DEFINING THE CONCEPTS OF TECHNOLOGY AND Essay Example

and Shoo, 1990). According to prior literature, technology has been defined in various ways. Kumar et al. (1999) argue that technology consists of two main components: a physical component that includes products, tooling, equipment, blueprints, techniques, and processes; and an informational component that encompasses know-how in management, marketing, production, quality control reliability, skilled labor,and functional areas.

According to Shall (1981), the conventional understanding of technology is that it functions as a 'configuration' and serves as the object of transfer. In recent times, research on technology transfer has associated technology with knowledge, emphasizing the process of research and its implementation (Dunning, 1994). Upon examining the definition, two essential elements can be identified: 1) 'knowledge' or technique; and 2) 'doing things'.

Technology is closely linked to achieving desired outcomes, solving specific issues, and completing tasks through the use of specific skills, knowledge, and resources (Lana and Young, 1996). The concept of technology encompasses not only the physical aspects of a product, but also includes understanding how to use and apply it, as well as the process of developing it (Lovely, 1998; Baseman, 2000). In its early stages, technology was seen primarily as information that could be widely utilized and easily replicated and reused (Arrow, 1962).

According to Reedy and Shoo (1990), the traditional definition of technology conflicts with the view held by some literature on international technology transfer. This view states that technology refers to specific information about how a firm's production process and product design work. Reedy and Shoo argue that the production process technology is represented by the equipment or means used to create a specific product, while the product design technology is evident in

the final product itself.

Apatite (1985) proposes that technology is essentially specialized knowledge regarding specific applications, often unspoken, frequently unrestrained, and mainly accumulated within companies. Consequently, technology is considered the firm's 'intangible assets' or firm-specific' which establish the foundation for a company's competitiveness and typically disclosed under specific conditions (Dunning, 1981). Tinny and Roth (2002) suggest that technology may encompass information that is challenging to replicate and transfer.

According to this argument, technology is regarded as "tacit knowledge (Plainly, 1967) or firm-specific, secrets or knowledge known by one organization" (Monika, 1994). Technology, being the intangible assets of a firm, is deeply ingrained in the firm's routines and is difficult to transfer due to the gradual learning process and high cost associated with transferring tacit knowledge (Roadsides, 1999). The valuable technological knowledge, which is a firm's intangible asset, cannot be easily transferred from one firm to another because the technological learning process is necessary to assimilate and internalize the transferred technology (Line, 2003).

Rosenberg and Friskiest (1985) define technology as firm-specific information about production processes and product designs, which is tacit and cumulative in nature. Bargeman et al. (1996) describe technology as theoretical and practical knowledge, skills, and artifacts that can be used to develop products, services, production systems, and delivery systems. According to Line (2003), technology is also embodied in people, materials, cognitive and physical processes, facilities, machines, and tools.

According to Baseman (2000), technology and knowledge are interconnected based on Sisal's (1981) theory. When a technological product is transferred or diffused, the knowledge used to create it is also spread. The existence of a knowledge base is necessary for the utilization of the physical

entity itself. This knowledge base is inherent rather than peripheral and encompasses objects, their production process, and the associated meaning. These elements do not exist as distinct and separate factors, but rather form an integrated and cohesive technology (Woolgather, 1987).

In order to define the term technology, it is important to understand that all three elements are interconnected, and a change in one element will impact the other two elements. According to the latest definition by Mucus (2003), the concept of technology has been expanded. Technology is now defined as the information required to achieve a specific production outcome using a specific method of combining or processing chosen inputs. These inputs can include production processes, intra-firm organizational structures, management techniques, means of finance, marketing methods, or any combination thereof.

According to Tapster and David (1985), technology can be seen as a cultural system that focuses on the connections between humans and their environment. Prairie (1988) takes a systems perspective on technology, defining it as consisting of three elements: the basic knowledge sub-system, the technical support system (software), and the capital-embodied technology (hardware). This viewpoint acknowledges the importance of identifying the various components of a country's technology that work together and strengthen each other.

Previous studies have provided different functions and concepts of technology from various disciplines, contexts, and perspectives. Table 1 below presents a chronological list of definitions and concepts of technology gathered from previous literature. (Insert Table 1 here) In addition to understanding the concept of technology, classifying technology is important for explaining the different types of technologies found in the product, production processes, and human capital of a company.

In their comprehensive

review of technology transfer literature, Reedy and Shoo (1990) constructed economies of technology based on previous research. Mansfield (1975) initially developed a taxonomy of technology that included classifications of "embodied" and "disembodied" technology. Madame (1984) later expanded this classification to include capital embodied, human embodied, and disembodied technology. Hall and Johnson (1970) proposed the use of "product-embodied" and "process-specific" classifications, which further categorized technology as "general," "system-specific," or "company specific."

General technology refers to technical information that is commonly used by companies in the same industry. System specific technology, on the other hand, refers to the knowledge and expertise developed for solving specific industrial problems. Company specific technology covers the unique skills and capabilities of each individual firm, which are derived from their general activity and experience. Rebook (1980) and Judson (1971) have created a taxonomy of technology by separating product designs, production techniques, and managerial functions. Madame (1984) proposes a distinction between "alienated" technology and "socialized" technology.

Alienated technology encompasses confidential knowledge that is not freely accessible. In contrast, "socialized technology" does not involve any particular transaction. The concept and definition of technology transfer have been approached in various manners, depending on the research disciplines and objectives (Baseman, 2000). According to Gibson and Similar (1991), technology transfer often entails a disorderly and tumultuous process involving diverse groups and individuals who may hold differing perspectives on the value and potential utilization of the technology.

According to experts, technology lacks a clear meaning or value and is often perceived differently by researchers, developers, and users. A comprehensive analysis of literature on technology transfer suggests that the transfer of technology is a challenging and intricate process, even

within the same product division of a company (Coalman et al., 1973; Kidder, 1981; Smith and Alexander, 1988). The transfer of technology is widely recognized as a complex procedure that requires time to develop (Gammon and von Ogling, 1981).

Technology is commonly regarded as a given in economic theories, like Slows' growth model (1957), but it is often perceived as being embodied in easily replicable and transferable products or processes, similar to blueprints, machines, or materials (Line, 2003). The literature on technology transfer and international technology transfer originates from diverse disciplines such as political science, economics, sociology, public policy, marketing, and technology management (Kumar et al., 1999).

The examined issues include the process of technology transfer, the suitability of technology, cooperation and conflict between countries involved in the transfer, the success of technology transfer, and the social and economic benefits for tooth suppliers and recipient countries (Katz, 1985; All, 1982). Previous studies have described technology transfer as the sharing of knowledge that is adaptable to local circumstances, with successful implementation and dissemination within and between countries (Chunk, 2001; Kenya, 1985).

Technology transfer can be defined as the transmission of know-how or knowledge that allows the recipient enterprise to produce a specific product or service. Unlike the sale of machinery and equipment, technology transfer requires an ongoing relationship between two enterprises to ensure that the receiving enterprise can meet quality standards and cost efficiency in the production process (Reedy and Shoo, 1990).

The transfer of technical knowledge necessary for creating the product and the capability to independently develop and produce the technology behind it aligns with Hoffman and Agrarian's (1990) proposed objectives for technology transfer in

developing countries. These objectives include introducing new techniques through investment in new plants, improving existing techniques, and generating new knowledge.

The term "technology transfer" is used to describe various processes, including the movement of ideas and concepts from the laboratory to the marketplace (Phillips, 2002; Williams & Gibson, 1990), the transfer of knowledge and concept from developed to less technologically developed countries (Tarnishing, 1983; Patrons et al., 2003), and the transfer of inventive activities to secondary users (Van Sigh, 1978).

Cautious and Laymen (1995) propose a broader definition of technology transfer. They suggest that it involves intentional, goal-oriented interaction between two or more social entities. During this interaction, the pool of technological knowledge remains stable or increases through the transfer of one or more components of technology. According to Levin (1996), technology transfer is the application of scientific principles to solve practical problems. From a social science perspective, Levin (1993) defines technology transfer as a socio-technical process. This process implies the transfer of cultural skills that accompany the movement of machinery, equipment, and tools.

The definition of technology transfer encompasses the transfer of both physical artifacts and the cultural skills associated with them. In the majority of previous studies, technology transfer has been defined as the transmission or movement of knowledge. This process involves how an organization or country transfers scientific or technological achievements, new technology uses, designs, and technical knowledge that can be utilized in production (Chunk 2007).

The transfer of technology can occur between different locations or from a university to an enterprise (Solo and Rogers, 1972). This process involves not only the transmission of knowledge but also a learning process where

technological knowledge is continuously accumulated by individuals engaged in production activities. A successful technology transfer will result in a broader and deeper accumulation of knowledge (Ostentation, 1991).

The concept of technology transfer refers to the ability of the recipient of technology to learn and incorporate it into their production function (Mask's, 2003). Ads (1987) suggests that technology transfer can occur in two ways: 1) through the creation of new products (product or embodied technology transfer); and 2) through the improvement of efficiency in producing existing products (process or disembodied technology transfer). Hall and Johnson (1970) define technology transfer as a system that encompasses technology embodied in people, products, or processes.

According to Farming (1997), in cases of manufacturing processes, transferring technologies involves not only sharing technological knowledge like process sheets, blueprints, products, and materials specification, but also the expertise of highly skilled engineering and technical personnel. Shoo and Irishman (1992), in their wide-ranging review of technology transfer literature from various fields, argue that economists generally define technology transfer based on generic knowledge properties, with a primary emphasis on variables related to production and design (Arrow, 1969; Doss, 1988).

Sociologists connect technology transfer to innovation and define technology as a means to reduce uncertainty in achieving desired outcomes (Rogers, 1962; Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). Anthropologists view technology transfer in the wider context of cultural change and its impact. Shoo and Irishman (1992) note that much of the literature on technology transfer comes from management researchers.

According to various scholars, business disciplines primarily address issues such as technology transfer stages, design, sales, and related aspects (Tease, 1976; Lake 1979). On the other hand, management researchers explore intra-sector

transfer, the relationship between technology transfer and strategy, and the impact of alliances on technology transfer (Rabin, 1989; Cheese and Amazing, 1996; Laymen ND Cautious, 1996; Lambs and Spokesman, 1997; Shoo and Irishman, 1992). In recent years, a significant focus of management literature has shifted towards analyzing the importance of alliances in facilitating technology transfer.

Table 2 presented below displays a compilation of definitions and concepts related to technology transfer that were sourced from different literature materials. Please refer to Table 2 for the information. It is evident from the gathered definitions and concepts that technology transfer and knowledge transfer are interconnected. The field of technology transfer is vast and constantly evolving, with numerous literature sources offering extensive and diverse perspectives on the subject (Kumar et al., 1999; Shoo and Irishman, 1992).

In previous studies, the distinction between knowledge transfer and technology transfer has often been overlooked. Defining the boundaries between these concepts is unclear as they are frequently used interchangeably in both technology transfer and knowledge transfer literature. Many studies consider knowledge transfer and technology transfer to be similar in meaning.

According to researchers from various disciplines, technology transfer is strongly connected to the transfer of information, know-how, and technical knowledge. This is because knowledge is a crucial component underlying technology transfer, as affirmed by Hall and Johnson (1970), Kenya (1985), Ostentation (1987), Ads (1987), Williams and Gibson (1990), Hayden (1992), and Gibson and Rogers (1994).

According to Grosser (1996), technology transfer involves transferring product technology, process technology, and management technology, with knowledge being an essential component. Various researchers have explored the relationship between technology transfer and knowledge transfer, and some have tried to

distinguish between these two concepts.

In their study on knowledge transfer within multinationals (Mans), Gout and Gander (1992, 1993) use both terms interchangeably. They suggest a close association between technology transfer and knowledge transfer, stating that technology transfer within Mans can be explained by attributes such as tackiness, justifiability, and testability. Asian and Meyer (2004), in their study on the spillovers of technology transfer from FED in Estonia, do not differentiate between technology transfer and knowledge transfer.

In their research on levels and keys factor in knowledge and technology transfer, Sung and Gibson (2000) posit that technology and knowledge transfer have a synonymous significance. They propose that knowledge and technology transfer can be defined as the transmission of knowledge and technology from one person or organization to another via various channels. Prior studies have indicated that technology and knowledge are interconnected. For instance, Shall (1981, 1982) asserts that technology is a 'configuration' and notes that the transfer of technology necessitates a subjectively determined yet specifiable collection of procedures and outcomes.

Focusing solely on the product is no longer enough as it involves not just the transfer of the product itself but also the knowledge and understanding of how to use and apply it. In his study on technology transfer and public policy, Baseman (2000) highlights how Shall's (1981, 1982) approach has effectively addressed the challenge of differentiating between technology and knowledge transfer.

Technology and knowledge transfer go hand in hand as transferring a technological product also means transferring the knowledge that it is built upon (Baseman, 2000). Without knowledge transfer, technology cannot be achieved as knowledge is essential in controlling technology. In a

recent study on the transfer of marketing know-how in strategic alliances, Simon (Bibb) suggests that the focus often shifts to technology transfer when empirical investigation is conducted on knowledge transfer.

Dunning (1994) claims that there is a strong correlation between technology and knowledge in current studies. Gout and Gander (1993) emphasize that foreign direct investment (FDI) serves as a means of technology transfer, encompassing the exchange of a firm's expertise in areas such as knowledge, technology, production, marketing, or other activities. Although "technology transfer" and "knowledge transfer" are frequently used interchangeably due to their close connection, they have different objectives.

Supranational and Cantors (2004) differentiate between technology transfer and knowledge transfer in terms of their purposes. They argue that knowledge transfer focuses on a broader and more comprehensive framework, specifically addressing the "why" for change, while technology transfer is more narrowly focused and typically involves specific tools for changing the environment. Despite these distinctions, most researchers agree that knowledge is the fundamental element underlying technology transfer. In conclusion, it is evident from the above discussion that both technology and technology transfer encompass multiple interpretations and perspectives, depending on the objectives of organizations, research backgrounds, researchers, developers, users, research areas, disciplines, and underlying theories. Consequently, different parties are likely to hold diverse views and perceptions on these two concepts.

This review provides insights for future researchers to explore and comprehend the theories and perspectives that greatly impact the concept of technology transfer. Understanding these theories is crucial for interested parties, including private sectors, government departments, academics, researchers, and students, as it helps them connect with the practical and empirical aspects underlying technology transfer.