishing initial contacts for implementing 0.061
cooperation
Performing internal R&D work 0.307a
Regularity of performing internal R&D work −0.002
Carrying out fundamental research 0.259
Carrying out applied research −0.105
Experimental development 0.011
Own funding for internal R&D work 0.074
Funding from other group entities for internal R&D work 0.095
Public funding for internal R&D work −0.064
Credit for internal R&D work −0.169
Non-financial support from outside for internal R&D work −0.051
Purchase of external research services 0.143
Purchase of fundamental research 0.193
Purchase of applied research 0.072
Purchase of experimental development −0.024
Own funding for the acquisition of external research services −0.037
Funding from other group entities for the acquisition of −0.036
Public funding for the acquisition of external research −0.077
services
Credit for the acquisition of external research services −0.119
Non-financial support from outside for the acquisition of −0.129
Notes: aCorrelation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
Annexure 8
Binary Logistics Regression.
Nagelkerke R Percentage
Correlation Variable Square Correct Sig.
Positive The company’s presence in 0.094 63.1 0.033
a foreign market 0.061 63.1 0.090
Performing internal R&D work 0.123 64.6 0.016
0.007 49.2 0.560

Annexure 9
Interrelationship of Independent Variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
a b b b a
1. The company’s presence in a 1.000 0.306 0.050 −0.077 0.333 0.184 0.335 −0.177 0.364 0.263 −0.020 0.175 0.081 0.043 0.069 −0.048
national market
2. The company’s presence in a 0.306a 1.000 0.321b 0.277a 0.488b 0.141 0.023 0.023 0.164 0.269a 0.076 0.273a 0.414b 0.131 0.176 0.376a
foreign market
3. The company being part of a 0.050 0.321b 1.000 0.175 0.281a −0.008 0.187 0.215 0.006 0.101 0.066 −0.075 0.255a 0.255a 0.127 −0.141
group
4. Number of employees −0.077 0.277a 0.175 1.000 0.070 −0.087 −0.054 0.382b 0.083 −0.059 0.402b 0.060 0.366b 0.193 0.201 0.095
5. Intensity of competition 0.333b 0.488b 0.281a 0.070 1.000 0.245a 0.047 −0.081 0.223 0.284a 0.205 0.347b 0.242 −0.001 −0.199 0.025
6. Existence of IP rights policy in 0.184 0.141 −0.008 −0.087 0.245a 1.000 0.305a 0.163 0.245a 0.169 0.092 0.055 −0.071 0.278a 0.207 0.174
the company
7. Commitment to acquire new 0.335b 0.023 0.187 −0.054 0.047 0.305a 1.000 0.158 0.267a 0.140 0.172 −0.066 −0.092 0.379b 0.164 0.089
knowledge and technology
8. Membership in a networked −0.177 0.023 0.215 0.382b −0.081 0.163 0.158 1.000 0.044 0.056 0.277a −0.168 0.116 0.364b 0.275a 0.238
organisation
9. Qualification of the company’s 0.364b 0.164 0.006 0.083 0.223 0.245a 0.267a 0.044 1.000 0.489b 0.480b −0.192 −0.189 0.250a 0.019 0.174
employees
10. Cooperation skills of the 0.263a 0.269a 0.101 −0.059 0.284a 0.169 0.140 0.056 0.489b 1.000 0.298a −0.129 −0.190 0.178 0.086 −0.037
11. Frequency of training for the −0.020 0.076 0.066 0.402b 0.205 0.092 0.172 0.277a 0.480b 0.298a 1.000 −0.028 0.006 0.287a −0.089 0.026
12. Job vacancies in the company 0.175 0.273a −0.075 0.060 0.347b 0.055 −0.066 −0.168 −0.192 −0.129 −0.028 1.000 0.440b 0.055 −0.017 −0.119
13. Intensity of the company’s 0.081 0.414b 0.255a 0.366b 0.242 −0.071 −0.092 0.116 −0.189 −0.190 0.006 0.440b 1.000 0.201 0.089 0.004
employee’ resistance to change
14. Performing internal R&D 0.043 0.131 0.255a 0.193 −0.001 0.278a 0.379b 0.364b 0.250a 0.178 0.287a 0.055 0.201 1.000 0.261a −0.056
work
15. Purchase of external research 0.069 0.176 0.127 0.201 −0.199 0.207 0.164 0.275a 0.019 0.086 −0.089 −0.017 0.089 0.261a 1.000
services
16. Own funding for the −0.048 0.376a −0.141 0.095 0.025 0.174 0.089 0.238 ..174 −0.037 0.026 −0.119 0.004 −0.056 – 1.000
acquisition of external research
services
Source: Authors' construction.
Notes: aCorrelation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
b
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
NOTES
1. According to the respective methodology (CSP, 2018), an innovative company is a company that
has implemented at least one innovation in the reporting period—technological (process or product),
marketing, or organizational innovation. At the same time, it should be noted that the survey includes
only companies with ten or more employees in certain industrial and service sectors (please, see CSP,
2018 for more information). Therefore, it should be considered that the survey does not, in essence,
describe the situation in the country as a whole—most likely, the share of innovative companies is
much lower.
2. This article is a part of M. Dubickis’ Ph.D. thesis, the aim of which is to study the factors affecting
innovation and technology transfer and to develop management solutions for the company’s growth.
3. For this research, new knowledge and technology include copyrighted works, patented and unpatented
inventions, and other technologies (devices, equipment, methods, methodologies, know-how, etc.).
New knowledge and technology may already have been used by other companies. Still they must
be new at least in the company acquiring them.
REFERENCES
Abidin, R., Abdullah, C. S., Hasnan, N., Mohtar, S., & Zulhumadi, F. (2013). Social capital and
technology transfer performance in technology parks incubating companies. Entrepreneurship
Vision 2020: Innovation, Development Sustainability, and Economic Growth, 1(2), 1155–1162.
Adler, P. S., & Clark, K. B. (1991). Behind the learning curve: A sketch of the learning
process. Management Science, 37(3), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.37.3.267
Ajayi, O. M., & Morton, S. C. (2015). Exploring the enablers of organizational and marketing
innovations in SMEs: Findings from south-western Nigeria. SAGE Open, 5(1). https://doi.
org/10.1177/2158244015571487
Alinaitwe, H. M., Widén, K., Mwakali, J., & Hansson, B. (2007). Innovation barriers and enablers
that affect productivity in Uganda building industry. Journal of Construction in Developing
Countries, 12(1), 59–75.
Amara, N., D'Este, P., Landry, R., & Doloreux, D. (2016). Impacts of obstacles on innovation patterns
in KIBS firms. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4065–4073.
Ayari, N. (2013). Internal capabilities, R&D cooperation and firms’ innovativeness level. Gestion 2000,
30(2), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.3917/g2000.302.0033.
Batternik. (2009). Profiting from external knowledge: How firms use different knowledge acquisition
strategies to improve their innovation performance. Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Booth, A., Papaioannou, D., & Sutton, A. (2012). Systematic approaches to a successful literature
review. SAGE Publishers.
Briner, R. B., & Denyer, D. (2012). Systematic review and evidence synthesis as a practice and
scholarship tool. In D. M. Rousseau (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidence-based management
(pp. 112–129). Oxford University Press.
Cambridge University Press. (n.d.). Meaning of context in English. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/
dictionary/english/context
Center for Management & Organization Effectiveness. (n.d.). Innovation skills. https://cmoe.com/
products-and-services/innovation-skills/
CIS Task Force. (2017). The community innovation survey 2016. Version CY of 12 July 2017. http://www.
mcit.gov.cy/mcit/sit/sit.nsf/368F7ECC0382595DC22581D2003C4423/$file/CIS2016_(EN).docx
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. The Economic
Journal, 99(397), 569–596. https://doi.org/10.2307/2233763
Cooper, R. G. (1999). The invisible success factors in product innovation. Journal of Product Innovation
Management: An International Publication of the Product Development & Management
Association, 16(2), 115–133.
Costa-Campi, M. T., Duch-Brown, N., & García-Quevedo, J. (2014). R&D drivers and obstacles to
innovation in the energy industry. Energy Economics, 46, 20–30.

Corporate Citizenship. (2018). From inputs to impact: Measuring corporate community contributions
through the LGB framework: A guidance manual. http://www.lbg-online.net/wp-content/
uploads/2018/10/LBG-Public-Guidance-Manual_2018.pdf
CSP. (2018). Innovation Survey 2014–2016 Results. https://www.csb.gov.lv/sites/default/files/
publication/2018-07/Nr%2029%20Inovaciju%20apsekojuma%202014.-2016.g.%20rezultati%20%
2818_00%29%20LV.pdf
Davidson, W. H. (1983). Structure and performance in international technology transfer. Journal of
Management Studies, 20(4), 453–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1983.tb00219.x
D’Este, P., Iammarino, S., Savona, M., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2012). What hampers innovation?
Revealed barriers versus deterring barriers. Research Policy, 41(2), 482–488.
Da Costa, S., Páez, D., Sánchez, F., Gondim, S., & Rodríguez, M. (2014). Factors favoring innovation
in organizations: An integration of meta-analyses. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las
Organizaciones, 30(2), 67–74.
De Medeiros, J. F., Ribeiro, J. L. D., & Cortimiglia, M. N. (2014). Success factors for environmentally
sustainable product innovation: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production,
65, 76–86.
Drucker, P. F., & Maciariello, J. A. (2008). Management (Revised edition). Collins.
Du, J., Lu, J., & Guo, Y. (2015). Relationship between technological diversification of social network
and technological innovation performance: Empirical evidence from China. Science, Technology
and Society, 20(1), 60–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971721814561388
Dubickis, M., Eliņa, L., Gaile-Sarkane, E., Gūte, L., Ozoliņš, M., Paule, D., Rubina, L., Straujuma,
A., Ščeulovs, D., & Zeps, A. (2017). Research on cooperation models of academia and industry.
www.izm.gov.lv/images/ES_fondi/seminaru_DK/Pētījuma_rezultāti_15.05.pdf
Dubickis, M., & Gaile-Sarkane, E. (2015). Perspectives on innovation and technology transfer. Procedia:
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213, 965–970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.512
Dutta, S., Lanvin, B., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2014). The global innovation index 2014: The human
factor in innovation. World Intellectual Property Organization. http://www.globalinnovationindex.
org/userfiles/file/reportpdf/GII-2014-v5.pdf
Ensminger, D. C., Surry, D. W., Porter, B. E., & Wright, D. (2004). Factors contributing to the successful
implementation of technology innovations. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 7(3),
61–72.
European Central Bank. (2017). How does innovation lead to growth? https://www.ecb.europa.eu/
explainers/tell-me-more/html/growth.en.html
European Commission. (2019). European innovation scoreboard 2019. https://interactivetool.eu/EIS/
EIS_2.html
Eurostat. (2019). R&D expenditure. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/d/dd/
Final_Excel_to_send_for_update-16-09-2019-REV.xlsx
Eurostat. (2020). Product and/or process innovative enterprises engaged in co-operation by co-
operation partner, NACE Rev. 2 activity and size class. https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/
submitViewTableAction.do
Fagerberg, J., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Innovation studies: The emerging structure of a new scientific
field. Research Policy, 38(2), 218–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.12.006
Fedotova, K., & Geipele, I. (2009). Possibilities to increase competitiveness in changeable environmental
conditions. 50 RTU International Scientific Conference: Conference Proceedings (pp. 74–81).
RTU Publishing.
Galia, F., & Legros, D. (2004). Complementarities between obstacles to innovation: Evidence from
France. Research Policy, 33(8), 1185–1199.
Gupta, H., & Barua, M. K. (2016). Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs
using best-worst multi criteria decision making method. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 107, 69–79.
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated
methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Grimpe, C., & Hussinger, K. (2013). Formal and informal knowledge and technology transfer from
academia to industry: Complementarity effects and innovation performance. Industry and
Innovation, 20(8), 683–700. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2013.856620
Hadjimanolis, A. (1999). Barriers to innovation for SMEs in a small less developed country (Cyprus).
Technovation, 19(9), 561–570.
Han, Z., & Lorenz, R. (2015). Insights into success factors of innovation projects. International Journal
of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 19(3–4), 163–193.
Hansen, H., & Trifkovic, N. (2013). Systematic reviews: Questions, methods and usage. MPRA paper
47993. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/47993/1/MPRA_paper_47993.pdf
Henchion et al. (n.d.). Industry perspectives on technology transfer in Ireland: Results from a quantitative
survey of Irish food industry personnel [Report]. Development of a technology commercialisation
toolbox for publicly funded food research. http://www.dit.ie/media/dittoolboxproject/REPORT%
203%20-%20Industry%20Perspectives%20on%20Technology%20Transfer%20from%20
Public%20Research.pdf
Isenberg. (2011). Introducing the entrepreneurship ecosystem: Four defining characteristics. https://
www.forbes.com/sites/danisenberg/2011/05/25/introducing-the-entrepreneurship-ecosystem-four-
defining-characteristics/#70e2902e5fe8
Iyengar, K., Sweeney, J. R., & Montealegre, R. (2015). Information technology use as a learning
mechanism: The impact of IT use on knowledge transfer effectiveness, absorptive capacity, and
franchisee performance. MIS Quarterly, 39(3), 615. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.3.05
IZM. (2013). Guidelines for science, technology development and innovation 2014–2020. https://www.
izm.gov.lv/images/zinatne/ZTAIP_2014-2020.pdf
Jabar, J., & Soosay, C. (2010). An assessment of technology transfer in Malaysian manufacturers and the
impact on performance and innovativeness. 2010 IEEE International Conference on Management
of Innovation & Technology (pp. 983–989). IEEE.
Johnsson, M. (2016). Innovation enablers and their importance for innovation teams (Doctoral
dissertation). Blekinge Tekniska Högskola.
Karahan, M., & Karhan, G. (2013). A case study on innovation activities in Turkey and the obstacles
for innovation. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 75, 129–138.
Khan, K. S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., & Antes, G. (2003). Five steps to conducting a systematic review.
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 96, 118–121. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.96.3.118
Kim, H., Park, S. Y., & Joh, W. I. (2019). A study on technology development performance and technology
commercialization performance according to the technology development capability of SMEs
focusing on a comparative analysis of technology business groups. Journal of Open Innovation:
Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5(3), 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc5030065
Kotsemir, M. N., Abroskin, A., & Meissner, D. (2013). Innovation concepts and typology: An
evolutionary discussion. https://www.hse.ru/pubs/share/direct/document/76780100
Krasovska, M., & Dreimane, J. (2014). Innovations in the library. Latvijas Nacionālā bibliotēka. http://
dom.lndb.lv/data/obj/file/244247.pdf
Lei, J., Cao, N., Zhu, J., & Dai, Z. (2000). Innovation risks of hi-tech start-ups and the key factors to
success. 2000 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology (Vol.
1, pp. 390–396). Management in the 21st Century’ (Cat. No. 00EX457). IEEE.
Leta. (2019). Dombrovskis: Of the priorities set by the new EC, Latvia will have to work mostly on the
economic development and social issues. http://www.la.lv/dombrovskis-no-jaunas-ek-izvirzitajam-
prioritatem-latvijai-visvairak-darama-bus-ekonomikas-attistibas-un-socialajos-jautajumos
Li, W. W. (2010). R&D, technology transfer and innovation performance: Evidence from Chinese
industries. Advanced Materials Research, 108, 1302–1307. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.
net/AMR.108-111.1296
Lin, C., Chang, S., & Chang, C. S. (2004). The impact of technology absorptive capacity on technology
transfer performance. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation,
3(4), 384–409.
Lin, J. L., Fang, S. C., Fang, S. R., & Tsai, F. S. (2009). Network embeddedness and technology
transfer performance in R&D consortia in Taiwan. Technovation, 29(11), 763–774. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.05.001

Liu, Z., Kemp, R. G., Jongsma, M. A., Huang, C., Dons, J. J. M., & Omta, S. W. F. (2014). Key success
factors of innovation projects of vegetable breeding companies in China. International Food and
Agribusiness Management Review, 17(1030-2016-83032), 177–204.
Love, J. H., & Roper, S. (1999). The determinants of innovation: R&D, technology transfer and
networking effects. Review of Industrial Organization, 15(1), 43–64.
Madrid-Guijarro, A., Garcia, D., & Van Auken, H. (2009). Barriers to innovation among Spanish
manufacturing SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(4), 465–488.
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organization's learning culture:
The dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 5(2), 132–151.
Mckinney, P. (2017). Understanding the innovation economy and its impact on our world. https://
philmckinney.com/understanding-innovation-economy-impact-world/
Medne, A., & Lapina, I. (2019). Sustainability and continuous improvement of organization: Review
of process-oriented performance indicators. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market,
and Complexity, 5(3), 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc5030049
Meijer, A. (2015). E-governance innovation: Barriers and strategies. Government Information Quarterly,
32(2), 198–206.
Najda-Janoszka, M., & Kopera, S. (2014). Exploring barriers to innovation in tourism industry: The
case of southern region of Poland. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 110, 190–201.
Nguyen, N. T. D., & Aoyama, A. (2014). Impact of corporate culture on the relationship between efficient
technology transfer and business performance. Global Business Review, 15(4), 637–661. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0972150914543420
Nikitina, T., & Lapiņa, I. (2019). Creating and managing knowledge towards managerial competence
development in contemporary business environment. Knowledge Management Research &
Practice, 17(1), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2019.1569487
OECD. (2005). Oslo manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data (3rd Edition).
OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264013100-en
OECD. (2007). Innovation and growth: Rationale for an innovative strategy. OECD Publishing. http://
www.oecd.org/science/inno/39374789.pdf
OECD. (2015). Frascati manual 2015: Guidelines for collecting and reporting data on research and
experimental development. OECD Publishing.
Ozoliņa-Ozola, I. (2017). Employee turnover challenges and management solutions at companies
[Doctoral dissertation]. RTU Press.
Park, J. H., Lee, B., Moon, Y. H., Kim, G., & Kwon, L. N. (2018). Relation of R&D expense to turnover
and number of listed companies in all industrial fields. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology,
Market, and Complexity, 4(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-018-0093-4
Personu apvienība. (2013). “SIA “Baltijas Konsultācijas” un SIA “Konsorts”” UZŅĒMUMU
APTAUJAS METODOLOĢIJA, IZLASES KOPAS IZVEIDOŠANAS NOSACĪJUMI UN
APTAUJAS ANKETA. http://www.mk.gov.lv/sites/default/files/editor/1.nodevums.pdf
Porter, M. E. (2011). Competitive advantage of nations: Creating and sustaining superior performance.
Simon and Schuster.
PWC. (2017). 20 years inside the mind of the CEO... Whats next? https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/ceo-
survey/2017/pwc-ceo-20th-survey-report-2017.pdf
Quiñones, R., Caladcad, J. A., Quiñones, H., Caballes, S. A., Abellana, D. P., Jabilles, E. M., Himang,
C., & Ocampo, L. (2019). Open innovation with fuzzy cognitive mapping for modeling the
barriers of University Technology transfer: A Philippine scenario. Journal of Open Innovation:
Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5, 94.
Quintane, E., Mitch Casselman, R., Sebastian Reiche, B., & Nylund, P. A. (2011). Innovation as a
knowledge-based outcome. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 928–947. https://doi.
org/10.1108/13673271111179299
Robbins, T. R. (2019). A learning curve-based assembly game. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative
Education, 17(4), 344–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12190

Roša, A., & Lace, N. (2018). The open innovation model of coaching interaction in organisations for
sustainable performance within the life cycle. Sustainability, 10, 3516. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su10103516
Rudzītis, R. (2017). Innovation drivers and barriers. RTU Press.
Sabuncu, B. (2014). A study on the innovation in SMEs and the identification of the obstacles: The case
of Denizli. Journal of Business Research, 6(1), 103–123.
Sazali, A. W., Raduan, R. C., & Suzana, I. W. O. (2011). Examining the moderating effects of
MNCs’ country of origin in the relationship between degree of inter-firm technology transfer
and local firms’ performance. Asian Social Science, 7(12), 79. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.
v7n12p79
Schumpeter, J. A. (1943). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy (6th ed.). Unwin Paperbacks.
Seenaiah, K., & Rath, B. N. (2018). Determinants of innovation in selected manufacturing firms in
India: Role of R&D and exports. Science, Technology and Society, 23(1), 65–84. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0971721817744445
Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). University technology transfer offices, licensing, and start-
ups. Chicago handbook of university technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship
(pp. 1–40). University of Chicago Press.
Sivertsson, O., & Tell, J. (2015). Barriers to business model innovation in Swedish agriculture.
Sustainability, 7(2), 1957–1969.
Story, V. M., Daniels, K., Zolkiewski, J., & Dainty, A. R. (2014). The barriers and consequences of radical
innovations: Introduction to the issue. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(8), 1271–1277.
Strambach, S. (2008). Knowledge-Intensive Business Services (KIBS) as drivers of multilevel knowledge
dynamics. International Journal of Services Technology and Management, 10(2–4), 152–174.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSTM.2008.022117
Tafti, S. F., Jahani, M., & Emami, S. A. (2012). Explaining evolutionary trend of strategic planning
from traditional economy to innovation economy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58,
56–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.978
Teece, D., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility. California
Management Review, 58(4), 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.13
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science,
32, 590–607.
Vasilenko, L., & Arbačiauskas, V. (2013). Obstacles and drivers for sustainable innovation development
and implementation in small and medium sized enterprises. Environmental Research, Engineering
And Management, (2), 58–66.
Vermeulen, P. A. (2005). Uncovering barriers to complex incremental product innovation in small and
medium-sized financial services firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(4), 432–452.
Voelpel, S. C., Leibold, M., & Eckhoff, R. A. (2006). The tyranny of the Balanced Scorecard in the
innovation economy. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(1), 43–60.
Weenen, T. C., Pronker, E. S., Commandeur, H. R., & Claassen, E. H. J. M. (2013). Barriers to innovation
in the medical nutrition industry: A quantitative key opinion leader analysis. PharmaNutrition,
1(3), 79–85.
Yun, J. H. J., Park, K., Kim, J., & Yang, J. (2016). Open innovation effort, entrepreneurship orientation
and their synergies onto innovation performance in SMEs of Korea. Science, Technology and
Society, 21(3), 366–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971721816661786
Yun, J. H. J., Won, D. K., & Park, K. (2016). Dynamics from open innovation to evolutionary change.
Journal of Open Innovation Technology Market and Complexity, 2, 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s40852-016-0033-0
Yun, J. H. J., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2017). Open innovation in value chain for sustainability of firms. Sustain,
9, 811. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050811
Zaninelli, T. (2012). Success factors of Service innovation: A qualitative study of the development of
complex service in the collaborative context. Semina: Social and Human Sciences, 32(2), 97–106.
Zhang, G., Zhang, Q., & Huang, D. (2020). Impact of political connection strength on the
internationalization outcome of Chinese firms: Perspectives from market exploration and
technology acquisition. Sustainability, 12(4), 1617. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041617

Dubickis and Gaile-Sarkane (2021) - Factors Influencing Technology Transfer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Dubickis and Gaile-Sarkane (2021) - Factors Influencing Technology Transfer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dubickis and Gaile-Sarkane (2021) - Factors Influencing Technology Transfer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Factors Influencing Technology Transfer

in Companies at Emerging Economies

MIKUS DUBICKIS and ELĪNA GAILE-SARKANE

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–31

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–31

Systematic Review of Inbound Technology Transfer Performance Literature

1. databases—EBSCOhost, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, Scopus, and Web of

A flowchart of the systematic search results is presented in Figure 1.

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–31

Source: Authors’ construction based on Moher et al. (2009).

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–31

of the company. However, considering the conclusions of sociopsychologists on

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–31

Group of Factors Factor Hypothesis

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–31

Results and Discussion

Correlation coefficients between the acquisition of new knowledge and technology

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–31

Source: Authors’ construction.

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–31

Conclusion and Implications

1. How do research and development activities affect technology acquisition,

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–31

DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–31

Factor Source Measurement

Factor Source Measurement

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–31

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–31

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–31

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–31

Group of Factors Variable Source

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–31

Group of Factors Variable Source

Group of Variables Independent Variable [Q] Corr. Coeff.

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–31

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–31

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–31

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–31

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–31

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–31

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–31

You might also like