A Review on the Technology Transfer Models ... - EuroJournals

European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009) 

A <strong>Review</strong> on the Technology Transfer 

Models, Knowledge-Based and Organizational Learning 

Models on Technology Transfer 

Sazali Abdul Wahab 

Graduate School of Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia 

43400 Selangor, Malaysia 

E-mail: saw639@gmail.com 

Raduan Che Rose 

Faculty of Economics & Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia 


E-mail: rcr@putra.upm.edu.my 

Jegak Uli 

Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia 


E-mail: jegak@ace.upm.edu.my 

Haslinda Abdullah 

Faculty of Economics & Management, Universiti Putra 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. 

Keywords: Technology Transfer Models, Knowledge-Based View, Organizational 

Learning, Inter-Firm, Collaborative Joint Ventures. 

550


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 18 th and 19 th Centuries. In 

the 18 th 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 18 th and 19 th 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. 

2. Approaches to Technology Transfer (TT) 

Previous studies on TT have employed different approaches to shape and govern the TT efforts. TT as 

a domain covers all activities around technological development. Few TT models were developed after 

the World War II to govern the implementation of TT activities and their application to marketplace 

(Devine et al., 1987; Tenkasi and Mohrman, 1995). Among the traditional TT models developed were 

the appropriability model, dissemination model, knowledge utilization model, and communication 

model. In the 1970s studies have adopted “the economic international trade approach” in developing a 

linear model of TT (Bessant and Francis, 2005). In the 1980s research on TT emphasized on the 

effectiveness of the specific technology being transferred which in general is within a broader context 

of economic development (Hope, 1983). The 1990s approach emphasizes on the significance of 

learning at the organization level as a key element in facilitating technology transfer (Figuereido, 

2001). 

In late 1980s and early 1990s TT models have started to absorb the principles of the 

organization development movement (French and Bell, 1995). Strategic management researchers have 

further contributed to the development of TT frameworks based on KBV and OL perspectives as these 

perspectives have been found to have quite similar dimensions such as outcomes, processes, barriers 

and facilitators (Daghfous, 2004). These perspectives have significantly contributed to the expansion of 

TT models since literatures from both KBV and OL perspectives appear to subsume most of the 

contributions of the TT literatures (Daghfous, 2004). 

551


3. Technology Transfer Models 

3.1. The Appropriability Model 

This model, which was developed in 1945-1950s, suggests that good or quality technologies sell 

themselves (Gibson and Slimor, 1991). The model emphasizes on the importance of quality of 

research, and competitive market pressure in achieving TT and promoting the use of research findings 

(Devine et al., 1987; Gibson and Slimor, 1991; Tenkasi and Mohrman, 1995). According to this model, 

TT process simply occurs when technology has found users or has been discovered by the market. 

Purposive or deliberate TT mechanism is seen as unnecessary. This model assumes that after the 

researchers develop the technology and make technologies available through various forms of 

communications such as technical reports and professional journals, the users will “automatically show 

up at the researcher’s door” (Devine et al., 1987). 

Gibson and Slimor (1991), in their three-level TT model, describe the first level (technology 

development level) as the most fundamental level; when technology process can be largely passive 

through mediated means such as research reports, journal articles and computer tapes. The underlying 

presumption of the appropriability approach is “viewing TT as the result of an automatic process that 

began with scientific research and then moved to development, financing, manufacturing and 

marketing. [One] need not necessarily be concerned with linkages in the technology commercialization 

process” (Kozmetsky, 1990). However, previous studies have acknowledged that over the years 

evidence has shown that quality technologies do not usually sell well themselves (Devine et al., 1987; 

Gibson and Slimor, 1991). 

3.2. The Dissemination Model 

This model, which was popularized by Rogers (1983) and Rogers and Kincaid (1982), is developed in 

the 1960-1970s (Gibson and Slimor, 1991). This approach suggests the importance of technology and 

innovation to be diffused or disseminated to the potential users by the experts (Williams and Gibson, 

1990). This model assumes that an expert will transfer specialized knowledge to the willing user. The 

presumption underlying this model is that once the linkages are established, the new technology will 

move from the expert to the non-expert “like water through a pipe once the channel is opened” 

(Williams and Gibson, 1990; Gibson and Slimor, 1991). Gibson and Slimor (1991) describe this model 

as the second level of their model; the technology acceptance level. Based on their model, this level 

includes the expert’s primary responsibility to select technology and ensure the technology is available 

to a receptor that can understand and potentially use the technology (Gibson and Slimor, 1991). 

However, this model suffers from its one-way communication (unilateral) characteristic with no 

involvement from the users (Devine et al., 1987; Gibson and Slimor, 1991). 

3.3. The Knowledge Utilization Model 

This model, which was developed in late 1980s (Gibson and Slimor, 1991), has a significant influence 

on TT literature (Szakonyi, 1990; Zacchea, 1992). The approach taken by this model is its emphasis on 

1) the important role of interpersonal communication between the technology developers/researchers 

and technology users, and 2) the importance of organizational barriers or facilitators of TT. The 

knowledge utilization approach represents an evolutionary step which focuses on how to organize 

knowledge to effective use in the technology users setting (Backer, 1991). Gibson and Slimor (1991) 

view this model as the third level in their model; technology application level. This level is the most 

involved level of TT where it includes the profitable use of the technology in the market place as well 

as other application such as intra-firm processes. 

While this approach indicates an appreciation of the complexities of the TT, researchers have 

argued that the model suffers from a linear bias (Dimancescu and Botkin, 1986). The underlying 

presumption of this model is that technology moves “hand-to-hand” to one direction, unilaterally from 

the experts to the users, to become a developed idea and eventually a product (Gibson and Slimor, 

552


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). 

3.4. The Communication Model 

Departing from the previous three models, several researchers have suggested that the communication 

model as a replacement of the earlier TT models (Williams and Gibson, 1990; Gibson et al., 1990; 

Doheny-Farina, 1992). This model perceives TT as “a communication and information flow process 

with communication understood to be concerned with full exchange and sharing of meanings”. This 

model suggests technology as “an on-going process which involves a two-way interactive process 

(non-linear) by continuously and simultaneously exchanging ideas among the individuals involved” 

(Williams and Gibson, 1990). Consistent with this approach, other researchers view communication 

model of TT follows the network communication paradigm; where feedback is all pervasive and the 

participants in the TT process are transceivers rather than the sources and receivers (Gibson and 

Slimor, 1991; Irwin and Moore, 1991). 

Other researchers acknowledge that feedbacks help the participants in the transfer process to 

reach convergence about the important dimensions of the technology (e.g. Rogers, 1983). To overcome 

the obstacles and barriers to the transfer process, different sets of functions, activities, and network 

must occur simultaneously (Rogers, 1983; Kozmetsky, 1988a, 1988b). The communication model, 

which consists of characteristics such as two-way communication, interactive, 

interpersonal/organizational communication, helps to explain the failures of the previous TT strategies, 

which are based on one-way unidirectional communication, and dissemination/diffusion models (Irwin 

and Moore, 1991). Two-way interactive communication is primarily developed towards overcoming 

the communication barriers between the technology developer group and the user group (Doheny- 

Farina, 1992; Dobrin, 1989). 

This model assumes that there is “a body of information, of objective facts, just lying there 

waiting to be communicated” (Dobrin, 1989). The underlying presumption is that knowledge is an 

object that exists independently, valid, complete and has universal applicability (Tenkasi and 

Mohrman, 1995). The implementer (technology developer) is responsible for transferring knowledge 

correctly through the appropriate channels for the user to understand; and failure to adopt knowledge is 

simply because the users fail to understand (Tenkasi and Mohrman, 1995). Although the 

communication model shows an appreciation of the complexities of TT, this model is unable to provide 

explanations on 1) the complexities of TT in the context of knowledge transferred through 

collaborative learning, 2) the subjectivity of knowledge, and 3) the need for contextual adaptation, 

dialoging at the level of values, assumption, and beliefs that takes on more acute proportions with soft 

or disembodied technologies (Tenkasi and Mohrman, 1995). This view is consistent with the earlier 

studies on TT which suggests that the focus of the current management researchers is on TT in 

strategic alliances/IJVs, and learning at the organizational level in facilitating TT (Zhoa and Reisman, 

1992; Figuereido, 2001). 

3.5. Technology Transfer (TT) Models After 1990s 

A review of the literature reveals that TT researchers have attempted to develop new technology 

transfer model distinguishing from the traditional models developed earlier which mainly focus on TT 

processes. The later models developed by researchers (Gibson and Slimor, 1991; Rebentisch and 

Ferretti, 1995; Sung and Gibson, 2000) attempt to address the limitations that arise from the traditional 

TT models in terms of the application in contemporary high-tech industries (Gibson and Slimor, 1991). 

Several models developed after 1990s have emphasized on 1) the important element of communication 

553


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). 

3.6. Gibson and Slimor’s Model 

This model describes TT from the perspective of technology researchers and users through three levels 

of involvement. The underlying theories of this model are the organization and communication theories 

(Gibson and Slimor, 1991). This model proposes that TT consists of three levels of involvement: Level 

I (Technology Development), Level II (Technology Acceptance), and Level III (Technology 

Application). This model explains the levels of technology transfer involvements and integrates the 

activities involved in the traditional models. Technology Development is considered as the most 

important level where the transfer process is viewed as passive through transfer means such as research 

reports, journal articles, and computer tapes. This level relates to the appropriability model: where the 

emphasis is on the importance of quality of research and competitive market pressure in achieving 

technology transfer (Gibson and Slimor, 1991). Technology Acceptance level indicates more 

involvement of TT. During this level the technology developer is responsible in making certain that the 

technology is made available to the receptors that can understand and potentially use the technology. 

This level of involvement relates to the dissemination model: where the concentration is on 

disseminating innovations to individual users (Gibson and Slimor, 1991). Technology Application 

level is the most involved level of TT. Technology application includes commercializing the use of 

technology in the marketplace and other application such as intra-firm processes. This level equates 

with knowledge utilization model: where emphases are on the critical element of interpersonal 

communication between technology developers and users, and the organizational barriers and 

facilitators of TT (Gibson and Slimor, 1991). 

3.7. Sung and Gibson’s Model 

This model is developed to have similar objectives as Gibson and Slimor’s (1991) model that is to 

address limitations in the traditional TT models. As an expansion and improvement to the three levels 

involvement model of TT (Gibson and Slimor, 1991), this model provides plausible explanations as to 

the levels and factors affecting knowledge and TT by describing knowledge and TT in four levels of 

involvements: Level I (Knowledge and Technology Creation), Level II (Sharing), Level III 

(Implementation), and Level IV (Commercialization) (Sung and Gibson, 2000). 

At the creation level, the technology developers conduct and develop research into knowledge 

and make available of their result/finding through research publication, videotapes, teleconference, 

news, and anecdotes. TT at this level is considered as a passive process where it needs only minimum 

involvement of all participants (Sung and Gibson, 2000). Secondly, at the sharing level, technology 

developers and users begin to share responsibility as the success of technology transfer occurs when 

knowledge and technology are transferred across personal, functional, or organizational, and 

knowledge and technology are well accepted and understood by users (Sung and Gibson, 2000). 

Thirdly, at the implementation level, success is determined by the timely and efficiency of knowledge 

and technology transfer, and the user’s resources ability to implement. KT and TT may occur through 

manufacturing transfer, processes transfer or services and best practice transfer (Sung and Gibson, 

2000). Finally, at the commercialization level, knowledge and technology is commercially utilized. 

The commercialization level is built cumulatively on the success of creation, sharing, and 

implementation levels with the help of market strength. Success of the implementation level is 

measured by return of investment (ROI) and increased market share (Sung and Gibson, 2000). 

554


3.8. Rebentisch and Ferretti’s Model 

Rebentisch and Ferretti (1995) propose an integrated model of TT process developed from the insights 

derived from the study of two IJVs. According to Rebentisch and Ferretti (1995) TT areas require 

further investigation and integration particularly on 1) the effect of the interdependencies between the 

technology characteristics and its organizational context, and 2) the interface between the core 

competencies of the firm and its ability to adopt new technology. The model (Figure 2.3) addresses the 

issues on 1) how much effort is required to transfer different types of technologies, and 2) what impact 

the organization’s existing competencies might have on that process. This model refers TT as “the 

transfer of the embodied knowledge assets between organizations”. The TT process in this model 

consists of four categories that include 1) Transfer Scope, 2) Transfer Method, 3) Knowledge 

Architecture, and 4) Organizational Adaptive Ability. 

The scope of transfer is determined by how much information is embodied in the technology 

and what type of technologies a firm seeks to acquire from the source. Based on this model the transfer 

scope consists of four types of technologies: General knowledge, Specific knowledge, Hardware, and 

Behaviors. This model categorizes the transfer methods in the TT process as 1) Impersonal 

communication, 2) Personal communication, 3) Group interaction, and 4) Physical relocation. 

Knowledge architecture is defined as “a characterization of the structure and artifacts into which 

knowledge has been embodied in the organization, and describes the way organization stores and 

processes information” (Rebentisch and Ferretti, 1995). Knowledge architecture has four critical 

elements which influence TT process 1) technology hardware, 2) experience base, 3) procedures, and 

4) organization power structures. These elements correspond with the level of technology’s complexity 

and compatibility with the existing organization, the costs and extent of change involved in 

implementing it, and the possibility of encountering any opposition (Rebentisch and Ferretti, 1995). 

Organizational adaptive ability is “the adoption of the organization’s ability to utilize its resources to 

make adaptations either to itself or to a new technology” (Rebentisch and Ferretti, 1995). 

Organizational adaptive ability consists of staffing and production flexibility. This model, which is 

developed based on two IJVs, nevertheless, mainly offers the theoretical insights of TT process of 

hardware or embodied technology (explicit knowledge) where no hypothesis testing and empirical 

examination has been conducted. Since this model is developed from the transferring partner’s 

perspective thus it suffers from inherent linear bias in which the relationship and contextual dimensions 

of JVs have not been considered. 

3.9. Other Related Theoretical Foundations of Technology Transfer 

Besides examining TT models from the previous literatures, an understanding of the related theoretical 

perspectives is necessary to relate with the practical and empirical aspects. From a review of literature, 

the other relevant theories which are found to be related to TT are the international trade (IT) theory, 

foreign direct investment (FDI) theory, KBV perspective and OL perspective. 

The international trade theories, which consist of the classical trade theory (Ricardo, 1817), the 

factor proportion theory (Hecksher and Ohlin, 1933), and the product life cycle theory (Vernon, 1971; 

Wells, 1968, 1969), are related to TT studies as they provide plausible explanations on how trades 

between countries contribute to the flow of productions or goods and services which have brought 

along the technology embedded in them. The foreign direct investment theories are related to TT 

studies as these theories provide explanations on how FDIs by MNCs become the main channel for 

intra-firm technology transfer; where technology is transferred to MNCs’ subsidiary or affiliates in the 

host countries. FDI theories consist of the market imperfection theory (Hymer, 1960, 1970; 

Kindleberger, 1969; Caves, 1971), international production theory (Dunning, 1980), 

internationalization theory (Buckley, 1982, 1985; Buckley and Casson, 1976), and transaction cost 

theory (Williamson, 1975; Ouchi, 1980; Williamson and Ouchi, 1981). 

555


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). 

4. Knowledge-Based View Related Models 

4.1. Kogut and Zander’s Model 

Kogut and Zander (1992) are among the first researchers who established the foundation for the 

knowledge-based theory of the firm when emphasizing the strategic importance of knowledge as a 

source of competitive advantage. Their work is focused on the idea that “what firms do better than 

markets is the creation and transfer of knowledge within the organization”. Knowledge, which consists 

of information and know-how, is not only held by individuals but is also expressed in regularities by 

which members cooperate in a social community. Firms as social communities act as “a repository of 

capabilities” determined by the social knowledge embedded in enduring individual relationships 

structured by organizing principles (Kogut and Zander, 1992). The organizing principles refer to as 

“the organizing knowledge that establishes the context of discourse and coordination among 

individuals with disparate expertise and that replicates the organization over time in correspondence to 

the changing expectations and identity of its members” (Kogut and Zander, 1996). 

This view was further articulated and empirically tested in Kogut and Zander (1993). They 

assert that 1) firms are efficient means by which knowledge is created and transferred, 2) a common 

understanding is developed by individuals and groups in a firm through repeated interaction to transfer 

knowledge from ideas into production and markets, 3) what a firm does is not depending on the 

market’s failure rather the efficiency in the process of transformation relative to other firms, and 4) the 

firm’s boundary is determined by the difference in knowledge and the embedded capabilities between 

the creator and the users (possessed with complementary skills) and not market failure. Kogut and 

Zander (1996) further extend their discussion on the concept of identity by asserting that individuals 

are “unsocial sociality” where they have both a desire to become a member of community and at the 

same time also have a desire to retain their own individuality (Kogut and Zander, 1996). As firms 

provide a normative territory to which members identify, costs of coordination, communication, and 

learning within firms are much lower which allow more knowledge to be shared and created within 

firms. 

4.2. Nonaka’s Model 

A stream of literatures has found consistent support for Kogut and Zander’s (1992) model of 

organization knowledge creation and transfer (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka et 

al., 1996) for example 1) knowledge should be the basic unit of analysis for explaining a firm’s 

behavior, and 2) organization knowledge is socially constructed. This group of researchers proposes a 

model of knowledge creation, which complements Kogut and Zander’s (1992) model, by proposing a 

model for understanding the knowledge creation process in organizations in which organizational 

knowledge is created through a continuous dialogue between tacit and explicit knowledge. 

This model proposes four modes of knowledge conversion 1) from tacit knowledge to tacit 

knowledge (socialization); a process of personalized form of tacit knowledge growth in which an 

556


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). 

4.3. Grant’s Model 

Departing from Kogut and Zander (1992, 1993), Nonaka (1994) Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), and 

Nonaka et al. (1996), Grant (1996a, 1996b, 1997) propose a different model of knowledge creation. 

Grant (1996a) has further articulated the theoretical arguments of knowledge-based view, which 

considers knowledge creation as “an individual activity rather than an organizational activity”. Several 

assumptions underlying the model are described as follows: 

1) Knowledge is the important productive resource in terms of its contribution to value added and 

its strategic significance. 

2) Knowledge consists of information, technology, know-how, and skills. Thus, different types of 

knowledge vary in their transferability. The critical distinction is between ‘explicit knowledge’; 

which is capable of articulation and transferable at low cost, and ‘tacit knowledge’; which is 

manifested only in its application and is not amenable to transfer. The ease with which 

knowledge can be transferred also depends upon the capacity of the recipient to aggregate units 

of knowledge. 

3) Individuals are the primary agents of knowledge creation and the principal repositories of 

knowledge especially tacit knowledge. If individual’s learning capacity is bounded, knowledge 

creation requires specialization, where increased depth of knowledge normally requires 

sacrificing breadth of knowledge. At the same time, production typically requires the 

application of many types of knowledge. 

4) Most knowledge is subject to economies of scale and scope. This is especially the case with 

explicit knowledge that, once created, can be deployed in additional applications at low 

marginal cost (Grant and Baden-Fuller, 1995; Grant, 1997). 

While knowledge resides within individuals and firms consist of multiple individuals with 

specialized knowledge, the firms’ role is to integrate this knowledge to enable it to produce products 

and services. Firms exist because of their efficient ability in creating conditions where many 

individuals can integrate their specialist knowledge (Grant, 1996a). Specialized knowledge can be 

integrated within firms through four mechanisms 1) through rules and directives; where rules are 

standards which regulate the interactions between individuals and directives are what the specialists 

establish to guide the non-specialists, 2) through sequencing; a mechanism to organize production 

activities in a time-patterned sequence such that each specialist’s input occurs independently through 

being assigned a separate time slot, 3) through routines; where the signals and responses developed by 

teams over time allow the complex interactions between individuals in a relatively automatic fashion, 

and 4) through group problem solving and decision making; a mechanism used to perform unusual, 

complex, and important tasks that requires extensive personal interactions and communications. 

557


Common knowledge is important as a means through which multiple individuals can communicate to 

integrate knowledge (Grant, 1996b). 

4.4. Spender’s Model 

As opposed to traditional models of knowledge creation within organizations (Kogut and Zander, 

1992; Nonaka, 1994; Grant, 1996a, 1996b), Spender (1996) proposes a dynamic rather than a static 

knowledge-based theory of the firm. Knowledge is viewed as “a process or a competent goal-oriented 

activity rather than as an observable and transferable resource” (Spender, 1996). As knowledge is 

dynamic in nature and contained within actor network, a firm is a dynamic, evolving, quasiautonomous, 

organic system of knowledge production and application (Spender, 1996). A firm is a 

system of knowing activity and not a system of applied abstract knowledge (Spender, 1996). Other 

proponents of this view are Blacker (1995) and Orlikowski (2002). Blacker (1995) argues that 

traditional approach to knowledge is “compartmentalized and static” and further suggests that rather 

than discussing knowledge, it is more beneficial to discuss the process of knowing. Orlikowski (2002) 

suggests that the perspective which focuses on the knowledgeability of action (perspective on 

knowing) that is on knowing may be value in a perspective rather than knowledge. 

4.5. Szulanski’s Model 

Szulanski (1995) adopts a different approach to KT by adopting a communication metaphor in 

analyzing intra-firm transfer of best practice in a manner analogous to the transmission of a message 

from a source to a recipient within a given media or context (Timbrell et al. , 2001). While knowledge 

transfer is a distinct experience rather than diffusion, best practice transfer should be regarded as “a 

process rather than a transaction or event” (Szulanski, 1995). Szulanski (1996) proposes an intra-firm 

transfer of best practice model which views intra-firm transfer of best practice as “an unfolding 

process” in which organizational routines are replicated through four stages of processes: 1) initiation, 

2) implementation, 3) ramp-up, and 4) integration. 

Initiation is described as comprising all events that lead to the decision to transfer. A transfer 

commences when both a need and the knowledge to meet that need coexist within the organization, 

possibly undiscovered. When the need is discovered, it triggers a search for potential solution; a search 

that leads to the discovery of superior knowledge (Szulanski, 1996). Implementation begins with the 

decision to transfer in which resources flow between the knowledge recipient and the source, the 

transfer-specific social ties between the source and the knowledge recipient are established, and the 

transferred practice is normally adapted with the objectives to suit the anticipated needs of the recipient 

to preempt problems experienced in a previous transfer of the same practice, and to facilitate the 

introduction of new knowledge less difficult to the recipient (Szulanski, 1996). Ramp-up commences 

when the recipient begins to use the transferred knowledge. At this level the recipient’s primary 

concern is to identify and resolve unexpected problems that restrict its ability to match or exceed the 

transfer performance expectation (Szulanski, 1996). Integration starts when satisfactory result is 

achieved by the recipient from the transferred knowledge and the transferred knowledge is converted 

into the firm’s routine (Szulanski, 1996). 

Szulanski (1996) has explored the origin of internal stickiness and identified four sets of factors 

which are likely to have significant influence on the difficulty of knowledge transfer: i) characteristics 

of the knowledge transferred, ii) the source, iii) the recipient, and iv) the context in which the transfer 

takes place. Central to Szulanski’s (1996) model of intra-firm knowledge transfer, which builds on the 

previous TT literature (Leonard-Barton, 1990; Teece, 1977; Rogers, 1983), is the importance of 

examining all the four sets of factors simultaneously in an eclectic model. Few researchers have 

developed their intra and inter-firm knowledge transfer framework based on this model (for example 

Szulanski, 2000, 2003; Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000; Minbaeva, 2007; Simonin, 1999a, 1999b, 

2004). 

558


5. Organization Learning Related Models 

5.1. Argyris and Schon’s Model 

Argyris and Schon (1978) develop a three-fold typology of organizational learning: 1) single-loop, 2) 

double-loop, and 3) triple-loop (deutero) learning. Single-loop learning is described as “the errordetection-and-correction 

process; where errors are detected and corrected to allow an organization to 

change its methods and rules to improve what is being done within existing programs or policies”. As a 

result, the organization achieves its current objective more efficiently. In addition to the errordetection-and-correction, 

double-loop learning involves “change of the value of an organization’s 

theory-in-use”. This form of learning occurs when errors are detected and corrected in ways that 

involves the changes in an organization’s underlying norms, policies and objective. Triple-loop or 

deutero learning is “learning how to learn”; where the organizational members’ cognitive changes as a 

result of reflecting and inquiring into their previous learning experiences. Triple-loop learning is also a 

process how to execute single and double-loop learning (Argyris and Schon, 1978). 

5.2. Mills and Friesen’s Model 

This model describes the ways how organizations learn and focuses on the sources of knowledge. The 

model explains that an organization learns through individuals in the organization. These individuals 

are hired because of their specific competencies or knowledge which may be gained through on the job 

training or formal training. Learning is an individual phenomenon, which benefits the organization 

entirely through the individuals (Mills and Friesen, 1992). OL should involve systemizing knowledge 

into its practices, processes, and procedures that are the reutilization of knowledge. When individuals 

do not use knowledge or resign, the knowledge will still remain with the organization which constitutes 

OL. If an organization acquires or merges with other organization, OL occurs when the acquiring 

organization absorbs the acquired organization practices and procedures, or adds to its personnel the 

knowledge embodied in the acquired organization’s processes and personnel (Mills and Friesen, 1992). 

5.3. Nevis, DiBella and Gould’s Model 

Nevis et al. (1995) propose a three-stage model of OL: 1) knowledge acquisition, 2) knowledge 

sharing, and 3) knowledge utilization. Knowledge acquisition refers to the development or creation of 

skills, insights, and relationship. Knowledge sharing relates to the dissemination of knowledge that has 

been learned. Knowledge utilization is the integration of learning to make it widely available; where it 

can be generalized to new environments. OL may occur in a planned or informal ways. Knowledge and 

skill acquisition occur not only through acquisition but also through knowledge sharing and utilization 

(Nevis et al., 1995). 

5.4. Nonaka’s Knowledge Spiral Model 

Nonaka (1994) proposes a model describing how organizational knowledge is created through different 

channels of interaction between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. Nonaka (1994) suggests four 

modes how knowledge is created through: 1) socialization process (tacit to tacit knowledge creation), 

2) externalization process (tacit to explicit knowledge creation), 3) combination process (explicit to 

explicit knowledge creation), and 4) internalization process (explicit to tacit knowledge creation). 

5.5. Kim’s Model 

Kim (1993) proposes an integrative model describing the link between individual learning and OL in 

which an organization learns through its individual members is affected either directly or indirectly by 

individual learning. This model describes OL as not only a collective individual learning but also 

involves the transfer mechanism between individual and OL; where individual learning becomes 

embedded in an organization’s memory and structure. In this sense, individual learning affects learning 

559


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). 

5.6. IJV Knowledge Management Model 

Building on Parkhe (1993) and Toyne (1989), Tiemessen et al. (1997) propose a model of OL and KT 

in IJVs based on input-process-output model. According to this model there are four critical elements 

involved in OL and knowledge transfer in IJV: Structure, Conditions, Process, and Outcomes. 

Tiemessen et al. (1997) propose three phases of inter-organizational learning in JV. 

The first phase is transfer process where two independent firms form a JV, both firms transfer 

and contribute resources in terms of their existing stock of competencies. Transfer is described as the 

movement/migration of knowledge between the parents firms, directly or indirectly, through activities 

such as buying technology, observing and imitating technology used by the other JV’s partner or 

modifying/changing the existing technologies based on the partner’s direction. Transfer means “to 

accept the partner’s knowledge, to integrate knowledge into one’s own systems or changing one’s own 

resources to imitate knowledge” (Tiemessen et al., 1997). 

The second phase is transformation process where through joint activities these competencies 

are then transformed and enhanced to reflect the combined pool of knowledge and skills as well as new 

knowledge and skills created from the alliance. Knowledge transformation is the extension of existing 

knowledge and the creation of new knowledge within the JV. Thus, transformation is defined as the 

integration, application and leveraging of contributed knowledge, and the creation of new knowledge 

as a result of IJV activities. The successful exploitation of an advantage internationally may require an 

adaptation of the technology, system, or management practices, or all of them to the local environment 

(Casson, 1993). Collaborating with local partners is crucial in ensuring appropriate and correct 

adaptation, and opportunities to improve own capabilities. Through adaptation process, resource 

integration and partnering knowledge are created (Tiemessen et al., 1997). 

The third phase is harvesting process where partners harvest knowledge and skills from IJV and 

bring back to the parent firms. Harvesting is described as “a process of retrieving knowledge that has 

already been created and tested from the IJV resources in which it resides, and internalizing it into the 

parent firm so it can be retrieved back and used in other applications”. Knowledge harvesting process 

is different from transfer and transformation process because the process is more difficult and not 

straightforward (Tiemessen et al., 1997). Knowledge harvesting by the parent firms is contingent upon 

the top management’s active role in JV and proper communication with the JV managers (Lyles, 

1988). 

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


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 

<strong>Review</strong>, 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


[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 <strong>Review</strong>, 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 

<strong>Review</strong>, 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, 

13 th 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 <strong>Review</strong>, 28, p. 85-98. 

562


[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 

<strong>Review</strong>, 47(4), p. 567-593. 

[47] Nevis, E. C., DiBella, A. J. & Gould, J. M. (1995). Understanding Organizations as Learning 

Systems, Sloan Management <strong>Review</strong>, 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


[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). <strong>Review</strong>ing 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

A Review on the Technology Transfer Models ... - EuroJournals

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?