The impact of micro- and macroergonomics considerations on appropriate technology transfer decisions in developing countries: The case of Turkey

(1)

The Impact of Micro- and Macroergonomics

Considerations on Appropriate Technology

Transfer Decisions in Developing Countries:

The Case of Turkey

Yasemin Claire Erensal

Industrial Engineering Department, Dog˘u,s University, Istanbul, Turkey Esra Albayrak

Industrial Engineering Faculty, Galatasaray University, Istanbul, Turkey

ABSTRACT

The research presented in this paper aims to support the decision process of appropriate technology transfer to industrially developing countries by improving a broader understanding of relationships between the key micro- and macroergonomics factors and the technology alternatives. The meth-odology involves knowledge acquisition, identifying and categorizing a holistic set of key criteria about technology transfer with respect to ergonomics. This work attempts briefly to identify factors affecting the success of technology transfer in order to reduce the potential of incompatibilities with respect to micro- and macroergonomics and to optimize the decision process of managers. The objective of the decision model, based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), determines the global priority weights for different technology alternatives and examines the critical factors and benefits, which affect the appropriateness of technology transfer. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

1. INTRODUCTION

A challenge for Turkey, as an industrially developing country (DC), is to become part of the global economy. The economic well being of DCs is heavily dependent on resource commitment to and adoption of appropriate technologies and the ability to attain the lev-els of technological development that could make them globally competitive. As sug-gested by many authors, technology is considered to be as one of the most important factors in competition (Porter, 1990, 1998). The extent to which DCs participate in the global economy will therefore depend on their ability to invest in and utilize their tech-nology (Hipkin & Bennett, 2003). However, the role of techtech-nology in the advancement of developing countries (DCs) is complex and very controversial (Hipkin & Bennett, 2003). The technological world is characterized by rapid changes in resource utilizations, increas-ing levels of decision complexity, and intense competition (Sharif, 1997). Reduced devel-opment cycles and the pace of technological change place greater urgency on the need to adopt new technology if DCs are to begin to compete globally (Jegathesan, Gunasekaran,

Correspondence to: Yasemin Claire Erensal, Industrial Engineering Department, Dog˘u,s University, Acıbadem Zeamet Sokak 34722 Kadıköy, Istanbul, Turkey. E-mail: yerensal@dogus.edu.tr

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20063

(2)

& Muthaly, 1997). However, industries in developing countries in general, do not have the capability to compete with the most modern, up-to-date technology of developed coun-tries. Moreover, firms in industrially developing countries, having limited financial resources, need to develop a sound business strategy while attempting to acquire more technologies. As developing countries often do not possess the necessary technologies or the ability to do their own research and development, the technologies needed in the imple-mentation of the competition strategy are most likely to come from overseas through technology transfer (Stewart, Moore, & Diatmoko, 2003). In this respect, the importance of technological transfer cannot be overemphasized in today’s world. It is the central determinant of long-run success or failure of organizations in DCs. Technology transfer itself is a complicated process involving technical, economical, social, and political aspects (Al-Ghailani & Moor, 1995; Madu, 1992). The technology transfer literature discusses a range of factors, such as culture, economic and political issues, knowledge, and strategic, operational, and supply-chain arrangements (Eldred & McGrath, 1997; Gupta, Chen, & Chang, 1997; Tyre, 1991). Technology transfer is an interorganizational process with mul-tiple outcomes (Spann, Adam, & Souder, 1995), requiring an assessment of costs, ben-efits, and tangible improvements (Hackman & Wageman, 1995; Wilkinson & Wilmott, 1995; Wilson, 1991). Developing countries will consider several factors when some tech-nology is transferred. Experiences with unsuccessful techtech-nology transfers indicate that any failure in considering these factors may lead to failure of the entire technology trans-fer process itself (Ramanathan, 2002).

One of the critical issues and primary factors determining the success of technology transfer projects to developing countries is the appropriateness of the technology (Mesh-kati, 1989). The importance of appropriate technology, contextual adaptation, and devel-oping technological capabilities and core technologies of DCs is addressed by a number of authors (Barbosa & Vaidya, 1997; Grant, 1996; Husain & Sushil, 1997; Kim, 1998; Plenert, 1994; Virasa & Tang, 1999). Thus, the inevitable and crucial questions faced by developing countries in determining the “success” of the transferred technology (accord-ing to the Denver Research Institute, 1983) are which technology to acquire, how to master it, how to adapt and adjust it to specific sources and the environment of a given country, how to maintain it, and how to build upon it (Meshkati, 1989). Assessments of success vary because objectives are ambiguous and inconsistent measurement standards render evaluation difficult (Armistead, Harrison, & Rowlands, 1995; Dixon, Arnold, Heineke, Kim, & Mulligan, 1994). Less directly measurable are the nonquantifiable merits of technology transfer (TT), such as the compatibility features of the tech-nology, and the technical and commercial effectiveness of the TT (Bennett, Vaidya, & Zhao, 1999).

Technology transfer has received a considerable amount of scientific interest but, in contrast with the current research, it has focused mainly on strategic decision-making issues (Teece, 1976; Tsang, 1997). Technology has the best chance of being transferred successfully if it is co-coordinated at a strategic level and aligned with corporate goals and internal capabilities with the purpose of achieving competitive advantage (Leonard-Barton & Deschamps, 1988; Martinsons & Schindler, 1995). Therefore, to achieve suc-cessful technology transfer, it is essential to understand the determinants at the operational level that make technology transfer successful. The findings indicate that the success of technology transfer is largely determined by the process at the operational level. Never-theless, at the same time, the technology choice is very important because it establishes the parameters for the selection of operational methods and human resource policies that

(3)

will determine the plant’s long-term capabilities and performance (Meshkati, 1989). The Turkish experience shows that even if the technology is transferred successfully, i.e., the receiving company is technically able to produce the product, it does not imply that pro-duction is viable. The organization that cannot ensure the integration and the synchroni-zation of the new technology with the current circumstances right at the beginning faces a losing battle. The first and foremost condition for a successful technology transfer is that the technologies being transferred should help DCs fulfill the important objective of successful integration and synchronization with the current circumstances, resources, and available technology. Therefore, the goal before technology transfer is to have an inte-grative approach with the current technological capability of the organization. Thus, the ultimate goal of any action in the field of technology transfer should be to not only apply particular technological solutions but also to enhance the capabilities of developing coun-tries to assess the need, select, import, assimilate, adapt, and develop the appropriate technologies. This is a matter of enhancing “generic” technological capabilities. There-fore, the types of capabilities acquired by technology will be determined by the content of the technology transfer. The implementation and synchronization of the imported tech-nologies determined by the process at the operational level will place a new set of demands on managers of industrially developing countries. Accumulating technological resources and technological capabilities only by purchasing, licensing, or copying is not all that is required to be competitive with multinational firms. The fundamental fallacy of such pol-icies is that they focus exclusively on “hard-tangible” technology, i.e., the product tech-nology and the equipment to produce them. Unfortunately, this approach completely neglects the “soft-intangible” elements of technology transfer, the management systems and organizational structures that implement the hard technology and make it effective. Because the soft technology is less tangible, its importance even in industrialized coun-tries has often been neglected (Mefford & Bruunb, 1998).

Transferring appropriate technology seems to be the optimal solution to the industri-alization problem of developing countries in the quest for economic development (Mesh-kati, 1989). Past experiences indicate that, to be successful, the technologies being transferred have to match certain requirements of major human factors (micro- and macro-ergonomic) considerations (Meshkati, 1989). Inappropriateness of technology transfers with respect to ergonomics pose immediate barriers that should be addressed as these countries embark on projects to enhance their technological base. Ergonomics provides an approach bridging the gap between foreign and local practices, allowing the technol-ogy to be adapted appropriately to the culture of the host country. Therefore, in develop-ing countries it is extremely important to begin with a strategic ergonomics perspective. The first step in the process of selecting the most appropriate technology for a plant is to specify what the ergonomics goals are for the facility. Analysis of successful and unsuc-cessful technology transfer experiences demonstrates that management understanding of and commitment to ergonomics efforts is essential to make this approach work. Espe-cially, the level of management involvement in the technology transfer effort must go well beyond simply a technical understanding of the methods requiring also “buying into” the philosophy and accepting that the roles of managers in the firm will fundamentally change. Unless a manager has been involved with such efforts previously or receives intensive ergonomics training, it is unlikely that he or she will be able to implement the technology transfer decision-making techniques successfully. The searching of “ideal pro-files,” in the sense that these technology investments exhibit a high degree of integration with the existing process environment in an ergonomics context needs a holistic concept

(4)

in decision making. Therefore, incorporating ergonomics considerations in strategic technology decisions requires a balanced assessment between micro- and macroergonom-ics factors. These two dimensions are viewed as axes on a matrix that allows the two criteria to be integrated into a joint decision of the appropriate technology strategy choice for the plant. It is suggested that only through thorough proactive and systematic micro-and macroergonomic studies, i.e., analysis of human–organization–technology interfaces and culture–management–technology interactions in addition to sound economic and culture–management–technology interactions, can provision be made for effective alter-natives to ensure the appropriate technology transfer, and its safe, efficient utilization by receiving countries (Meshkati, 1989). Based upon Meshkati’s (1989) studies, it could be concluded that the appropriate technology is a comprehensive, relative, multifaceted, multi-dimensional, dynamic, scale-free, and evolving concept. Thus, selection and application of appropriate technology should imply the use of both large-scale/capital-intensive and small-scale/labor-intensive technological choices. Managers face considerable difficulty in making correct decisions due to the existence of several choices in terms of technol-ogies, and the importance of soft technological factors, which often prove to be the ulti-mate determinants of success in such situations.

The research presented in this article aims to support the decision process of appro-priate technology transfer by developing a broader understanding of relationships between the key micro- and macroergonomics factors and the technology alternatives. The meth-odology involves knowledge acquisition, identifying and categorizing a holistic set of key criteria about technology transfer with respect to ergonomics. The decision process and in this manner, the management of technology transfer in firms is linked to other factors. The interlinking of these other factors is what brings firms competitive advan-tage. This study proposes a model to understand the links between ergonomics and appro-priate technology transfer. Understanding these links may create competitive advantages for firms that have synchronized the activities involved in these linkages. Appropriate technology transfer decisions in this respect require a special type of knowledge and exper-tise. Therefore, business professionals seek to manage the process of making technology transfer decisions more effectively. The process itself may be a multiple criteria matching process with input from managers. We view the decisions concerning the appropriate technology transfer for a manufacturing facility as a multicriteria, stepwise process involv-ing several levels of decisions. A review of the literature was undertaken to obtain infor-mation on possible techniques that could be used in this situation. We then proposed a multicriteria model, based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for the matching pro-cess. The model is explained using an illustration, describing in detail the processes of elicitation of the opinions of managers and aggregation of the opinions of several man-agers. This model is seen as universal and can be applied in the selection of an appropri-ate technology under ergonomics consideration in any country, but becomes particularly useful in the context of developing countries where the simple transfer of an existing technology from another plant may not be appropriate.

1.2. The Research Objective

In this work we attempt briefly to identify factors affecting the success of technology transfer to reduce the potential of incompatibilities with respect to micro- and macro-ergonomics and to optimize the decision process of managers in DCs.

(5)

2. A REVIEW OF THE BASIC MICRO- AND MACROERGONOMICS CONSIDERATIONS IN TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER DECISIONS FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Ergonomics has been inextricably linked to the process of industrialization of developed countries (Gurr, Straker, & Moore, 1998).

The transfer of technologies, equipment and even production lines raises many ergonomics issues which, unfortunately, are often overlooked. This would not occur if ergonomics were part of the technology transfer package. These technological packages must be checked not only for their phys-ical suitability (anthropometrics, biomechanics) but also for their conceptual and cognitive attributes, particularly regarding population stereotypes. Many of these are evident from knowledge of the culture and do not necessarily need experimentation. Care must be taken to accommodate other cultural or religious factors which may be of no significance in Industrially Advanced Countries, or the country from which the technology originates (O’Neill, 2000, p. 634).

Technology transfer, without incorporation of the necessary ergonomic considerations, is doomed to failure (Meshkati & Robertson, 1986). Ergonomists have assisted in this process by being actively involved as advisers on the importation of work designs and practices, and by supplying a body of knowledge on the “ergonomically correct” ways of doing things. Transferring appropriate technology under considerations of ergonomics from Western industrialized countries to industrially developing countries has a number of potential benefits including (Gurr et al., 1998):

• Facilitating a more rapid catch-up in quality of life in industrially developing countries • Reducing the waste of scarce resources in wrong (inappropriate) technology

investments

Most of the studies of appropriate technology indirectly and implicitly recognize the immense importance of ergonomics considerations in determining the appropriateness of any transferred technology; they stop short of providing a systematic approach to the proactive incorporation of micro- and macroergonomically based considerations into the study of appropriateness of the respected technology (Meshkati, 1989). The model for selection of appropriate technology presented in this article is a sociotechnical systems approach in that it stresses human factors as the critical element in adapting a technical system to the social system. In attempting technological change and improvement through technology transfer, it is essential to view a firm as a sociotechnical system. Sociotech-nical systems theory argues that the techSociotech-nical and social systems must be developed jointly for a production system to be appropriate to its environment (Hendrick, 1997; Linstone, 1999; Trist 1981). The goal of this integration is to maximize the acceptance and effective use of the transferred technology within organizations and to minimize the potentially negative impacts. The use of sociotechnical systems models and their application in the diagnosis of any complex human–machine–environment to evaluate and optimally design its organization and work-system structure provides good possibilities (Hendrick, 1995). The result may be a greater likelihood of optimal system functioning and effectiveness, including productivity, safety, comfort, intrinsic employee motivation, and the quality of working life. A lack of compatibility may have a direct adverse impact not only on system productivity and efficiency, but also on employee motivation, commitment, and intrinsic job satisfaction (Ingelgaêrd & Norrgren, 2001). It is argued that this approach would

(6)

ensure an optimal ergonomic compatibility, integrity, and synchronization between the new technology and the system components.

Human factors (ergonomics), due to its multidisciplinary nature, is capable of system-atically identifying and addressing most of the critical factors determining the appropri-ateness of a technology for a developing country (Meshkati, 1989). In analyzing the major human factors considerations in technology transfer, Meshkati (1986a, 1986b) identified four major areas of analysis based on the micro- and macroergonomic considerations. The first two are microergonomics-based and the second two are of macroergonomic nature. Microergonomics consideration focuses on the application and adherence to the findings and principles developed by what is called the first and second generations of human–machine technology (Hendrick, 1987; Meshkati, 1989). The first two microergo-nomically based criteria are (Meshkati 1989):

1. The ergonomics of the currently used industry-related infrastructural factors of devel-oping countries, including special physical and environmental variables, anthropo-metric considerations, physical and psychological characteristics of the labor force and idiosyncratic human–machine and human–workstation relationships

2. The need to adjust the transferred technology based on the user’s country’s envi-ronmental, social, and educational characteristics

By comparison, macroergonomics is concerned with the impact of technological sub-systems on organizational and personnel subsub-systems with respect to their thorough imple-mentation. Macroergonomics has come to focus on the design of organizational and work system structures and related jobs and human–machine, human–environment, and user– system interfaces of new technique to the interaction between organizational factors and the technology used in the organization (Hendrick, 1994, 1995). Macroergonomics empha-sizes the interactions between, on the one hand, the organizational and psychosocial con-texts of a system and, on the other, the design, implementation, and use of technology within that system (Hendrick, 1994, 1995). The sociotechnical design of the work orga-nization and macroergonomics are closely linked (Ingelgaêrd & Norrgren, 2001). The second two macroergonomically based criteria are concerned with the interaction of human, organizational, and technological variables. Two primary macroergonomic consider-ations of technology transfer are as follows (Meshkati, 1989):

1. The effects of cultural variables on technology transfer include some of culturally based behavior in dealing with transferred technology:

• Attitude towards work • Attitude towards technology

• Attitude towards organization and working habits • Group dynamics

• Cognitive complexity • Cognitive and decision styles

• Achievement motivation and orientation • Career concept

2. Managerial and organizational methods transfer from industrial advanced countries into developing countries. This criteria underlines the important role of the mana-gerial and organizational factors in the success of any technology transfer project and consists of

(7)

• Factors determining managerial effectiveness • Organizational and managerial environment

A thorough and successful technology transfer decision should consider all of the above factors (criteria) and develop a systematic approach for evaluating available technology alternatives according to those criteria. It is argued that the presented model in this article based on Meshkati’s (1989) considerations discussed above would ensure an optimal ergo-nomic compatibility of the system components with the system’s overall structure. 2.1. Limitations of Managers

The transfer of technology from its source to commercial applications is a very complex process. When assessing the firms’ technological needs, managers have to consider the firms’ technological resource skills and firm competencies required for the management and implementation of appropriate technology. They must act to leverage all the resources that they manage. This is a multicriteria decision-making problem in ill-structured situ-ations. Unfortunately, managers do not necessarily possess all the required skills to adopt a portfolio of technologies. Especially the limited effectiveness of traditional decision methods restricts the ability of managers to navigate technology transfers effectively and accurately. The following paragraphs discuss some of the major limitations of managers and problems about traditional decision-making methods.

The limitation faced by technology managers revealed some issues suggesting that the success of implementing a business technology strategy in developing countries is greatly influenced by two types of awareness that need to be developed: (a) manager awareness, and (b) interrelated technology awareness.

The first awareness is necessary to manage the existence of managers as multiplayers because their existence is inevitable, especially for a complex system. Managers should be acknowledged along with their possible mission and interests. It should also be rec-ognized that for a complex system where humans have a great influence, technical per-spectives alone would have serious limitations. It should be complemented by organizational and personal perspectives to obtain a more comprehensive sight, more particularly in technology-related decision making (Linstone, 1999; Linstone & Mitroff, 1994). This has translated into a critical need for people who are trained in managing different types of technological assets in varied micro- and macroergonomics contexts. Despite such a demand, ergonomics-trained technology managers continue to be a scarce resource. The second awareness is needed to ensure that the resulting technology or product will be used with adequate support. Comprehension of the whole system where the technology is used is indispensable though not necessary to master all of the technologies involved. This issue is closely related to the ability of developing countries in preparing a workable master plan of a complex system. These two sorts of awareness require more discussion among all the other players of managers concerned. This accumulation of collective expe-rience is actually vital to achieve higher efficiency in the future technology transfer process. Another important limitation is related to decision-making methods. When managers make decisions in a rational manner, the inability to comprehend all the complex inter-relationships in a firm’s competitive environment may lead to “bounded rational” deci-sion making (Simon, 1976) and to problematic search (Cyert & March, 1963) for solutions among a limited set of perceived alternatives. The progress in traditional decision making is slow because the process lacks a feedback mechanism and an error can be accumulated

(8)

without being detected or corrected. The chance of mistakes in merging with other factors is large and the likelihood of blind technology transfer is significant. At some points, decision mistakes are almost inevitable; repeating the same mistakes should be avoided. As a result, managers’ decision processes are negatively affected by the limited effective-ness of the traditional decision methods and more systematic decision-making mecha-nisms need to be established. An alternative decision-making method is therefore needed and must be considered. The decision model developed in this study is specific to the micro- and macroergonomic view of technology transfer in DC’s. In its general form, the model provides a useful conceptual framework for evaluating alternative technologies with respect to human factors.

3. METHODS OF STUDY

3.1. Background and Context

To develop the sample, we worked closely with one of the largest international compa-nies in Istanbul, Turkey. Its products cover the full range of kitchen and home appliances. The planning phase began with a visit to the corresponding managers with an examina-tion of the plans of technology transfer to assess the incompatibilities with respect to micro- and macroergonomics. Based on the results of extensive review, the research team developed a list of managers for the AHP process. The team approached these managers and asked them to complete screening interviews prior to the “brainwriting” meetings.

Brainwriting is a modification of brainstorming based on written communication. The

initial sampling pool included division managers and was well targeted toward our objec-tives, but limited in size. The research team organized a meeting in the workplace with the expert team composed of five division managers. The initial problem was to identify the major criteria to be considered with respect to ergonomics consideration for an appro-priate technology transferring decision based on Meshkati’s (1989) study. In other words, the managers were asked to solve a multicriteria decision problem in technology transfer, which involved selecting the most suitable technology among a number of choices to achieve appropriate technology transfer with respect to human factors. To be able to real-ize strategic key criteria as our study aimed, importance must be attached to the structure and guidance of the decision processes. It appears that the methodology of AHP improved the group of managers’ decision-making ability and increased the managers’ level of sat-isfaction with the process.

3.2. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: A View in Light of Decision Theory In an effort to select the most suitable technology transfer with respect to ergonomics the research team decided to undertake a review of the literature to obtain information on possible techniques that could be used in this situation. The analytic hierarchy process (Saaty, 1980) was selected as the appropriate technique. The AHP (Saaty, 1980) is one of the most popular and widely employed decision tools (Golden, Wasil, & Levy, 1989; Vargas, 1990). The AHP is aimed at facilitating decision making in problems that involve multiple criteria; it is a multicriteria decision-making approach providing an overall view of complex problems. The AHP combines subjective and objective alternatives into a single measure in a hierarchical or network framework. The technique is employed for ranking a set of alternatives or for the selection of the best in a set of alternatives. The

(9)

ranking/selection is done with respect to an overall goal, which is broken down into a set of criteria. The application of AHP has gained support in the last few years and promises to yield a significant improvement in technology management. Its popularity stems from its simplicity, flexibility, intuitive appeal, and its ability to mix quantitative and qualita-tive criteria in the same decision framework. Because several shortcomings have been observed in the methodology of AHP (Belton & Gear, 1983; Lootsma, 1993; Ramanathan & Ganesh, 1994), several modifications have been carried out to the original methodol-ogy proposed in Saaty (1980). However, it has to be noted that, despite the criticisms, the original AHP continues to find many applications in the literature, and hence can also be used for the present purpose. The AHP, in this sense, was considered to be a heuristic tool for decision-making, which provides a structured and relatively easy-to-use tool for the decision maker. The assessment is based on a ratio scale and pairwise comparisons pro-vided by the decision maker(s) through verbal, numerical, or graphical means. The AHP method requires four major steps: (a) structuring the hierarchy, (b) collecting input data by pairwise comparisons, (c) using the eigenvalue method to yield priorities, and (d) synthesizing the priorities into composite measures to arrive at a set of ratings for the decision alternatives.

3.2.1. Structuring the hierarchy. The decision model developed in this section is

specified in the context of Mehskati’s study (1989) concerning a micro- and macroergo-nomic view of technology transfer in DC’s. The first step of the AHP consists of devel-oping a hierarchical structure of the assessment problem. A top-down approach is employed in placing macro-level criteria on the principal level. Then attributes of each principle-level criterion are developed on the secondary principle-level. Every secondary-principle-level criterion is described using specific criteria, which contribute to the quality of the decision on the next level. The process of breaking down the levels continues until a bottom-level crite-rion is reached. The expert on ergonomics in the research team identified two general criteria for the evaluation of technology-transfer decisions. According to the expert opinion, the selection of an appropriate technology can be obtained by concentrating on micro- and macroergonomics criteria, which is similar to Meshkati’s (1989) findings. A consultant considered an ergonomics expert in technology management carried out an evaluation of the microergonomics criterion. The consultant evaluated the inherent char-acteristics of the units under consideration and generated a second-level hierarchy for the microergonomics criterion pertaining to general characteristics of the units’ data, includ-ing special physical and environmental variables, anthropometric considerations, physi-cal and psychologiphysi-cal characteristics of the labor force, and idiosyncratic human– machine and human–workstation relationships. This information was gathered from the expert’s knowledge, usage of technical reports, and user evaluations. Another set of cri-teria was developed according to the adjustment of the transferred technology based on the user’s country’s environmental, social, and educational characteristics and require-ments. The second-level hierarchy for the macroergonomics criterion included specific parameters that are concerned with the interaction of human, organizational, and techno-logical variables. Once the primary and secondary levels were established, the process continued with an effort to break down the definitions to micro-level criteria. It is impor-tant to note that the multistep process of setting the different level criteria was not itera-tive. Once a group was assigned to develop criteria at any level, the members’ work was not interrupted and they could focus on their tasks and generate the criteria for the process.

(10)

The procedure also employed different experts for every criterion level because these levels forced different focus on different aspects of the problem under consideration.

All information, analyses, and opinions were shared and documented. The expert team assimilated this information and built up the hierarchical structure of the AHP matrices. For the purpose of illustration, we have limited the hierarchy to only five levels. The richness of the hierarchy can be extended as necessary by adding more levels and more elements within each level. To determine the most suitable (appropri-ate) technology alternative, a five-level hierarchical model was devised (see Figure 1; the abbreviations in parentheses in this section are used in the figure). The first level or objective (the goal) is referred to here as the appropriate technology transfer (ATT). The objective of appropriate technology transfer which is positioned in the first level of the hierarchy is divided into two main criteria at the second level, which are called microergonomics (Micerg) and macroergonomics (Macerg) considerations. The first two microergonomically based subcriteria that comprise the third level of the hierarchy are as follows (Meshkati, 1989):

Figure 1 Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model for technology transfer problem. Infstrac-ture⫽ the ergonomics of the currently used industry-related infrastructural factors of developing countries; Adjust⫽ adjusting the transferred technology based on the user’s country’s environmen-tal, social, and educational characteristics; decision⫽ cognitive and decision styles; complexity ⫽ cognitive complexity; motivation⫽ achievement motivation and orientation; attitude2 ⫽ attitude towards technology; career⫽ career concept; attitude1 ⫽ attitude towards work; group ⫽ group dynamics; attitude3⫽ attitude towards organization and working habits; maneff ⫽ factors deter-mining managerial effectiveness; environment⫽ organizational and managerial environment; T1 ⫽ large-scale/capital intensive technology; T2⫽ small-scale/labor-intensive intensive technology.

(11)

• First, ergonomics of the currently used industry-related infrastructural factors of devel-oping countries (Infstracture)

• Second, adjusting the transferred technology based on the user’s country’s environ-mental, social and educational characteristics (Adjust)

The two macroergonomically based subcriteria positioned in the second level of hier-archy are divided into two main criteria at the third level, as follows (Meshkati 1989):

• The effects of cultural variables (Cultural) on technology transfer with the following reported sub-subcriteria of fourth level:

• Attitude towards work (attitude 1) • Attitude towards technology (attitude 2)

• Attitude towards organization and working habits (attitude 3) • Group dynamics (group)

• Cognitive complexity (complexity) • Cognitive and decision styles (decision)

• Achievement motivation and orientation (motivatio) • Career concept (career)

• Managerial and organizational methods transfer from industrial advanced countries into developing countries (Organizational) with the following reported sub-subcriteria of the fourth level:

• Factors determining managerial effectiveness (maneff ) • Organizational and managerial environment (environment)

Finally, the fifth and the last level of the hierarchy consists of two technology alterna-tives that the managers want to compare and evaluate with respect to the objective; large-scale /capital-intensive technology ( T1) and small-large-scale/ labor-intensive intensive technology (T2). Figure 1 presents the AHP levels developed for this problem.

At this stage, the managers were then asked to score these items compared with each other with respect to the goal. Prior to the scoring, an explanation of each factor was given to managers to ensure a consistent interpretation of all items. The scoring was on a 9-point Likert scale of 1 (not important) to 9 (most important). To ensure that good deci-sions are made most of the time and to de-politicize the process, open decision-making should be employed. Everyone involved agrees on the criteria that will be applied. The whole process, from building the hierarchy to conducting the pairwise comparison of the systems, was supported by the Expert Choice software package (Expert Choice for Win-dows Commercial Version 9.047V07D3 [1994]). The software assisted in generating the pairwise comparisons by generating the specific questions and the analysis of inputs. It is important to note that the experts focused on a narrowly defined aspect of the decision-making process and were asked to generate responses that related to their human factors-specific knowledge. Everyone involved agreed on the criteria that would be applied. All information, analyses, and opinions were shared and documented.

3.2.2. Assigning relative importance. After building the AHP hierarchy, the next

phase is the measurement and data collection, which involves forming a team of evalu-ators and assigning pairwise comparisons to the consideration issues, criteria and subcri-teria used in the AHP hierarchy. Before making a decision a careful analysis among crisubcri-teria, alternatives, weight, and decision makers should be done (Chang & Chen, 1994). The

(12)

9-point scales as suggested by Saaty (Saaty & Vargas, 1982) are used to assign pairwise comparisons of all elements in each level of the hierarchy. Each element in a level is compared pairwise with other elements at the same level, with respect to a criterion ele-ment at a higher level. By this evaluation procedure, every eleele-ment receives a normalized priority ranking relative to other associated elements at the same level. The priority val-ues of elements in each matrix are shown in Table 1.

3.2.3. Resolving inconsistencies. The consistency ratio (CR) of each pairwise

com-parison matrices is also shown for each matrix. It can be seen that the consistency ratio of each matrix isⱕ 0.05, which is well below the rule value of CR equal to 0.1. This clearly implies that the evaluators are consistent in assigning pairwise comparison judgments.

TABLE 1. Pairwise Comparison Judgment Matrices of Technology Transfer Problem

Goal Microergonomic consideration Macroergonomic consideration Priority

Micerg 1 .211

Macerg 3.7 1 .789

CR⫽0.0

Micerg Infrastructure Adjustment Priority

Infrastructure 1 .429

Adjustment 1.3 1 .521

CR⫽0.0

Macerg Cultural Organizational Priority

Cultural 1 .280

Organizational 2.6 1 .720

CR⫽0.0 Cultural Decision Complexity Motivatio Attitude1 Career Attitude2 Group Attitude3 Priority

Decision 1 .026 Complexity 2.0 1 .032 Motivation 3.0 3.0 1 .062 Attitude1 4.2 4.9 2.0 1 2.0 .101 Career 5.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 1 .119 Attitude2 3.0 2.7 1.0 1.2 1 .084 Group 6.5 7.0 9.0 4.5 5.0 3.0 1 .332 Attitude3 7.0 5.0 3.0 3.9 3.2 2.3 1.0 1 .243 CR⫽0.05 Organizational Managerial effectiveness Managerial environment Priority

Maneff 1 5.1 .835

Environment 1 .165

CR⫽0.0 Note. Infstracture⫽ the ergonomics of the currently used industry-related infrastructural factors of developing countries; Adjust ⫽

adjusting the transferred technology based on the user’s country’s environmental, social, and educational characteristics; deci-sion⫽ cognitive and decision styles; complexity ⫽ cognitive complexity; motivation ⫽ achievement motivation and orienta-tion; attitude2⫽ attitude towards technology; career ⫽ career concept; attitude1 ⫽ attitude towards work; group ⫽ group dynamics; attitude3⫽ attitude towards organization and working habits; maneff ⫽ factors determining managerial effectiveness; environ-ment⫽ organizational and managerial environment; T1 ⫽ large-scale/capital intensive technology; T2 ⫽ small-scale/labor-intensive small-scale/labor-intensive technology.

(13)

These measures and findings will not be discussed in this scope (inconsistencies and sug-gested resolutions for such problems are discussed in detail by Belton & Gear, 1983; Dyer, 1990; Holder, 1990; Lane & Verdini, 1989; Saaty, 1980).

3.2.4. Establishing weighted priorities and weights. After computing the

nor-malized priority weights for each pairwise comparison judgment matrices of the AHP hierarchy, the next phase is to synthesize the solution for the technology transfer prob-lem. The normalized local priority weights of consideration factors, criteria, and subcri-teria from the third phase are combined to obtain the global composite priority weights of all subcriteria as shown in Table 2.

After calculating the global weights of each subcriterion of level 4 of the AHP model, they are rearranged in descending order of priority, as shown in Table 3. It can be seen that the macroergonomic and microergonomic consideration factors are at the top of the list. The five top ranks are the managerial effectiveness, adjustment, managerial environ-ment, and infrastructure and group criteria.

Analysis of the technology preference matrix (Table 4) showed that the technology 1(capital intensive) significantly outperformed the other technology on the important criteria

TABLE 2. Composite Priority Weights for Subcriteria

Consideration issues Local weights Criteria Local weights Global weights Consideration factors (subcriteria) Local weights Global weights Micerg .789 Infstrac .429 .090 .090 Adjust .571 .120 .120 Macerg .211 Cultural .280 .221 Decision .026 .006 Complex .032 .007 Motivatio .062 .014 Attitude1 .101 .022 Career .119 .026 Attitude2 .084 .019 Group .332 .073 Attitude3 .243 .054 Organiz .720 .568 Maneff .835 .475 Environment .165 .094 Total 1.000

Note. Infstracture⫽ the ergonomics of the currently used industry-related infrastructural factors of developing countries; Adjust⫽ adjusting the transferred technology based on the user’s country’s environmental, social, and educational characteristics; decision⫽ cognitive and decision styles; complexity ⫽ cognitive complexity; motivation⫽ achievement motivation and orientation; attitude2 ⫽ attitude towards technology; career ⫽ career concept; attitude1⫽ attitude towards work; group ⫽ group dynamics; attitude3 ⫽ attitude towards organization and working habits; maneff⫽ factors determining managerial effectiveness; environment ⫽ organizational and managerial environment; T1⫽ large-scale/capital intensive technology; T2 ⫽ small-scale/labor-intensive inten-sive technology.

(14)

TABLE 3. Ranking of Consideration Factors (Subcriteria)

Rank Consideration factors (subcriteria) Global weights

1 Managerial effectiveness .475 2 Adjustment .120 3 Managerial environment .094 4 Infrastructure .090 5 Group .073 6 Attitude3 .054 7 Career .026 8 Attitude1 .022 9 Attitude2 .019 10 Motivatio .014 11 Complex .007 12 Decision .006

TABLE 4. Technology Preference Matrix

Criterion T1 (Capital intensive) T2 (Labor intensive)

Infrastructure .547 .453 Adjustment .567 .433 Decision .563 .437 Complexity .871 .129 Motivation .563 .437 Attitude1 .538 .462 Career .760 .240 Attitude2 .760 .240 Group .760 .240 Attitude3 .608 .392 Managerial effectiviness .636 .364 Managerial environment .674 .326

Note. Infstracture⫽ the ergonomics of the currently used industry-related infrastructural factors of developing countries; Adjust⫽ adjusting the transferred technology based on the user’s country’s environmental, social, and educational characteristics; decision⫽ cognitive and decision styles; complexity ⫽ cognitive complexity; motivation⫽ achievement motivation and orientation; attitude2 ⫽ attitude towards technology; career ⫽ career concept; attitude1⫽ attitude towards work; group ⫽ group dynamics; attitude3 ⫽ attitude towards organization and working habits; maneff⫽ factors determining managerial effectiveness; environment ⫽ organizational and managerial environment; T1⫽ large-scale/capital intensive technology; T2 ⫽ small-scale/labor-intensive inten-sive technology.

(15)

of managerial effectiveness. In fact, for each of the 12 subcriteria, technology 1 outper-formed the other alternative. The global priority weights are determined for all 12 sub-criteria factors as shown in the last column of Table 2. We can find the global priority weights of each technology by multiplying the global priority weight of each subcriterion with its local weight, and adding the resulting values.

Based on the global priority weights of the two alternatives shown in Table 5, we found that the large-scale/capital intensive technology (T1) had the highest weight. There-fore, the T1-large-scale/capital intensive technology alternative must be selected as the best alternative to satisfy the goal of an appropriate technology transfer problem of the company with respect to micro- and macroergonomics.

4. CONCLUSION

Industrial technology transfer constitutes one of the most important tools in achieving the goal of economic development for developing countries (Meshkati, 1989). If properly

TABLE 5. Results Consideration issues Alternative 1 T1 (Capital intensive) Alternative 2 T2 (Labor intensive) Consideration factors (subscriteria)

Global weights (GW) LW x GW LW x GW Micerg Infstrac .090 .547 .049 .453 .041 Adjust .120 .567 .068 .433 .052 Macerg Cultural Decision .006 .563 .003 .437 .003 Complex .007 .871 ⬍.001 .129 .006 Motivatio .014 .563 .006 .437 .008 Attitude1 .022 .538 .012 .462 .010 Career .026 .760 .020 .240 .006 Attitude2 .019 .760 .014 .240 .004 Group .073 .760 .018 .240 .056 Attitude3 .054 .608 .033 .392 .021 Organiz Maneff .475 .636 .302 .364 .173 Environment .094 .674 .063 .326 .030 Total scores .588 .412

(16)

channeled through human factors activities, the constraints and the goal of our suggested model will likely lead to rapid improvements in the competitiveness of industrially devel-oping countries. Here we discussed the complex, multicriteria nature of the process of linking available technologies from the industrialized countries to the companies of indus-trially developing countries under micro- and macroergonomics conditions for successful technology transfer. We have suggested a multicriteria methodology, the AHP, be used as a tool in bringing together the opinions of different managers to solve the problem of appropriate technology transfer. As demonstrated, the proposed methodology can be eas-ily applied in practice and provide support and help in dealing with the human factors problems of integration of the transferred technology in a systematic and structured way. A sociotechnical systems approach is recommended to facilitate the integration of the transferred technologies to local conditions and available work structures to maximize the acceptance and effectiveness of technology within organizations and to minimize the potential negative impacts. If the goal is appropriate technology transfer, the model sug-gests the ergonomics choices that must be made.

This study has clear implications for managers who seek to intend to use technology transfer as a mechanism for economic and technological development. They should take into account the broader prerequisites and be aware of the potential pitfalls of the incom-patibilities related to ergonomics. The primary lesson for a destination company in an industrially developing country that desires to build its technological capabilities is that investing and focusing solely on the transferred technology results in a disruptive tech-nological and organizational change. The managers should be careful to select technolo-gies that not only involve production technolotechnolo-gies but also knowledge and skills that allow them to upgrade these production technologies. Guided by ergonomics consider-ations, technology transfer can help to upgrade gradually certain technological capabili-ties of industrially developing countries. In these circumstances, inappropriate technology transfer can be a drain on a company’s financial and human resources for which alterna-tive employment may be more appropriate from a development standpoint. Integrating ergonomics and technology strategies in this respect has been shown to be useful. The study also points out the strengths as well as the potential deficiencies of technology transfer with respect to human factors considerations. When the technology transfer deci-sion is positioned strategically as the gateway for future applications with respect to human factors, it can lead to a sustainable competitive advantage. This research illustrated how AHP can achieve impressive results in strategic decision making about successful tech-nology transfer under human factors considerations for developing countries such as Tur-key. The use of the AHP model for appropriate technology selection presents the ability to translate a variety of human factors requirements for an effective technology transfer and implementation. Employing a purely economic perspective for this decision could have simplified the analysis considerably because most of the variables could have been easily quantified. However, this emphasis can yield the wrong decision, providing a system that will be efficient but not effective. Saaty (Saaty, 1980, 1990a, Saaty, 1990b) recognizes this issue and suggests that the modeling of complex human problems into purely quan-titative terms limits the effectiveness of decisions. Decision-making models should not leave out significant factors due to their quest for simplicity. The AHP method provides an opportunity to include and measure qualitative decision factors.

In this article we have described Turkish managers’ current perceptions of managing technology transfer with respect of ergonomics, and what they imagine for the future. Blind technology transfer results in economic inefficiency. It also increases the risk of

(17)

incompatibility, which may have a direct adverse impact not only on system productivity and efficiency, but also on employee motivation, commitment, and job satisfaction. Some international organizations and governmental institutions in Turkey have started to recon-sider their positions and take issue with the blind or limited assessment by their financial approach to their technology transfer process. The model presented here would ensure an optimal ergonomic compatibility of the system components with the system’s overall struc-ture. For the foreseeable future, Turkey will import technology with limited local tech-nical and operational input. This is to be expected in a developing country where research and innovation initiatives are limited, and whose economy is still greatly dependent on technical expertise from abroad. This study can also help point out the strengths as well as the potential deficiencies of technology transfer related to human factors consider-ations. One of the deficiencies is that the role of technology in strategic decisions is still ill-defined in Turkey, but global forces are likely to pressure managers to introduce new technologies wherever possible. As illustrated in the case study, the factors presented herein are guides, and it is not necessary for an organization to include all of them. The model provides a holistic analysis of the risk factors that are expected to contribute to the inappropriateness of technology transfer. In its general form, the model provides a useful conceptual framework for evaluating alternative technologies and identifying incompat-ibility problems with respect to human factors; it can be extended to improving the deci-sion process of managers and reducing the incompatibility of transferred technologies. The appropriateness of technology transfer in this context can be described as a key pri-ority, a basic prerequisite for the achievement of competitive advantage.

Without a proactive and systematic micro- and macroergonomic analysis, organiza-tions are unable to profit from and to sustain the competitive advantage that their tech-nological transfer provides them with. We trust that through our study academicians and practitioners will learn the importance of managing technology transfer, obtain ideas about the analysis of micro and macroergonomic issues, and the direction the field is taking.

REFERENCES

Al-Ghailani, H.H., & Moor, W.C. (1995). Technology transfer to developing countries. Inter-national Journal of Technology Management, 7/8, 687–703.

Armistead, C., Harrison, A., & Rowlands, P. (1995). Business process engineering: Lessons from operations management. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 15(12), 59–75.

Barbosa, F., & Vaidya, K., (1997). Developing technological capabilities in an industrializing coun-try: The cases of two Brazilian steel companies. Technology Management: Strategies and Appli-cations, 3, 287–298.

Belton, V., & Gear, T. (1983). On a shortcoming of Saaty’s method of analytical hierarchies. Omega, 11(3), 228–230.

Bennett, D., Vaidya, K., & Zhao, H. (1999). Valuing transferred machine tool technology relating value to product attributes and preferences of acquirers. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 19(5), 491–514.

Chang, P.L., & Chen, Y.C. (1994). A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making method for technology transfer strategy selection in biotechnology. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 63, 131–139.

Cyert, R.M. & March, J.G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Denver Research Institute. (1983). International transfer and acquisition of technology. Final Report prepared for the Agency for International Development (AID). Denver, CO: Author.

Dixon, J., Arnold, P., Heineke, J., Kim, J.S., & Mulligan, P. (1994). Business process reengineering: Improving in new strategic directions. California Management Review, 36(4), 93–108.

(18)

Dyer, J.S. (1990). Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 36, 249–258. Eldred, E.W., & McGrath, M.E. (1997). Commercializing new technology II. Research Technology

Management, 40(2), 29–34.

Golden, B.L., Wasil, E.A., & Levy, D.E. (1989). Applications of the analytic hierarchy process: A categorized, annotated bibliography. In B.L. Golden, E.A. Wasil, & P.T. Harker (Eds.), The analytic hierarchy process: Applications and studies (pp. 37–58). Berlin: Springer.

Grant, E. (1996, June). Adapting manufacturing systems for international transfer. Paper presented at the International Conference of the European Operations Management Association, London, UK. Gupta, A., Chen, I.J., & Chiang, D. (1997). Determining organizational structure choices in advanced

manufacturing technology management. Omega, 25(5), 511–521.

Gurr, K., Straker, L., & Moore, P. (1998). Cultural hazards in the transfer of ergonomics technology International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 22, 397– 404.

Hackman, J.R., & Wageman, R. (1995). Total quality management: Empirical, conceptual and prac-tical issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 309–342.

Hendrick, H.W. (1987). Macroergonomics: A concept whose time has come. Bulletin of the Human Factors Society, 30(2), 1–2.

Hendrick, H.W. (1994). Macroergonomics as a preventative strategy in occupational health: An organizational level approach. In G.E. Bradley & H.W. Hendrick (Eds.), Human factors in orga-nizational design and management-IV (pp. 713–718). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Hendrick, H.W. (1995). Future directions in macro-ergonomics. Ergonomics, 38, 1617–1624. Hendrick, H.W. (1997). Organizational design and macroergonomics. In G. Salvendy (Ed.),

Hand-book of human factors and ergonomics (2nd ed., pp. 594– 636). New York: Wiley.

Hipkin, I., & Bennett, D. (2003). Managerial perceptions of factors influencing technology man-agement in South Africa. Technovation, 23, 719–735.

Holder, R.D. (1990). Some comments on the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 41, 1073–1076.

Husain, Z., & Sushil, (1997). Management of technology: Learning issues for seven Indian com-panies. Technology Management: Strategy & Applications, 3, 109–135.

Ingelgaêrd, A., & Norrgren, F. (2001). Effects of change strategy and top-management involvement on quality of working life and economic results International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 27, 93–105.

Jegathesan, J., Gunasekaran, A., & Muthaly, S. (1997). Technology development and transfer: Experiences from Malaysia. International Journal of Technology Management, 13 (2), 196–214.

Jelinek, M. (1996). ‘Thinking technology’ in mature industry firms: Understanding technology entre-preneurship. International Journal Technology Management, 11(7–8), 799–813.

Kim, L. (1998). Technology policies and strategies for developing countries: Lessons from the Korean experience. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 10(3), 311–323. Lane, E.F., & Verdini, W.A. (1989). A consistency tests for AHP decision makers. Decision

Sci-ences, 20, 575–590.

Leonard-Barton, D., & Deschamps, I. (1988). Managerial influence in the implementation of new technology. Management Science, 34(11), 1252–1265.

Linstone, H.A., & Mitroff, I.I. (1994). The challenge of the 21st century: Managing technology and ourselves in a shrinking world. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Linstone, H.A. (1999). Decision making for technology executives: Using multiple perspectives to improved performance. Boston, MA: Artech House.

Lootsma, F.A. (1993). Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 2, 87–110.

Madu, C.N. (1992). Strategic planning in technology transfer to less developed countries. New York: Quorum Books.

Martinsons, M.G., & Schindler, F.R. (1995). Organizational visions for technology assimilation: The strategic roads to knowledge based systems success. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42(1), 9–18.

Mefford, R.N., & Bruun, P. (1998). Transferring world class production to developing countries: A strategic model. International Journal of Production Economies, (56/57), 433– 450.

(19)

Meshkati, N. (1986a). Major human factors considerations in technology transfer to the industrially developing countries: An analysis and proposed model. In O. Brown & H.W. Hendrick (Eds.), Human factors in organizational design and management II (pp. 350–361). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Meshkati, N. (1986b). Human factors of technology transfer: Resurgent interest in an emerging

field. Bulletin of the Human Factors Society, 29(12), 1–2.

Meshkati, N. (1989). Technology transfer to developing countries: A tripartite micro- and macro-ergonomic analysis of human-organization-technology interfaces. International Journal of Indus-trial Ergonomics, 4, 101–115.

Meshkati, N., & Robertson, M.M. (1986). The effects of human factors on the success of tech-nology transfer projects to industrially developing countries: A review of representative case studies. In O. Brown & H.W. Hendrick (Eds.), Human factors in organizational design and management II (pp. 343–350). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

O’Neill, D.H. (2000). Ergonomics in industrially developing countries: Does its application differ from that in industrially advanced countries? Applied Ergonomics, 31, 631– 640.

Plenert, G. (1994, March). Technology transfer—A developing country perspective. Paper pre-sented at the Fourth International Conference on Management of Technology, Miami, FL. Porter, M.E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.

Porter, M.E. (1998). On competition. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Ramanathan, R., & Ganesh, L.S. (1994). Group preference aggregation methods employed in the AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members’ weightings. European Jour-nal of OperatioJour-nal Research, 79, 249–265.

Ramanathan, R. (2002). Successful transfer of environmentally sound Technologies for greenhouse gas mitigation: A framework for matching the needs of developing countries Ecological Eco-nomics, 42, 117–129.

Saaty, T.L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting and resource alloca-tion. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Saaty, T.L., & Vargas, L.G. (1982). The logic of priorities. Boston: Kluwer & Nijhoff.

Saaty, T.L. (1990a). An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper: Remarks on the analytic hier-archy process. Management Science, 36, 259–268.

Saaty, T.L. (1990b). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 9–26.

Sharif, M.N. (1997). Technology strategy in developing countries: Evolving from comparative to competitive advantage. International Journal of Technology Management, 3/4, 14(2), 309–343. Simon. (1976). Administrative Behavior, 3rd_{Edition. New York, NY: Free Press.}

Spann, M.S., Adams, M., & Souder, W.E. (1995). Measures of technology transfer effectiveness: Key dimensions and differences in their use by sponsors, developers and adopters. IEEE Trans-actions on Engineering Management, 42(1), 19–29.

Stewart, D., Moore, G., & Diatmoko, R. (2003). Implementing a technology strategy in developing countries. The experience of the Indonesian rolling stock industry Kartiko Putranto. Technolog-ical Forecasting & Social Change, 70, 163–176.

Teece, D.J. (1976). The multinational corporation and the resource cost of international technology transfer. Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Co.

Trist, E. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems (Occasional paper no.2). Toronto: Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre.

Tsang, E.W.K. (1997). Choice of international technology transfer mode: A resource based view. Management International Review, 37(2), 151–168.

Tyre, M.J. (1991). Managing the introduction of new process technology: Internal differences in a multi-plant network. Research Policy, 20, 57–76.

Vargas, L.G. (1990). An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 2–8.

Virasa, T., & Tang, J.C.S. (1999). The role of technology in international trade: A conceptual model and application to the automobile industry in developing countries. Technology Management: Strategies and Applications, 5, 9–31.

Wilkinson, A., & Willmott, H. (1995). Introduction. In A. Wilkinson & H. Willmott (Eds.), Making quality critical: New perspectives on organizational change (pp. 1–32). London: Routledge. Wilson, T. (1991). Overcoming barriers to the implementation of information system strategies.