Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Review On The Technology Transfer Models Knowled
A Review On The Technology Transfer Models Knowled
net/publication/228320556
CITATIONS READS
18 5,139
4 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Prof Dr Sazali Abdul Wahab on 03 November 2014.
Jegak Uli
Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia
43400 Selangor, Malaysia
E-mail: jegak@ace.upm.edu.my
Haslinda Abdullah
Faculty of Economics & Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia
43400 Selangor, Malaysia
E-mail: hba@putra.upm.edu.my; drhaslinda@gmail.com
Abstract
The main objective of this paper is to contribute to the existing Technology Transfer (TT)
literature by reviewing the evolution and development of the previous TT models which
include the traditional TT model, models developed after 1990s, other related theoretical
foundations underlying TT models, and the current TT models which have strong influence
of knowledge-based view (KBV) and organizational learning (OL) perspectives. Since the
current management researchers have a strong focus on TT within strategic alliance and
other collaborative ventures, this review highlights the significant influence of KBV and
OL perspectives on inter-firm TT models. This review attempts to help stimulate the
direction of both future theoretical and empirical studies on inter-firm technology transfer
specifically 1) on how KBV and OL perspectives could play significant role in explaining
the complex relationships between the supplier and recipient in inter-firm technology
transfer 2) the tradeoffs that involve between properties of technology, protecting
proprietary technologies, competitiveness of the supplier, willingness to transfer
technology, and learning attitudes of the recipient in strategic alliances and JVs, and 3) on
how KVB and OL perspectives could be integrated in a holistic model to explain the
relationships between knowledge transferred, the recipient, the supplier, relationship
characteristics and degree of technology transfer.
1. Introduction
Based on a review of literature, technology transfer (TT) is not a new thing. Researchers have traced
back TT process to the pre-history of the human species: where TT largely involved tacit knowledge
which is evolutionary prior to explicit knowledge (Donald, 1991; Mathews and Roussel, 1997). As
there were no written languages until 3000 BC, TT had mainly occurred through language; which were
supplemented by equations and diagrams which constitute as the major means of explicit transfer of
technological knowledge (Gorman, 2002). The spoken language and gestures have explicitly
transferred technological knowledge in friendly encounters. However, much of pre-historic TT
between people occurred when people with superior agricultural technology assimilated or eliminated
those who could not reproduce as rapidly (Diamond, 1997).
Segman (1989) who conducted a historical review of TT, traced the TT process from the
Neolithic times, the role of Arabs played in transferring technologies from East to West and the
transfer of English textile expertise to the American textile industry in the 18th and 19th Centuries. In
the 18th Century, despite the English law preventing knowledge migration, France eventually managed
to obtain ‘specialized steel making know-how’ by importing English workers and through industrial
espionage. The success of the American textile industry in THE 18th and 19th Century was due to the
transfer of knowledge and expertise by the English textile industry (Cameron, 1960; Irwin and Moore,
1991). Previous studies have shown that certain industries collapsed, for example the English clock and
watch industry, due to the industry resistance to the opportunities of TT (Irwin and Moore, 1991). The
main objective of this paper is to review the evolution and development of TT models in terms of focus
of each model, strengths and limitations of the models, and finally to highlight the significance
influence of knowledge-based view (KBV) and organizational learning (OL) perspectives, which have
strong theoretical foundation, on the current TT models. This review limits its perimeter by focusing
on the inter-firm TT between two unaffiliated organizations.
551
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)
1991). This model reduces the complex transfer process to chronologically ordered stages (Gibson and
Slimor, 1991; Sung and Gibson, 2000). The appropriability, dissemination and knowledge utilization
models still suffer from inherent linear bias where these TT models have limitations in terms of their
limited application in transferring technology across organizational boundaries (Tenkasi and Mohrman,
1995; Gibson and Slimor, 1991).
553
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)
between the technology developer and the receiver or between different organizations, 2) the levels of
TT, 3) the factors which influence TT and KT, and 4) the TT processes in IJV (Gibson and Slimor,
1991; Sung and Gibson, 2000; Rebentich and Ferretti, 1995).
554
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)
555
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)
However, for the purpose of this review, which focuses on the cross border and inter-firm TT of
tacit and explicit knowledge (software and hardware technology), the relevant theories underlying the
current TT model are KBV and OL perspectives. This study contends that as TT does not only require
transmission of knowledge but also knowledge absorption and use (Devanport and Prusak, 1998, 2000)
these perspectives, which are interrelated, would enable this study to capture and explain the distinct
characteristics and behavioral factors of the actors and facilitators/barriers involved such as the
attributes of knowledge transferred, attitudes of both technology supplier and recipient, as well as their
relational and contextual factors (Szulanski, 1996). The streams of literature on TT, KBV and OL
perspectives are quite similar along various dimensions for example the outcomes, processes, barriers
and facilitators (Daghfous, 2004).
556
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)
individual passes on knowledge to another individual, 2) from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge
(externalization); a process when individuals take existing knowledge, add their tacit knowledge and
create something new that can be shared throughout the organization, 3) from explicit knowledge to
explicit knowledge (combination); a process where knowledge is gained by combining and
synthesizing existing explicit knowledge from different sources, and 4) from explicit to tacit
knowledge (internalization); a process where new explicit knowledge is internalized within members
of the organization to create new tacit knowledge (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).
Even though each of these modes may independently create knowledge, the organizational
knowledge creation processes only occur when all the four modes are organizationally managed and
dynamically interacted. This process which is highly iterative constitutes ‘knowledge spiral’ which
happens mainly through informal networks of relations in the organization starting from the individual
level, then moves up to the group (collective) level and eventually to the organizational level. It creates
a ‘spiraling effect’ of knowledge accumulation and growth which promotes organization innovation
and learning (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).
557
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)
Common knowledge is important as a means through which multiple individuals can communicate to
integrate knowledge (Grant, 1996b).
558
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)
at organizational level by its influence on the organization’s shared models. This model stresses that
organization learns only through its members and learning does not depend on any specific members.
However, individuals can learn without the organization. OL process is viewed from two perspectives:
1) the collective learning perspective, and 2) the cognitive-outcome perspective. The collective
learning perspective describes how knowledge through individual learning becomes organization
shared knowledge, and the cognitive outcome perspective indicates that knowledge acquired through
individual learning can lead directly to individual action or indirectly to organizational action through
knowledge sharing (Kim, 1993).
6. Conclusion
This review significantly contributes to the existing TT literature by reviewing the evolution and
development of the previous TT models which include the traditional TT model, models developed
after 1990s, other related theoretical foundations underlying TT models, and the current TT models
which have strong influence of KBV and OL perspectives. This review could help shape the direction
of both future theoretical and empirical studies on inter-firm technology transfer specifically 1) on how
KBV and OL perspectives could play significant role in explaining the complex relationships between
the supplier and recipient in inter-firm technology transfer 2) the tradeoffs that involve between
properties of technology, protecting proprietary technologies, competitiveness of the supplier,
560
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)
willingness to transfer technology, and learning attitudes of the recipient in strategic alliances and JVs,
and 3) on how KVB and OL perspectives could be integrated in a holistic model to explain the
relationships between knowledge transferred, the recipient, the supplier, relationship characteristics and
degree of technology transfer.
References
[1] Allen, T.J. & Cooney, S. (1971). The International Technological Gatekeeper. Technology
Review, 73 (5): p. 2-9.
[2] Argyris, C. & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective,
Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley.
[3] Backer, T.E. (1991). Drug Abuse Technology Transfer. Rockville, MD. National Institute on
Drug Abuse.
[4] Bessant, J. & Francis, D. (2005). Transferring Soft Technologies: Exploring Adaptive Theory.
International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, 4 (2), p.93-
112.
[5] Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and
Interpretation, Organization Studies, 16(6), p. 1021 - 46.
[6] Buckley, P.J. & Casson, M. (1976). The Economic Analysis of the Multinational Enterprise.
Holmes and Meier, London.
[7] Buckley, P.J. (1982). Multinational Enterprises and Economic Analysis, Cambridge University
Press, London.
[8] Cameron, E.H. (1960). Samuel Slater: Father of American Manufacturer, Portland, MA: The
Bond Wheelright Company.
[9] Caves, R.E. (1971). International Corporation: The Industrial Economics of Foreign
Investments. Economica, 38, p. 1-27.
[10] Daghfous, A. (2004). An Empirical Investigation of the Roles of Prior Knowledge and
Learning Activities in Technology Transfer. Technovation, 24, p. 939-953.
[11] Davenport, T.H. & L. Prusak, L. (2000). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage
What They Know. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
[12] Davenport, T.H. & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
[13] Devine, M. D., James, T. E. Jr. & Adams, T.I. (1987). Government Support Industry-University
Research Centres: Issues for Successful Technology Transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer.
12(1), p. 27-37.
[14] Diamond, J. (1997). Guns, Germs and Steel, New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
[15] Dimancescu, D. & Botkin, J. (1986). The New Alliance: America’s R&D Consortia.
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing.
[16] Dobrin, D. (1989). Writing and Technique, Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of
English.
[17] Doheny-Farina, S. (1992). Rhetoric, Innovation, Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[18] Donald, M. (1991). Origins of Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and
Cognition, Cambridge; UK: Harvard.
[19] Dunning, J.H. (1980). Toward an Eclectic Theory of International Production: Some Empirical
Test. Journal of International Business Studies, 11(1) p. 9-31.
[20] Figuereido, P. (2001). Technological Learning and Competitive Performance, Cheitenham:
Edward Elgar.
[21] French, W.L. & Bell, Jr. C.H. (1995). Organization Development: Behavioral Science
Interventions for Organizational Improvement, Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
561
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)
[22] Gibson, D.V. & Smilor, W. (1991). Key Variables in Technology Transfer: A field – Study
Based on Empirical Analysis. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 8, p. 287-
312.
[23] Gibson, D.V., Rogers, E. & Wohlert, K. (1990). A Communication-based Model of Technology
Transfer. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Meeting, Dublin,
Ireland.
[24] Grant, R. M. & Baden-Fuller, C. (1995). A Knowledge-Based Theory of Inter-firm
Collaboration, Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings.
[25] Grant, R. M. (1996a). Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive Environments: Organizational
Capability as Knowledge Integration, Organization Science, 7(4), p. 375-87.
[26] Grant, R. M. (1996b). Toward a Knowledge-based theory of the firm, Strategic Management
Journal, 17 (Winter Special Issue), p. 109-22.
[27] Grant, R. M. (1997). The Knowledge-Based View of the Firm: Implications for Management
Practice, Long Range Planning, 30(3), p. 450-54
[28] Gupta, A. K. & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge Flows within Multinational Corporations,
Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), p. 473-96.
[29] Hecksher, E. & Ohlin, B. (1933). Interregional and International Trade, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
[30] Hope, K.R (1983). Basic Needs and Technology Transfer Issues in the “New International
Economic Order”. Journal of Economics and Sociology, 42(3), pp. 393-404.
[31] Hymer, (1960). The International Operations of National Firms: A Study of Direct Foreign
Investment, the MIT Press (1960).
[32] Hymer, S.H. (1970). The Efficiency (contradictions) of Multinational Corporations, American
Economic Review, 60, p. 441-8.
[33] Irwin, H. & Moore, E. (1991). Technology Transfer and Communication: Lesson from Silicon
Valley, Route 128, Carolina’s Research Triangle and Hi-tech Texas. Journal of Information
Science, 17, p. 273-280.
[34] Kim, D. (1993). The Link between Individual and Organizational Learning. Sloan Management
Review, p. 37-50.
[35] Kindleberger, C.P. (1969). American Business Abroad: Six Lectures on Direct Investment, New
Heaven, Conn: Yale University Press.
[36] Kogut, B. & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the
Replication of Technology, Organization Science, 3(3), 383-97.
[37] Kogut, B. & Zander, U. (1993). Knowledge of the Firm and the Evolutionary Theory of the
Multinational Corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(4), p. 625-646.
[38] Kogut, B. & Zander, U. (1996). What Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning,
Organization Science, 7(5), p. 502-23.
[39] Kozmetsky, G. (1988a). The Challenge of Technology Innovation in the Coming Economy,
13th Annual Symposium on Technology Transfer. Technology Transfer Society, Oregon.
[40] Kozmetsky, G. (1988b). Commercializing Technologies: The Next Steps, In: G. R. Bopp
(Eds.), Federal Lab Technology Transfer: Issue and Policies. Praeger: New York, p.171-182.
[41] Kozmetsky, G. (1990). The Coming Economy. In: Williams F., Gibson, D.V., (Eds.).
Technology Transfer: A Communication Perspective, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
[42] Leonard-Barton, D. (1990). The Interorganizational Environment: Point–to-Point versus
Diffusions’. In F.Williams and D.V. Gibson (Eds.), Technology Transfer: A Communication
Perspective. Sage, London, p. 43-62.
[43] Lyles, M. A. (1988). Learning among Joint Venture Sophisticated Firms, Management
International Review, 28, p. 85-98.
562
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)
[44] Mathews, R.C. & Roussel, L.G. (1997). Abstractness of Implicit Knowledge: A Cognitive
Evolutionary Perspective, in: D.C. Berry (Eds.), How implicit is implicit learning? Oxford:
Oxford University Press, p. 13-47.
[45] Mills, D.Q. & Friesen, B. (1992). The Learning Organization. European Management Journal,
10(2), p. 146-56.
[46] Minbaeva, D. (2007). Knowledge Transfer in Multinationals, Management International
Review, 47(4), p. 567-593.
[47] Nevis, E. C., DiBella, A. J. & Gould, J. M. (1995). Understanding Organizations as Learning
Systems, Sloan Management Review, 36(2), p. 75-85.
[48] Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York: Oxford
University Press.
[49] Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization
Science, 5, p. 14–37.
[50] Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. & Umemoto, K. (1996). A Theory of Organizational Knowledge
Creation, International Journal of Technology Management, 11(7-8), p. 833-45.
[51] Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed
Organizing, Organization Science, 13(3), p. 249-73.
[52] Ouchi, W.G. (1980). Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans, Administrative Science Quarterly,
25(1), p. 129-141.
[53] Parkhe, A. (1993). Partner Nationality and the Structure-performance Relationships in Strategic
Alliances, Organization Science, 4(2), p. 301-14.
[54] Rebentisch, E.S. & Ferretti, M. (1995). A Knowledge-Based View of Technology Transfer in
International Joint Ventures. Journal of Engineering Technology Management. 12, p. 1-25.
[55] Ricardo, D (1817). Principles of Political Economy, in Saffra, P. (Eds.), (1951). The Works and
Correspondence of David Ricardo.Vol.1. Cambridge University Press, London.
[56] Rogers, E.M. & Kincaid, D. L. (1982). Communication Networks: A New Paradigm for
Research, New York: The Free Press.
[57] Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations, New York: Free Press.
[58] Segman, R. (1989). Communication Technology: An Historical View. Journal of Technology
Transfer, 14(3, 4), p. 46-52.
[59] Simonin, B. L. (1999a). Ambiguity and the Process of Knowledge Transfer in Strategic
Alliances, Strategic Management Journal, 20(7), p. 595-623.
[60] Simonin, B.L. (1999b). Transfer of Marketing Know-how in International Strategic Alliances:
An Empirical Investigation of the Role and Antecedents of Knowledge Ambiguity. Journal of
International Business Studies, 30(3) p. 463–90 [Third Quarter].
[61] Simonin, B. L. (2004). An Empirical Investigation of the Process of Knowledge Transfer in
International Strategic Alliances, Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5), 407-27.
[62] Slimor, R.W. & Gibson, D. & Avery, C. (1990). R&D Consortia and Technology Transfer:
Initial Lesson from MCC. Journal of Technology Transfer, 14(2), p.11-22.
[63] Spender, J. C. (1996). Making Knowledge the Basic of Dynamic Theory of the Firm, Strategic
Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), p. 45-62.
[64] Sung, T.K. & Gibson, D.V. (2000). Knowledge and Technology Transfer: Key Factors and
Levels. Proceeding of 4th International Conference on Technology Policy and Innovation, p.
4.4.1-4.4.9.
[65] Szakonyi, R. (1990). 101 Tips for Managing R&D More Effectively. Research Technology
Management 33(4), p. 31-36.
[66] Szulanski, G. (1995). Appropriating Rents from Existing Knowledge: Intra-firm Transfer of
Best Practice, UMI Dissertation, Fontainbleau: INSEAD.
[67] Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best
Practice within the Firm, Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter Special Issue), p. 27–43.
563
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)
[68] Szulanski, G. (2000). Appropriability and the Challenge of Scope: Bank One Routinizes
Replication, in Dosi, G. Nelson, R. Winter, S. (Eds.), the Nature and Dynamics of
Organizational Capabilities, New York: Oxford University Press.
[69] Szulanski, G. (2003). Sticky Knowledge: Barriers to Knowing in the Firm, London: SAGE
Publications.
[70] Teece, D. (1977). Time Cost Trade-off: Elasticity Estimates and Determinants for International
Technology Transfer Projects. Management Science, 23 (8), p. 830-841.
[71] Tenkasi, R.V. & Mohrman, S.A. (1995). Reviewing the Behavioral Science Knowledge Base on
Technology Transfer. National Institute on Drug Abuse, Research Monograph 155, p.147-168.
[72] Tiemessen, I., Lane, H.W., Crossan, M.M. & Inkpen, A.C. (1997), Knowledge Management in
International Joint Ventures, In Beamish, P.W. and Killing, J.P (Eds.), Cooperative Strategies:
North American Prospective. San Francisco: The New Lexington Press, p. 370-399.
[73] Timbrell, G. & Gable, G. (2001). The SAP Ecosystem: Knowledge Perspective. Proceedings of
the Information Resources Management Association International Conference, 20-23 May,
Toronto, Canada.
[74] Toyne, B. (1989). International Exchange: A Foundation for Theory Building in International
Business, Journal of International Business Studies, 20 (1), p. 1–17.
[75] Vernon, R. (1971). Sovereignty at Bay, Basic books. New York, NY.
[76] Wells, L.T (1968). A Product life Cycle for International Trade? Journal of Marketing, 33, pp.
1-6.
[77] Wells, L.T (1969). Test of a Product cycle Model of International Trade. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, pp. 152-162.
[78] William, F. & Gibson, D.V. (1990). Technology Transfer: A Communication Perspective. Sage,
Beverly Hills, CA.
[79] Williamson, O.E. & Ouchi, W.G. (1981). The Market and Hierarchies and Visible Hand
Perspectives, in: Van de Ven, A.H. and Joyce, W.F. (Eds.), Perspectives on Organization
Design and Behavior, New York: Wiley, p. 347-370.
[80] Williamson, O.E. (1975). Market and Hierarchies: Analysis and Anti-trust Implications, New
York: Free Press.
[81] Zacchea, N. (1992). Technology Transfer: From Financial to Performance Auditing.
Management Audit Journal, 7(1), p. 17-23.
564
View publication stats