Evaluation of technology transfer strategyof petrochemical process

Ali Mohaghar • Abbas Monawarian • Hamid Raassed

Published online: 25 June 2010� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Abstract In this paper we present technology transfer strategy of petrochemical process

to Iranian industries. Petrochemical industries import requested technology by some

known strategies such as Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), Licensing, Joint Venture (JV),

Turn-key, Reverse Engineering (RE) and Research & Development (RD). The strengths

and weaknesses of each strategy was evaluated according to our situation and condition. In

first step, the related literature and previous studies we investigated to find indexes for

technology transfer of petrochemical process. By prepared questionnaire and referring to

petrochemical experts, through AHP method, the significance of indexes related to each

strategy was evaluated and analyzed. The result shows that make JV with an International

company who owns the know-how technology and strong background in requested tech-

nology, will help us to succeed in our investment. Licensing, also, is an appropriate

alternative for some technology transferring projects that no JV could be created.

Keywords Strategy � Technology � Technology transfer � Petrochemical � Process

JEL Classification O25

1 Introduction

The Islamic Republic of Iran has the second largest proven natural gas reserves and third

largest proven crude oil in the world based on OPEC report (2009). The country’s so far

published proven natural gas in-place equals to 18% the world’s total natural gas reserves.

So, Petrochemical Industries is preferred to invest to prevent loss our raw materials and make

more added value by producing some valuable petrochemical products by local investment.

The main question for any investor is how could prepare and transfer technology for his

investment. Komoda (1986) in his article notes that the ‘‘appropriateness of technology’’ to

a less-developed country may be one of the most important issues in the general problem of

A. Mohaghar � A. Monawarian � H. Raassed (&)Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Irane-mail: hrassed@gmail.com

123

J Technol Transf (2012) 37:563–576DOI 10.1007/s10961-010-9180-9

technology transfer. Fubara (1986) suggests that Nigeria adopt oil technology to accelerate

economic development since 80% of the total revenue is received from crude petroleum

export. Adaptation this technology will generally reduce the high costs of foreign workers

and will be economically viable in the long run. On the other hand, as, petrochemical

plants consume highly resources then the investor should be satisfied and assured for their

expenses because the market of petrochemical material is very sensitive for characteristic

of products and its price.

This study tries to bridge the research gap by providing empirical evidence for

important factors affecting technology transfer effectiveness widely discussed in the lit-

erature. Five groups of indexes named technology transferring factors for petrochemical

process have been investigated. The factors are Organization, Nature of technology,

Technology provider, Beneficiary, and Laws and regulations.

2 Literature review

Technical knowledge is not the same as a product-type good and it is not produced to be

sold. The reason why technology transfer takes place is because of the needs that both sides

to the technology transfer have. Because of significant differences exist in terms of the level

of technology of the technologically advanced, and the technologically backward, and it is

also difficult to rely on one’s own efforts to upgrade one’s own level of technology, those

that are technologically backward will cooperate with technologically advanced organi-

zations. The market for technology may thus be seen as a market in which monopolistic

competition prevails. Both the product and the manufacturing process have their own

special characteristics, to the extent that each of them has different patents. For this reasons,

because of competition, the technology itself actually becomes a kind of product. It is

actually difficult to make technology a monopoly. Rogers (1972), UNCTAD (1973),

Rodrigues (1985), Derakhshani (1987), Hayden (1976) and some others gave some various

definitions of technology transfer. From this definitions we could found, it is a process by

which an organization or a country transfers scientific or technological achievements, new

uses for technology, design and technical knowledge needed for administrative projects or

the knowledge that can be used in production, i.e. patents and scientific principles that can

be used in a wide variety of ways to transfer the technical knowledge to another entity.

3 Methods of transferring technology

Khalil (2000) mentioned that technology is intangible and flows across boundaries of

countries, industries, departments, or individuals. There are three types of channels that

allow the flow of technology:

1. General channels Information is made available in the public domain with limited or

no restrictions on its use. Channel of this type of transfer include education, training,

publications and conferences.

2. Reverse-engineering channels Here a host or a traditional receiver of a technology is

capable of breaking the code of a technology and developing the capability to

duplicate it in some fashion. This is feasible provided that the host has the knowledge

to do this and there is no legal violation of intellectual or property rights.

3. Planned channels the technology transfer is done intentionally according to a planned

process and with the consent of the technology owner. There are several types of

564 A. Mohaghar et al.

123

agreements that are used to effect planned transfers. They permit access to and use of,

technological know-how:

(a) Licensing The receiver purchases the right to utilize someone else’s technology.

This may entail an outright purchase or a payment of an initial lump-sum amount

plus a percentage of sales.

(b) Joint venture (JV) Two or more entities combine their interests in a business

enterprise in which they can share knowledge and resources to develop a

technology, produce a product or use their respective know-how to complement

one another. International JVs are frequently used by recipients to acquire

technology and by sources of technology to gain access to local markets and

distribution skills.

(c) Turnkey A country buys a complete project from an outside source and the

project is designed, implemented, and delivered ready to operate.

(d) Foreign direct investment (FDI) A corporation usually a multinational decides to

produce its product or invest some of its resources overseas. This permits the

transfer of technology to another country but the technology remains within the

boundaries of the firm. The investor gains access to a labor face, natural

resources, technology or market and the host country receives technological

know-how, employment opportunities for its people, training for the workforce

and investment capital that adds to the development of its infrastructure.

(e) Technical consortium and joint R&D project Two or more entities collaborate in

a large venture because the resources of one are inadequate to affect the direction

of technological change.

Petrochemical processes are implicit and transferred only by planned methods or scientific

activities in institute & research centers. Then in this study we considered following

methods (Table 1) as technology transfer strategy.

Glass and Saggi (1998) mentioned countries frequently rely on successful assimilation

of foreign technology to achieve indigenous technological development.

More recently, countries such as Mexico, Brazil, India and China view foreign direct

investment by firms from technologically advanced countries as a vehicle of technology

transfer in United Nations report (1992).

4 The transfer of technology model

In the recent years, a number of technology transfer models have been proposed in the

literature. Some noteworthy examples include, Gerald’s (2000) simple manufacturing

Table 1 Selected strategy fortechnology transfer for petro-chemical process

Technology transfer strategy

1 Turnkey

2 Foreign direct investment (FDI)

3 Joint venture (JV)

4 Licensing

5 Reverse engineering (RE)

6 Research and development (RD)

Evaluation of technology transfer strategy 565

123

model, Kim’s (1999) endogenous growth model, Gupta’s (1998) dynamic model, Serror

(1996) network model, Lulu et al.’s (1996) decision based model, Kumar’s (1995) partner

selection criterion models, Wong’s (1995) descriptive validation model, Marjit’s (1994)

general equilibrium model least developing countries, Padmanabhan and Sounder’s (1994)

Browning motion model, Seaton and Cordey-Hayes’s (1993) interactive technology

transfer, Wang and Blomstrom’s (1992) simple model for foreign investment and tech-

nology transfer, Myllyntan’s (1990) Finish model of technology transfer, Madu’s (1988)

economic model, Succar’s (1987) endogenous technological assimilation model for least

developing countries and Miyagiwa’s (1988) Richardo-Viner trade model. Among this of

dynamic model is one of the most efficient and effective model in measuring technology

transfer in the literature. Moreover, some of the technology diffusion studies conducted by

Sharif and Haq (1980), Blackman (1974), Fisher and Pry (1971), Mansfield (1961) and

technology transfer processes by Stock and Tatikonda (2000), Lin and Berg (2001) and an

update review of research and theory on technology transfer by Bozeman (2000) and

further references therein provide the bases of this paper.

Derakhshani (1983) defines technology transfer as the acquisition, development and

utilization of technological knowledge by a country other than that in which this knowl-

edge originated. From this define technology transfer can occur in many phases.

5 Technology transfer criteria and factors

Technology transferring is affected with some factors as surveyed by previous scholars. Ito

(1986) and Prassad (1986) note that technology supplied by developed countries is often

capital intensive rather than labor intensive. This creates more financial strain on the less-

developed countries and makes it difficult to successfully transfer the technology.

From all these citations, it is obvious that this issue warrants greater attention. What is

needed, however, is a means to evaluate appropriate technology based on the multitude of

factors and needs of the developing countries. This paper will therefore describe how the

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) can be applied to the problem of finding the appropriate

technology transfer strategy.

AHP was developed by Saaty (1987). In this words,

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a multi criteria decision model used hier-

archic or network structures to represent a decision problem and then develops

priorities for the alternatives based on the decision maker’s judgments throughout the

system (Saaty 1987, p. 157)

Anderson et al. (1986) mentioned that this method is of great value to decision makers

since it can accommodate both tangible and intangible factors. Although other multi-

criteria models exist, such as goal programming, these models do not easily consider the

intangible factors.

In this study we classified in five criteria as bellow. Each criterion described by some

factors that summarized in Table 2.

(a) Organizational factors Wallender (1979) suggests the need for managers to develop

managerial skills such as the ability to plan, organize and solve problems. Ito (1986)

suggests the active participation of local experts like engineers in technology transfer.

These experts have a working knowledge of conditions that prevail in Less-developed

countries making their participation in the design of appropriate technology crucial to

566 A. Mohaghar et al.

123

the successful transfer process. Andrews and Miller (1985) suggest that the training of

local manpower is necessary to provide the knowledge base for technology transfer.

Morrissey and Almonacid (2005) argue, our experience shows that dynamic, flexible

research and interdisciplinary teams which include researchers, entrepreneurs and

financing expertise are key factors for an effective process of technology transfer.

Yang and Maskus (2008) show welfare in the developing countries would rise (fall) if

that country has high (low) absorptive capacity. Developing country’s bargaining

power reflects its lower labor cost and knowledge of local market conditions.

(b) Nature of technology factors Technology brings technological change, the impact of

which on economic growth, industrial productivity, international competition and

trade is widely recognized by Utterback (1974). Morrissey and Almonacid (2005)

also mentioned the rate of technology change, new market demands and regulatory

requirements coupled with heightened international competition requires universities,

research centers and companies to engage in an efficient and dynamic technology

transfer process.

(c) Technology provider factors Pierson (1978) notes the Multinational corporations

should take an active part in adopting the appropriate R&D for less-developed

countries. The multinational corporations can use their pool of technical staff to help

the less-developed countries, while at the same time increasing their future stake.

Yang and Maskus (2008) argue developed country’s power reflects the uniqueness of

its technology.

Table 2 Petrochemical process technology transfer criteria and factors

Criteria Factors

Organization Adequate risk of investment

Adequate material resources such as machinery, equipment, spare part, etc.

Adequate technology transfer to organization

Proactive leadership and management support

Communication between the key person of all parties

Product export target

Adequate market share

Nature of technology Training of local manpower

Technology gap

Technology changes

Technology provider Adequate technological and managerial knowledge and skills of the technologysuppliers

Technology supplier cooperation in technology transfer process

Beneficiary Technology transferring for related industries such as machinery

Usage local technical experts, technical support staff

Local contractor and manufacturer

Reduction of technology gap in related local technical expert

Laws and regulations Political problem

Local Low for international investment and technology transferring

Socioeconomic

Existing culture and ethic value

Resource available

Evaluation of technology transfer strategy 567

123

(d) Beneficiary factors Jayaraman et al. (2004) mentioned, during technology transfer, the

rate of technology assimilation of the recipient country is dependent on the technology

gap between the source country and the recipient country. It also dependent on the

recipient country’s relative position with the source country and its existing

assimilation rate due to indigenous development efforts. Gee (1981) suggests that

managers must be both oriented toward innovation and sensitive to their environment

in order to successfully implement new technology. Two of the strengths of less-

developed countries are in human and natural resources. Ito (1986) mentions that in

order to be able to modify and improve technology, the recipient of the technology

must be sufficiently capable of maintaining an introduced production system.

(e) Law and regulation factors Some have argued that laws and regulations in less-

developed countries makes it difficult to transfer technology successfully. Coughlin

(1983) in showing how laws and regulations affects the transfer of technology, notes

the case of Yugoslavia, where foreign exchange restrictions, the inflexibility of joint

ventures and minority ownership restrictions have deterred foreign investments.

Millman (1983) notes that governments view technology transfer as part of the

foreign policy arena. Governments can therefore have a significant impact on

promoting or hindering the transfer process. Castick (1987) points out the need to

analyze government regulations, political history and economic stability before

multinational corporations engage in joint venture in less-developed countries. Hill

and Still (1980) identifies some of the effects of technology transfer including the

break-up of social structures and suggests analyzing these effects at a conceptual

level. Wigglesworth (1981) further suggests the need to understand the cultural value

system of the country to which technology is being transferred. Also Saad et al.

(2002) mentioned the choice of the form of transfer is influenced by the recipient’s

knowledge and technical capabilities as well as the economic, social, cultural,

institutional and political environment.

Saad et al. (2002) shows the Algerian technology transfer projects described in the case

studies have essentially failed as a result of:

• Restricted availability of indigenous knowledge and information

• Poor preparation procedures before negotiations

• Lack of proactive search for projects and partners not based on national realities

• Significant dependency on learning-by doing and coding knowledge

• Ignoring the dynamic dimension of the process of technology transfer and the

consolidation stage

During technology transferring, the rate of technology assimilation of the recipient

country is dependent on the technology gap between the source country and the recipient

country. It is also dependent on the recipient country’s relative position with the source

country (Pierson 1978).

Madu (1988) mentioned Technology transfer is often faced with socioeconomic and

political problems that most be identified. These factors are structurally dependent and, as

such, have to be studied for each individual host country. The culture and ethical value

structure may be complex in some developing societies and should be considered when

transferring technology.

Morrissey and Almonacid (2005) argue the rate of technology change, new market

demands and regulatory requirements coupled with heightened international competition

requires universities, research centers and companies to engage in an efficient and dynamic

568 A. Mohaghar et al.

123

technology transfer process. Dynamic, flexible research and interdisciplinary teams which

include researchers, entrepreneurs and financing expertise are key factors for an effective

process of technology transfer.

6 Study framework

From the above discussions in the literature it can be seen how previous scholars viewed

the factors influencing the technology transfer and explored what are the major factors that

affect the performance of technology transfer strategy. In this study, we bring together the

different scholars’ viewpoints referred to above as well as some of our propositions to

serve as our conceptual framework as depicted in Fig. 1. With this framework we discuss

how each strategy is progress.

7 Research methods and data collection

To explore which strategy might give best result on technology transfer in different situ-

ations, we collected data from a set of companies and institutes that were engaged in

technology transfer of petrochemical process.

Two separate questionnaires were prepared, first questionnaire was formed to evaluate

technology transfer factors and the second one was designed to analysis the technology

Fig. 1 Conceptual frameworkfor this study

Evaluation of technology transfer strategy 569

123

transfer strategies. The first questionnaire was sent to 44 experts who has well-known as

scientific members of institutes and universities in petrochemical deviation. The second

was sent to 41 managers of petrochemical companies.

Among 85 questionnaires we received 63 completed replays, that they were 31 and 32

for technology transfer factors evaluation and strategy analysis, respectively.

The research model was put in practice by using question items in a seven-point

disagree- agree Likert scale.

Through the first questionnaire factors of technology transfer of petrochemical process

has been evaluated. Among this survey, 22 factors was accepted with reference to the

responses. One item was rejected and one factor was left out after data analysis. The

Cronbach (1951) Alpha value (Table 3) of those question items related to technology

transfer factors for petrochemical process, is .851 that indicate the measure is quite reli-

able. An Alpha level of .7 or above is generally acceptable.

8 Priority of criteria

We compared five selected criteria by referring to acquainted experts on petrochemical

processes. They requested to compare each two criteria at a time and assigns weights based

preference with uses nine-point scale with 1, equal; 3,moderate; 5, strong; 7, very strong; 9,

extreme. The even numbers 2,4,6,8 are for compromise, while reciprocals are used to show

inverse comparisons the result of comparison is shown in Table 4.

With accordance to Table 4, the priority index will appear as Table 5.

9 Results from survey

Data collection from questionnaires enable us to calculate scores of each strategy and

analyze which strategy will bring more advantage in comparison to other strategies in

different conditions. The results are shown in following figures. The Table 6 shows mean

score of each factors of Organization criterion for selected strategies. The sore range is

zero to seven based on seven-point Likert scale.

Based on Table 6, could be concluded that JV is the best strategy to gain petrochemical

technology from organizational point of view. Then it advises to consider licensing as

second step. Interviewees give fewer points for RD and RE. Two other strategies have

settled on middle.

The Table 7, shows mean score of each factors of Nature of technology criterion for

selected strategies. This results indicate that JV and FDI strategies are at the top if you are

interested in gaining up-dated and optimal technology in petrochemical industries. In next

step, it proposes Licensing and Turn-key. RE and RD are at the lowest level, because,

acquiring new and optimal technology could be difficult.

The Table 8 brings mean score of each factors of technology provider criterion for

strategies. Based on information depicted in Table 8, RD and RE strategies are, respec-

tively the first and second choices. Other strategies by this criterion are JV, Licensing,

Turn-key and FDI.

The Table 9 indicates the mean score of each factors of Beneficiary criterion. Based on

this table, RD is the best strategy and RD, Licensing and JV are in next steps by a little

difference. Turn-key and FDI strategies are in the lower levels.

570 A. Mohaghar et al.

123

Table 3 Alpha value for petrochemical process technology transfer

Reliability

Scale: all variables

Case processing summary

N %

Cases

Valid 31 100.0

Excludeda 0 0

Total 31 100.0

Reliability statistics

Cronbach’s alpha No. of items

.845 23

Item-total statistics

Scale mean ifitem deleted

Scale variance ifitem deleted

Corrected item-totalcorrelation

Cronbach’s alphaif item deleted

Technology_Org 133.48 69.191 .570 .835

Design_Org 133.81 71.181 .323 .842

Equipment_Org 133.61 69.712 .464 .837

Feasibility 134.29 69.013 .325 .843

Finance 134.74 73.465 .061 .851

RD 134.03 68.766 .380 .840

Exp_Limit 133.74 67.198 .520 .834

Exp_Share 133.81 65.028 .536 .833

Tech_complex 133.68 69.959 .322 .842

Tech_Diff 133.81 69.228 .469 .837

Tech_Change 134.06 70.796 .162 .852

Cooperation 133.35 67.903 .61 1 .832

Manag_Skill 133.94 66.396 .612 .831

Equip_supply 134.29 69.013 .386 .839

NET 134.26 68.731 .442 .837

Eng 134.35 69.437 .425 .838

C_E 134.19 66.561 .650 .830

ne_tech 133.39 74.712 -.017 .851

Government_Low 133.55 67.256 .647 .831

Politic_Int 134.10 70.557 .237 .846

Local_Politic 134.06 70.529 .245 .845

Value 134.23 64.647 .644 .828

Material 133.94 68.996 .502 .835

a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure

Evaluation of technology transfer strategy 571

123

Table 4 Comparison result

Organization Nature oftechnology

Technologyprovider

Beneficiary Laws andregulations

Organization 1 3.38 4.673 6.109 4.323

Nature of technology .272 1 2.141 3.005 1.809

Technology provider .214 .467 1 2.311 .763

Beneficiary .164 .333 .433 1 .422

Laws and regulations .231 .553 1.311 2.371 1

Table 5 The priority index forcriteria

Priority index

A: Organization .513

B: Nature of technology .191

C: Technology provider .109

D: Beneficiary .061

E: Laws and regulations .126

Table 6 Strategy score based on organization criterion factors

Index Strategies

Turnkey FDI JV RE Licensing RD

Organization criterion factors

1 ORG_1 4.2188 2.2813 5.094 5.0938 4.8438 4.3125

2 ORG_2 3.1875 2.2813 3.875 5.8125 4.5938 5.75

3 ORG_3 2.8125 2.5313 3.75 5.5938 4.3125 4.9688

4 ORG_4 5.3438 5.9063 6.094 2.1875 4.6563 1.8125

5 ORG_5 3.4375 2.6875 3.906 5.4375 3.875 5.5313

6 ORG_6 4.3125 6.3125 6.438 2.8438 4.5625 2.2813

7 ORG_7 4.75 6.0938 5.781 2.4063 4.4375 5.5

8 ORG_8 4.5938 6.2813 6.219 2.3438 5.2813 1.875

Average 1.84069 1.929655 2.317865 1.797289 2.06596 1.818164

Table 7 Strategy score based on nature of technology criterion factors

Index Strategies

Turnkey FDI JV RE Licensing RD

Of technology criterion factors

1 TECH_1 4.375 4.0313 4.75 5.125 4.6563 5.6563

2 TECH_2 5 5.75 6.156 3.0938 4.8125 2.25

3 TECH_3 5.0938 5.6563 5.906 4.375 5.5938 4.5

Average .784118 .835286 .910887 .683859 .815365 .673542

572 A. Mohaghar et al.

123

The Table 10 illustrates mean score of each factors of Law and Regulation criterion.

Based on Table 10, Licensing is the first strategy based on Low and regulation criterion.

RE is the second and RD, Turn-key, JV and FDI could be next choices for petrochemical

technology strategy.

Table 8 Strategy score based on technology provider criterion factors

Index Strategies

Turnkey FDI JV RE Licensing RD

Technology provider criterion factors

1 TRS_1 4.5313 2.9063 4.375 5.7813 5.0938 6.25

2 TRS_2 4.375 4.5313 5.156 5.8438 3.8438 6

Average .439889 .363601 .468735 .573603 .443765 .605115

Table 9 Strategy score based on beneficiary criterion factors

Index Strategies

Turnkey FDI JV RE Licensing RD

Beneficiary criterion factors

1 INT_1 3.0625 2.7188 4.219 5.25 4.9688 5.625

2 INT_2 4.9063 3.8125 5.125 5.7188 5.5938 5.875

3 INT_3 4.2813 4.0313 5.094 5.8125 5.8438 6.0938

4 INT_4 4.5625 5.375 5.719 5.0625 5.3125 5.1875

Average .21984 .208779 .26302 .28383 .282464 .295799

Table 10 Strategy score based on Low and Regulation criterion factors

Index Strategies

Turnkey FDI JV RE Licensing RD

Low and regulation criterion factors

1 LOW_1 4.5625 1.875 1.906 2.9688 4.7188 2.8438

2 LOW_2 4.5313 2.1875 3.719 5.0938 5.5938 5.0313

3 LOW_3 4.4375 2.7813 2.938 4.8438 5.5313 4.5313

4 LOW_4 3.2188 4.9375 5.344 4.75 4.7813 3.875

5 LOW_5 3.9063 3.4063 5.031 5.25 5.1875 5.0625

Average .454212 .331774 .412288 .501114 .566575 .466776

Table 11 Priority of strategies based on multi criteria decision making method and average score for eachcriterion

Average points of each strategies based on data collection from questionnaires

Turnkey FDI JV RE Licensing RD

Overall point 3.73875 3.6691 4.3728 3.8397 4.17413 3.8594

Evaluation of technology transfer strategy 573

123

In final step, we calculated priority of strategy in overall based on obtained scores in

each criterion and putting gather with calculated info from multi criteria decision making

for technology transfer factors. The result indicated in the Table 11. Final result indicates

that JV strategy has earned top score and we should consider it as the main strategy in our

business. Licensing is the second important strategy that we should consider in our deci-

sion. RD & RE with partial differences are, respectively, the next options. Turn-key settles

in fifth and FDI are at the bottom because of our local conditions.

10 Conclusion

Petrochemical industry is a major and strategic part of long term plan in governmental and

privet sector because of huge resources of oil and gas. By developing of this sector we

could receive more country’s progress and earn more added values instead of crude oil

selling. The main important subject to succeed in petrochemical industry, gain and earn

process technology by good and appropriateness in compare of international competitors.

As petrochemical technology is implicit then, it is limited to some international owners

generally. Also more expenses of require for investment make its risk so high if you rely on

inexperienced or old and expired one. The main question for investor is how could prepare

and transfer technology for his investment. An in-depth literature review suggests that

almost no studies exist on the topic and no empirical research has been conducted on this

area. Although, there are studies that have been conducted on technology transfer based on

conventional methods and national context.

In this study we tried to survey in technology transfer strategy and analysis which

strategy take us in success and develop based on our condition and situation. Results of

AHP suggest JV is the main strategy for petrochemical technology transfer and Licensing

could be appropriate alternative for JV strategy. On the other hand, because of sanction and

some political condition, some international petrochemical company is not willing to

cooperate with Iranian investor and technology availability has some difficulty, so other

strategies such as RD and RE could be useful to acquire requested technology by these

strategies the local institute should take more effort and it help them more advantage.

FDI, although is the main strategy in some other countries such as Middle East and

China, but here because of lake off local regulation, sanction and political problems is not

appropriate strategy. Turn-key strategy also has some similar condition to FDI. Turn-key

also is not interested in because it transfer technology with lowest knowledge in compare

other strategies. On the other side, the international contractors could not bring requested

Bank Guarantees because limitation to business with Iranian Banks.

In conclusion, we should concentrate to JV strategy and provide proper condition to

encourage international company to make Joint Venture with Iranian investor to bring

appropriate technology in petrochemical sector. Licensing is other important strategy for

any conditions that international investor is not willing to cooperate with local investors.

References

Anderson, D. R., Sweeney, D. J., & Williams, T. A. (1986). Quantitive methods for business. San Francisco,CA: West.

Andrews, S. B., & Miller, H. G. (1985). Expanding market share: The role of American corporations intechnical assistance. International Journal of Manpower, 6(4), 25–27.

574 A. Mohaghar et al.

123

Blackman, A. W. (1974). The market dynamics of technological substitution. Technological Forecastingand Social Change, V(6-), 41–63.

Bozeman, B. (2000). TT and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627–655.Castick, R. (1987). The perils of manufacturing abroad. International Management, 33(3), 43, 45–4.6Coughlin, C. C. (1983). An economic analysis of Yugoslav joint ventures. Journal of World Trade Law,

17(1), 12–33.Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometricka, 16, 297–334.Derakhshani, S. (1983). Factors affecting success in international transfers of technology—a synthesis and a

test of a new contingency model. The Developing Economics, 21, 27–45.Derakhshani, S. (1987). Negotiating technology transfer agreements. World Executive’s Digest, 8(5), 47–49.OPEC Editorial. (2009). OPEC Annual Statistical Bultain of 2008. Ueberreuter Print und Digimedia press,

p. 41, 43.Fisher, J. C., & Pry, R. H. (1971). A simple substitution model of technological change. Technological

Forecasting and Social Change, 3, 75–88.Fubara, B. A. (1986). Target strategy for technological acquisition in the Sub-Saharan oil exporting states of

Africa: The Nigerian experience. Journal of Business Ethics (Netherlands), 5(5), 351–363.Gee, S. (1981). Technology transfer innovation and international competitiveness. New York: Wiley.Gerald, A. (2000). Transfer pricing with technology choice and demand fluctuations in a simple manu-

facturing model. Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics, 39(2), 3–17.Glass, A. J., & Saggi, K. (1998). International technology transfer and the technology gap. Journal of

Development Economics, 55, 369–398.Gupta, M. R. (1998). Foreign capital and TT in a dynamic model. Journal of Economics, 67(1), 75–92.Hayden, E. W. (1976). Technology transfer to the Soviet. MSU Business Topics.Hill, J. S., & Still, R. R. (1980). Culture effects of technology transfer by multinational corporations in lesser

developed countries. Columbia Journal of World Business, 15(2), 40–51.Ito, S. (1986). Modifying imported technology by local engineers: Hypothesis and case study of India. The

Developing Economies, 24(4), 334–348.Jayaraman, V., Bhtti, M. I., & Saber, H. (2004). Toward optimal testing of an hypothesis based on dynamic

technology transfer model. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 147, 115–129.Khalil, T. (2000). Management of technology: The key to competitiveness and wealth creation. Mc Graw-

Hill, p. 344.Kim, T. H. (1999). International trade, TT, growth, and welfare in a Schumpeterian model of endogenous

growth. Review of International Economics, 7(1), 37–49.Komoda, F. (1986). Japanese studies on technology transfer to developing countries: A survey. Developing

Economies, 24(4), 405–420.Kumar, B. N. (1995). Partner selection criteria and success of TT: A model based on learning theory

applied to the case of Indo-German technical collaborations. Management International Review,35(1), 65–79.

Lin, B. W., & Berg, D. (2001). Effect of cultural difference on TT projects: An empiricals study ofTaiwanese manufacturing companies. International Journal of Project Management, 19, 287–293.

Lulu, M., Seyoum, G., & Swift, F. W. (1996). A decision model for TT. Computing and IndustrialEngineering, 31(1–2), 37–41.

Madu, C. N. (1988). An economic decision model for technology transfer. Engineering ManagementInternational, 5(1), 53–63.

Mansfield, E. (1961). Technical change and the rate of imitation. Econometrica, 29(4), 741–765.Marjit, S. (1994). A competitive general equilibrium model of TT, innovation and obsolescence. Journal of

Economics, 59(2), 133–151.Millman, A. F. (1983). Technology transfer in the international market. European Journal of Marketing,

17(1), 26–37.Miyagiwa, K. (1988). International transfer of localized technology and factor income in the Ricardo-Viner

trade model. The Canadian Journal of Economics, 21(4), 736–747.Morrissey, M. T., & Almonacid, S. (2005). Rethinking technology transfer. Journal of Food Engineering,

67, 135–145.Myllyntaus, T. (1990). The finish model of TT. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 38(3), 625–

645.Padmanabhan, V., & Sounder, W. E. (1994). A Brownian motion model for TT: Application to machine

maintenance export system. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11(2), 119–135.Pierson, R. M. (1978). R&D by multinationals for overseas markets. Research Management, 21(4), 19–22.Prassad, B. S. (1986). Technology transfer: The approach of a Dutch multinational. Technovation, 4(1),

3–15.

Evaluation of technology transfer strategy 575

123

Rodrigues, C. A. (1985). A process for innovators pin developing countries to implement new technology.Columbia Journal of World Business, Fall.

Rogers, E. M. (1972). Key concepts and models: Inducing technology change for economic growth anddevelopment (p. 86). Michigam State University.

Saad, M., Cicmil, S., & Greenwood, M. (2002). Technology transfer projects in developing countries:Furthering the project management perspectives. International Journal of Project Management, 20,617–625.

Saaty, T. L. (1987). Rank generation, preservation and reversal in the analytic hierarchy decision process.Decision Science, 18(2), 157–177.

Seaton, R. A. F., & Cordey-Hayes, M. (1993). The development and application of interactive models ofindustrial TT. Technovation, 13(1), 45–54.

Serror, A. C. (1996). Action research for international information TT: A methodology and a networkmodel. Technovation, 16(8), 412–430.

Sharif, M. N., & Haq, A. K. M. A. (1980). Evaluating the potentials of technical co-operation amongdeveloping countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 16, 3–31.

Stock, G. N., & Tatikonda, V. (2000). A typology of project-level TT processes. Journal of OperationsManagement, 18, 719–737.

Succar, P. (1987). International TT: A model of endogenous technological assimilation. Journal ofDevelopment Economics, 26(2), 375–397.

UNCTAD. (1973). Guideline for the study of transfer of technology to developing countries,United NationsPublication.TD/B/AC, p. 5.

United Nations. (1992). World investment report: Transnational corporations as engines of growth. NewYork: United Nations.

Utterback, J. M. (1974). Innovation in industry and diffusion of technology. Science, 183(15), 620–626.Wallender, H. W. (1979). Technology transfer and management in developing countries: Company cases

and policy analysis in Brazil. Kenya, Korea, Peru and Tanzania. Executive Summary, Fund forMultinational Management Education, New York.

Wang, J. Y., & Blomstrom, M. (1992). Foreign investment and TT: A simple model. European EconomicReview, 36(1), 137–157.

Wigglesworth, D. C. (1981). Management development overseas—some thoughts. ASTD’s Training andDevelopment Journal, 35(10), 73–76.

Wong, J. K. (1995). Technology transfer in Thailand: Descriptive validation of technology transfer model.International Journal of Technology Management, 10(7–8), 788–796.

Yang, G., & Maskus, K. E. (2008). Intellectual properties right, technology transfer and exports in devel-oping countries. Journal of Development Economics, 53(2001), 169–181.

576 A. Mohaghar et al.

123