2009年12月8日 星期二

Readiness of Technology Transfer

READINESS OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER RECIPIENT IN ACQUIRING TECHNOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE
THANALETCHUMI SATHASIVAM
Business Advance Technology Center (BATC), University Technology Malaysia
City Campus, Jalan Semarak, 54100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Email: thanalp@yahoo.com

ZURIANI ISMAIL & AHMAD RAHMAN SONGIP
Business Advance Technology Center (BATC), University Technology Malaysia
City Campus, Jalan Semarak, 54100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Email : zurainisma@citycampus.utm.my, ahmadrs@fkkksa.utm.my


Transfer of technology is multifaceted and a complex issue. The adoption of technology is essential from the perspective of the strength of national self-reliance and enhancing international competitiveness. Transfer of technology is defined as a “process by which science and technology are transferred from one individual or group to another that incorporates new knowledge into ways of doing things”. Transfer of technology can be realised by transferring new knowledge and is an important element for innovation. Therefore acquiring knowledge through transfer allows the understanding of the actual technology. The process of acquiring knowledge comprises of learning to understand, utilise and internalising the knowledge of the technology, including the capacity to choose and adapt to local cultural conditions and integrate it with indigenous technologies. Furthermore the readiness and the acceptance level of employees are vital to receive any changes that come along with the transfer of technology. This paper investigates the barriers to the transfer of technology related to readiness for technology transfer and factors related to organisational culture influencing the technology transfer process. The paper identifies the motivational factors influencing the staff to accept and participate in the technology transfer process.
Keywords: Readiness, Organisational Culture, Technological Knowledge, Absorption Capacity, Transfer of Technology.

1. Introduction
‘Technology is defined as “know-how” or the sum of knowledge, experience, and skill necessary to establish an enterprise that will manufacture and market a product economically,” according to Agarwal (1991: 57). The definition is broad enough to encompass any process, procedure or technique allowing the business to perform its activities efficiently and economically. Technology transfer is all about the knowledge, tools, products, processes, methods, systems and procedures that are applied to the technology and use the knowledge to create products and services that serve human needs and aspirations (Canadian Development Report, 1998). Process in technology transfer depends on the acquisition of knowledge and the conversion of this knowledge into useful application. This is technology transfer and it requires the generation and accumulation of knowledge, spinning it out into innovation and creating a system that successfully exploits to achieve desired goals. This research is based on a composite of the various models of technology transfer and its constituent variables. The variables affecting technology transfer, the underlying theories and research have generally focused on segmented components of the process as a means of narrowing the boundaries of the investigation. As a result, the general theories of technology transfer have established broad dimensions of factors affecting the process, with each dimension composed of many variables influencing the process.
2. Technology Transfer
The Samli (1985) theory of technology transfer is one of the fundamental models and can be considered a functional view of the process. The model provided a theoretical overview of the general grouping of variables at different stages of the technology transfer process to support the general theoretical framework for the study. Each of the general stages identified by the model implicitly contains antecedent variables affecting the stages and the independent variable of the effectiveness of the technology transfer. This model developed for the theoretical framework proposes that numerous variables related to the sender, the technology, the recipient, and the relationship between the sender and the recipient influence the outcome of technology transfer.







Figure 1: Technology Transfer Model (Source: Samli, 1985)

The Samli (1985) model decomposes the process into groups of variables related to the sender, the technology, the recipient, and the aftermath or assimilation. While the model contains an additional element of evaluation, it is not germane to the functional processes associated with the transfer. In this model, the sender and receiver of the technology establish an interactive relationship to provide the knowledge and the artefacts necessary for the recipient to use the technology. While the model is relatively simple in design, it nonetheless captures the key dimensions of technology transfer. Figure 1 provides a schematic of the Samli (1985) model.
Samli (1985) further proposed that the sender, technology, and receiver dimensions of technology transfer are subject to different types of variables. Sender should have the need and the willingness to transfer the technology. As for the technology, is subjected to barriers created by both the sender and the receiver involving the relationship between the parties. The receiver must have the need and readiness to accept the technology. The theory does not consider the possibility that the technology itself creates a barrier to transfer. The model also presumes that the technology transfer is an ongoing process for the sender, with the sender capable of modifying the process for future transfers based on the assessment of the aftermath or outcome of the transfer. Each stage contributed to the primary function of transfer, the effectiveness of which was determined by the aftermath. Due to the simplicity of the model, the variables affecting each of the major components are not clearly identified.
Subsequent theorists and researchers have provided findings suggesting that the basic Samli (1985) model should be expanded to include the constituent variables in each of the dimensions. The expansion of the model is based on the assumption that each dimension is influenced by many different types of variables that can be parsed to determine its specific effects on technology transfer. The interaction of variables, the theories and models have not fully accounted for the variance in technology transfer outcomes. The findings of previous studies (Capannelli, 1999; Glass & Saggi, 2002; Lane& Lubatkin, 1998), also suggest that an additional dimension should be added to the model consisting of the variables associated with the relationship between the sender and the receiver
There is some indication that a distinction exists between commercial and academic sources of technology related to the willingness or abilities of the sender to support the technology transfer (Friedman & Silberman, 2003). The distinction among sources alter the compositions of the variables for the sender dimension proposed by Samli (1985) consisting of need and willingness by introducing an additional variable of ability. In effect, the sender must have the ability to transfer the technology, which involves providing sufficient knowledge for the recipient to understand and assimilate the technology.
The technology dimension of the transfer model considers variables related to the nature and type of technology. In technology life cycle theory, the complexity of the technology depends on its age or maturity, with newer technologies inherently more complex because of insufficient experience and tacit knowledge about use and applications (Kahn & Yoshihara, 1994).

Older Technology Newer Technology




Explicit Knowledge Tacit Knowledge
Figure 2: Technology Life-Cycle Model (Source: Kahn & Yoshihara, 1994)
Based on this theory, maturity of the technology is an important variable influencing the transfer process. Another variable related to the technology dimension in the model is the complexity of the technology independent of its maturity. As a result, complex technologies involve a greater amount of tacit knowledge acquisition for a recipient to understand and use the technology. In contrast, the knowledge about simple or routine technologies can be codified and transmitted as explicit knowledge. While the life cycle theory cannot be considered a comprehensive model for technology transfer, it nonetheless suggests that the nature of the technology interacts with other characteristics of the sender, receiver and transfer process to influence outcomes. Figure 2 depicts the model as a matrix in which the technology can be positioned based on its maturity and the type of knowledge. This model determines the interaction between the age of the technology and the type of knowledge necessary for acquiring the technology.
The model of technology transfer proposed by actor network theory suggests that the primary dimension affecting the outcome of technology transfer is the relationship between the actors in the process (Kasimin, Ibrahim, & bin Yusoff, 2009). Both the sender and the receiver bring a predefined social and information sharing network to the transfer, each of which constitute a set of antecedent variables. The sender and the receiver of the technology then form a relationship that functions as a joint network to accomplish the specific purpose of transferring the technology. The effectiveness of the process depends on factors such as the characteristics of the actors in the sending and receiving organisation, the nature of the relationship, and the effect of external stakeholders influencing the sender and the receiver. The actor network model of technology transfer attempts to map the actors and the nature of their influence on the transfer. Because of the large number of actors, however, the maps can be very complex and may not clearly define cause and effect among the variables because no temporal order can be assigned to the actors, who are presumed to provide simultaneous inputs into the transfer process.
Despite the shortcomings of actor network theory for identifying and assessing the variables influencing technology transfer, it makes a significant contribution to the theoretical model by postulating the existence of a relationship dimension in addition to the other dimensions proposed by Samli (1985).


Figure 3: Actor Network Theory in Technology Transfer (Source: Kasimin, Ibrahim, & bin Yusoff, 2009)
At the same time, the quality of the relationship is significant for the ability of the receiver to acquire and assimilate the knowledge necessary to use the technology. Actor network theory also incorporates the possibility that organisational culture is variable affecting the actors in both the sending and the receiving organisations. Organisational culture involves the implicit norms, values, and expectations of the individuals involved in technology transfer, it can affect the process and its outcome. Although the relationship between sender and receiver may be effective for the transfer of knowledge and artefacts related to the technology, the relationships within the receiver’s organisation may create barriers to the assimilation and use of the technology. The actor network theory model also presumes that an extended relationship between the sender and receiver can be dynamic, and changing over time as the parties’ understanding of the relationship environment changes based on new input information (Barry & Slater, 2005). Figure 3 depicts the actor network theory as it applies to technology transfer. The relationship between the sender and the receiver creates a network influencing the outcome of the process.
3. Knowledge Management and Transfer Theories
Knowledge in an organisation is the combination of all information about policies, practices, data, and experience of personnel that can be harnessed to achieve the objectives of the organisation (Bhatt, 2002). In the modern global economy, knowledge is the most important factor for organisations to differentiate themselves from competitors and obtain unique advantages. Gopalakrishnan and Santoro (2004) distinguish between knowledge transfer and technology transfer, suggesting that the constructs involve different processes although knowledge transfer may be essential for technology transfer. Knowledge management theories often adopt the resources-based view of the firm, which presumes that competitive advantage originates from the ability of the organisation to create value from using unique assets competitors cannot easily imitate (Patton, 2007).
Knowledge management theories of technology transfer adopt a process orientation, envisioning technology transfer as a series of information and knowledge transactions over time (Howells, 1996). The model resulting from the knowledge management theory focuses primarily on the knowledge management systems established by the receiver of the technology. The system may be formal or informal, with various organisational factors capable of inhibiting or fostering knowledge acquisition and dissemination. As a result, the model considers factors such as organisational culture, organisational structure, and amount of prior related knowledge available in the organisation as key antecedent variables for technology transfer (Dalkir, 2005). While the nature of the relationship with the sender of the technology remains a factor influencing acquisition of knowledge, the nature of the technology is irrelevant if the organisation has strong knowledge management capabilities in place.
Knowledge management theories of technology transfer also include organisational culture as a variable based on the assumption that culture affects knowledge acquisition and dissemination processes. Organisational culture is presumed to have an affect on both the ability of the organisation to obtain the knowledge necessary to use technology and the ability to fully assimilate the technology if it is successfully acquired (Gopalakrishnan & Santoro, 2004).

4. Organisational Culture and Technology Transfer
According to Simon and Lane (2004), researchers have not achieved a consensus on the definition of organisational culture. The construct refers to the social values, beliefs, and norms shared by the members of the organisation. In the context of technology transfer and organisational learning, Simonin (2004: 413) defined organisational culture as ‘the degree to which employees are encouraged to rethink the logic of current behaviors, to question established routines and beliefs, and to challenge established wisdom.’ Gopalakrishnan and Santoro (2004) conducted an investigation of the relationship between organizational culture, and the separate constructs of technology transfer, and knowledge transfer. The findings indicated that organisations with stable or mechanistic cultures and structures effectively received knowledge in the transfer process, but were less effective in employing a new technology to achieve the organisational objectives. In contrast, organisations with flexible cultures accustomed to change were more effective in employing the technology, but received less knowledge in the transfer process. The findings of the study imply that organisational culture influences the effectiveness of technology transfer, with rigid or bureaucratic cultures hampering the transfer process. The findings are similar to those of Kingsley and Farmer (1997) who examined technology transfer as two separate processes of acquisition of knowledge and use of the knowledge, with organisational culture affecting the expectations about the usefulness of the technology.

5. Absorptive Capacity
The absorptive capacity theories of technology transfer consider the characteristics of the receiver as the critical factors for the effectiveness of technology transfer. Absorptive capacity is a broad theoretical construct that includes the ability of the organisation to acquire and assimilate knowledge, and therefore subsumes its knowledge management systems (Liao, Welsch, & Stoica, 2003; Whangthomkun, Igel & Speece, 2006). It includes many different variables related to the nature of the organisation’s human assets and the routines it has established to conduct operations and exchange information. The human asset variables include the education and experience level of the workforce, the attitudes or paradigms of the workforce towards technology, and the social relationship among employees that foster or inhibit knowledge acquisition and dissemination (Daghfous, 2004; Zahara & George, 2002).
The organisational variables affecting absorptive capacity include the amount of available physical resources, the structure, the culture as manifested by values and norms, the processes and routines, and the knowledge management system (Van den Bosch, van Wick, & Volberda, 2003). Figure 5 depicts some of the dimensions of variables affecting absorptive capacity. While each dimension has a direct effect on absorptive capacity, the dimensions also interact with each other, which is shown by the arrow to the left of the dimensions.



Figure 4: Variables Affecting Absorptive Capacity

Some of the variables affecting absorptive capacity are similar to the variables proposed by actor network and knowledge management theories of technology transfer. The social relationships, organisational culture and knowledge management processes are common elements in these three theories. Because absorptive capacity theory encompasses knowledge management, it includes the same variables examined by knowledge management theory. This suggests that absorptive capacity theory supports a more comprehensive model for examining the variables associated with technology transfer than either actor network theory of knowledge management theory.

6. Readiness for Technology Transfer
Readiness is a theoretical construct that is also focused on the characteristics of the receiver in the technology transfer process. Readiness is composed of the two dimensions of willingness and capacity (Ouma-Onyango, 1997). Willingness is an attitudinal construct that can include the desire of the organisation and its individual members to make the effort necessary to receive the technology. At the organizational level, willingness can include variables such as commitment of senior management to the technology transfer, allocation of sufficient resources to the process, and acceptance of the need to change organisational structures or processes as necessary to effective use the technology. At the employee level, willingness can include variables such as the commitment necessary to learn the knowledge necessary for using the technology and the desire to apply the technology (Oztemel & Polat, 2007).
The willingness construct also implies that the organisation and its members accept the possibility that the new technology will result in changes to practices, policies, and procedures. The capacity dimension of readiness is similar to absorptive capacity and appears to include the same range of variables related to the physical and human resources of the firm. Because of the inclusion of willingness as a dimension to readiness, it produces a more expansive explanatory model for the factors influencing technology transfer that includes many of the variables found in other theories. Figure 6 depicts the fundamental elements of the readiness model of technology transfer.


Figure 5: Readiness Model of Technology Transfer

Table 1 contains a summary of the theories creating the framework for the study. The theories are listed in rough approximation of their complexity based on the range of variables considered in the resulting models. In addition, the table indicates the orientation of the theories, which are based on functional, social or process perspectives. The theories based on the social and process perspectives are generally of more recent origin and tend to dominate research investigating technology transfer.

Table 1: Theoretical Orientations and Critical Factors
Theory Orientation Premise

Samli (1985) model Functional Characteristics of sender
technology and receiver are equally critical factors
Life Cycle Functional Complexity of technology is the
critical factor
Actor Network Social Relationship is critical factor
Knowledge Management Process Receiver’s system for acquiring and
disseminating knowledge are critical
factors
Absorptive Capacity Social Characteristics of receiver is the
critical factor
Readiness Social Characteristics of receiver is the
critical factor


One of the significant shortcomings of the theoretical models developed to explain technology transfer is their relatively narrow focus on individual components of the process. The other theoretical models intended to explain technology transfer have a narrow focus on separate stages, which is dictated by the assumptions underlying the theory. The life cycle theory presumes that the proliferation of technology leads to greater familiarity with its fundamental principles, with the reduced complexity from the perspective of the recipient facilitating the knowledge and artefact transfer process (Kahn & Yoshihara, 1994). The model derived from actor social network theory is based on the assumption that social relationships affect all human processes, and are manifested in the structures and rules people create to govern their interactions (Kasimin, Ibrahim, & bin Yusoff, 2009).
Knowledge management models are based on the premise that knowledge acquisition is an inherent human characteristic that can be fostered or impeded by organisational structures and processes (Argot & Ingram, 2000). The absorptive capacity and readiness theoretical models presume that developing the ability and motivation to successfully receive a technology depend on many social variables, some of which are beyond the control of an organisation. While each of these theories explains part of the processes associated with technology transfer, no individual theory provides an overall understanding of the full range of variables influencing the process.
The previous sections generally imply that technology transfer is an extraordinarily complex process subject to the influence of many variables. When the models are considered together, they suggest the existence of two broad groups of variables affecting the technology transfer process consisting of antecedent and process variables. The antecedent variables are factors or conditions that are in existence prior to the technology transfer. These variables include factors such as organisational culture, organisational structure, education and training of the workforce, and knowledge management systems. These variables are very difficult for a firm to modify in the short run because they involve the fundamental nature of the available human assets and the business procedures that have developed over time. For the purposes of the technology transfer that occurs in the short to medium run, these variables can be viewed as static.
7. The Research Model
The objective of this research is to investigate the barriers to the transfer of technology in the third world countries with emphasis on the barriers related to readiness for technology transfer. Additional objectives of the study include identifying the motivational factors influencing the staff to accept and participate in the technology transfer process and the factors related to organisational culture influencing technology transfer at organizational level. As a result, the model developed to support the research focused on the key constructs of readiness for technology transfer, organisational culture, and motivational factors. The general direction taken by many recent investigations of technology transfer is to consider the social and process dimensions as critical to the effectiveness of the transfer (Gopalakrishnan & Santoro, 2004; Oztemel & Polat, 2007; Whangthomkun, Igel & Speece, 2006). The model depicting the research objects is presented in Figure 7.


Figure 6: Proposed Research Framework

The model is based on the theoretical assumption that a bivariate relationship exists between the independent variables of readiness, organisational culture, and acquiring technical knowledge, and the dependent variable of effective transfer of technology. In the bivariate relationship, a change in the value of any one dependent variable can influence the effectiveness of the transfer of technology. The complexity of the technology transfer process, however, the model incorporates multivariate influences among the three major independent variables. Organisational culture and the approach of the organisation to acquiring technical knowledge affect readiness for technology transfer. Organisational culture is presumed to influence both the willingness and the capacity for technology transfer, which are the two central elements of the variable. Organisational culture is also assumed to influence the processes associated with acquiring technical knowledge by establishing the values and norms related to knowledge acquisition and dissemination. Readiness also influences the process of acquiring technical knowledge by establishing the absorption capacity for the organisation.
The interrelationship between readiness and knowledge management as depicted by a double ended arrow identifies the interdependent relationship between the two variables. According to Jain (2006: 605), “The causal, intervening and end result variables are interrelated and comprise a complex network with many interdependent relationships.




7.1 Effective Technology Transfer Variables
Effectiveness is a relevant variable for technology transfer because it describes the outcome of the process. If the transfer is intended to provide the organisation with the knowledge to produce an artefact, the ability to use the knowledge to produce the artefact is critical to effectiveness. If the transfer is intended to provide knowledge and artefacts aimed at altering the organisation’s production processes and routines, then assimilation is critical to effectiveness. The effectiveness of technology transfer, the dependent variable of the research, has been the measure traditionally used to assess the outcome of the technology transfer process (Simon, 1995). The fundamental assessment of the effectiveness of technology transfer is made based on the ability to understand the acquired technology and to use the technology for the intended purpose (Grammig, 2001). As a result, effectiveness is composed of the two sub-variables of understanding the technology and using the technology.

7.2 Readiness Variables
Readiness is an independent variable, and is accepted as a significant factor influencing the outcome of technology transfer (Milutinovic & Patricelli, 2002; Ouma-Onyango, 1997). Readiness is relevant to the research model because it involves the ability of the receiver to understand, absorb and apply the technology to achieve the purpose contemplated at the outset of the transfer process. The cloverleaf model developed by Heslop, McGregor, and Griffith (2001) presumes that readiness exists at various levels in the organisation.
Willingness is influenced by many variables, the amount of resources committed to the transfer and the attitude of managers and employees towards the transfer are indicative of the willingness of the organisation to engage in the process. In contrast to the willingness dimension, the capacity dimension of readiness is concerned only with the internal factors affecting the ability of the organisation to understand and use the transferred technology. As a result, the research model considered only the internal variables related to absorptive capacity, which can be controlled by the organisation.

7.3 Organisational Variables
Organisational culture is an independent variable in this research, and is considered influencing the technology transfer process (Chandler, Keller, & Lyon, 2000; Miller, Bierly, & Daly, 2007). Many different variables influence organisational culture, which creates difficulties for identifying the components of organisational culture critical for technology transfer. The rewards system, methods for selecting and advancing employees, and the operational decisions by managers shape the organisational culture (Chandler, Keller, & Lyon, 2000). The structure of the organisation also has an influence on culture, with vertical and compartmentalised structures fostering a mechanistic culture while horizontal and matrix structures fostering an entrepreneurial culture (Miller, Bierly, & Daly, 2007). The greater the alignment between the organisational culture and the processes associated with technology transfer, the more likely will effective transfer take place. As a result, the variable is operationalised for the purposes of this research.

7.4 Knowledge Management Variables
Knowledge management is an independent variable, and is based on the theoretical assumption that knowledge transfer is the central element in the technology transfer process (Kallil, Claudio, & Seleim, 2006). The way in which the organisation has developed its knowledge management system can influence the degree of absorption of the knowledge necessary for technology transfer. The knowledge management system used by the organisation is also a critical variable affecting absorptive capacity because it controls the formal and informal routines related to the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge (Bounfour, 2003; Kallil, Claudio, & Seleim, 2006). It involves the system used for networking among employees and the transfer of knowledge (Daghfous, 2004). The level or type of technology in use in the organisation also affects capacity, with organisations using technologies similar to the transferred technology having greater capacity to absorb the new technology (Kumar & Marg, 2003).
8. Conclusion
To conclude, this paper discussed the research model specifically the relationship between organisational culture, readiness for technology transfer, and the effectiveness of the technology transfer process. While organizational culture can foster greater readiness for technology transfer, it can also create barriers to transfer by undermining the willingness and the capacity of the members of the organisation to accept the technology. Organizational culture is composed of many different variables including national culture and values, organizational structure, and organizational objectives, its relationship with readiness for technology transfer is complex. Adopting the technology may require changes to the organizational culture to support greater acceptance and use of the technology among employees. Prior research, has not extensively investigated the relationship between organizational culture, readiness for technology transfer, and the effectiveness of the technology transfer process. This research aims to fill in the gaps in the mentioned contexts.

References:
Agmon, T. & von Glinow, M.A. (1991). Technology transfer in international business. New York: Oxford University Press.
Argote, L. & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150-169.
Bounfour, A. (2003). The management of intangibles. London: Routledge.
Bozeman, B. (1994). Evaluating government technology transfer. Policy Studies Journal, 22(2), 322-339.
Capannelli, G. (1999). Technology transfer from Japanese consumer electronic firms via buyer-supplier relations. In Jomo, K.S. (Ed.) Industrial technology development in Malaysia (pp. 191-230). London: Routledge.
Chandler, G., Keller, C. & Lyon, D. (2000). Unravelling the determinants of an innovation-supportive organisational culture. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 25(1), 59-72.
Cohen, G. (2004). Technology transfer, strategic management in developing countries. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.
Cohen, W. & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152.
Daghfous, A. 2004. Absorptive capacity and the implementation of knowledge-intensive best practices. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 69(2), 21-36.
Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge management in theory and practice. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Foss, S. (2005). Strategy, economic organisation and the knowledge economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Galbraith, C., Noble, C., Ehrlich, S., & Kline, D. (2007). Can experts really assess future technology success? Journal of High Tech Management Research, 17(125-137).
Girma, S. (2003). Absorptive capacity and productivity spillovers from FDI. European Economy Group, Working Paper no. 25/2003. Available at: http://www.ucm.es/info/econeuro/documentos/documentos/dt252003.pdf. [Accessed 8 April, 2009].
Gopalakrishnan, S. & Santoro, M. (2004). Distinguishing between knowledge transfer and technology transfer activities: the role of key organisational factors. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51(1), 57-69.
Grammig, T. (2001). Technical knowledge and development. New York: Routledge.
Heslop, L., McGregor, E., & Griffith, M. (2001). Development of a technology readiness assessment measure: The cloverleaf model of technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(4), 369-384.
Ishida, S. (2004). Composite knowledge for high-tech corporations. In Benton, C. & Richter, F. (Eds.) Meso-organizations and the creation of knowledge. (pp. 37-60). Westport CT: Praeger.
Kahn, S. & Yoshihara, H. (1994). Strategy and performance of multinational companies in Japan. Westport CT: Quorum Books.
Kallil, O., Caudio, A., & Seliem, A. (2006). Knowledge management. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 71(3), 34-47.
Kasimin, H., Ibrahim, H., & bin Yusoff, M. (2009). Diagnosing an ongoing technology transfer process: An approach based on ANT. International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, 6(1), 47-63.
Kumar, N. & Marg, L. (2000). Foreign direct investment and technology capabilities in developing countries: A review. Journal of Public Administration, 23, 1253-1278.
Lane, P. & Lubatkin, M. (1998) Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning, Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 461-477.
Lenox, M. & King, A. (2004). Prospects for developing absorptive capacity through internal information provision. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 331-345.
Liao, J., Welsch, H., & Stoica, M. (2003). Organisational absorptive capacity and responsiveness. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 28(1), 63-85.
Mandell, M. (1985). Monitoring and evaluating new managerial technologies. In Samli, A. (Ed.). Technology Transfer: geographic, economic, cultural and technical dimensions. Westport CT: Quorum Books.
Miller, B., Bierly, P., & Daly, P. (2007). The knowledge strategy orientation scale. Journal of Managerial Issues, 19(3), 414-435.
Milutinovic, V. & Patricelli, F. (2002). E-business and e-challenges. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Ming, W. & Zing, Z. (1999). A new strategy of technology transfer to China. International Journal of Operations Management & Production, 19(5-6), 527-538.
Oskamp, S. & Schultz, W. (2004). Attitudes and opinions. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ouma-Onyango, R. (1997). Information resources and technology transfer management in developing countries. London: Routledge.
Oztemel, E. & Polat, T. (2007). Technological readiness model for enterprises. In Pham, D., Eldukhri, E. & Soroka, A. (Eds.) Intelligent production machines and systems. London: Elsevier.
Robock S. & Calkins, R. (1980). The international technology transfer process. Washington DC: The National Academy of Sciences.
Samli, A. (2002). In search of equitable, sustainable globalisation. Westport CT: Quorum Books.
Samli, A. (1985). Technology transfer: The general model. In Samli, A. (Ed.) Technology transfer: geographic, economic, cultural and technical Dimensions (pp. 3-17). Westport CT: Quorum Books
Simon, D. (1995). The emerging technological trajectory of the Pacific Rim. Armonk NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Sonnentag, S. (2002). Psychological management of individual performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Sundbo, J. & Fuglsang, L. (2002). Innovation as strategic reflexivity. London: Routledge.
Van den Bosch, F., van Wijk, R., & Volberda, H. (2003). Absorptive capacity: Antecedents, models and outcomes. In Easterby-Smith, M. & Lyles, M. (Eds.) The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge. (pp. 278- 302). New York: Wiley.
Whangthomkun, N., Igel, B., & Speece, M. (2006). An empirical study of the relationship of absorptive capacity and technology transfer effectiveness. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 5(1-2), 31-55.
Zahra, S. A. & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, re-conceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185-203.

沒有留言:

張貼留言