Knowledge management in successful

technology transfer (Case study: Iranian

aerospace industries and knowledge-based
centers)
Abbas Rafiei
Department of Industrial Engineering, Malek Ashtar University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
Peyman Akhavan
Department of Management, Malek Ashtar University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, and
Saeed Hayati
Department of Statistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract
Purpose – The present paper aims to identify factors and variables affecting designing and assimilating technology in knowledge-based centers and
aerospace industries, to study their relations and, ultimately, to provide a model based on research data.
Design/methodology/approach – Structural equation modeling (SEM) using AMOS software was used to study the relations among latent
variables. Initially, the right structure of devised measure is assured and, then, by introducing a concept called “invariance”, it is shown that the
devised measure structure in both aerospace industries and knowledge-based centers measures the same traits. Finally, the relations among latent
variables in both knowledge-based centers and aerospace industries are studied and compared through SEM.
Findings – Findings indicate that there is a significant and positive relationship between knowledge management and successful technology
transfer effectiveness. Further relational and organizational capabilities as key factors and facilitators play a mediating role between knowledge
management and technology transfer effectiveness.
Practical implications – According to the direct impact of knowledge management on successful technology transfer, it is appropriate that
domestic managers in research centers and aerospace industries pay more attention to technology transfer and pave the ground for executing its
processes and mechanisms.
Originality/value – In the model provided in the theoretical literature, the sequence of technology transfer is addressed more, while the capabilities
of technology sender (university), technology receptor (industry), knowledge management and its influence role in technology transfer from university
to industry are not considered.
Keywords Knowledge management, Technology, Technology transfer, Organizational capability, Relational capability
Paper type Case study

Introduction technology transfer risks and can increase the success of

Parallel to the importance of knowledge, as an entity which
generates and disseminates scientific and technical knowledge,
universities have found a certain and important status in
industrial innovation (Marques et al., 2006).
Overall, technology transfer from university to industry has
interests for university and society in addition to benefits for
industry. Hence, it is important to analyze factors affecting
technology fascination from universities. Therefore,
identifying both special and general factors that impact on the
success and effectiveness of technology transfer can mitigate
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1748-8842.htm
technology transfer projects (Jonson, 1998; Harrington and
Guimaraes, 2005).
The main challenge for organizational decision makers is that
they do not know in which employees’ minds knowledge needed
to resolve organizational problems is developed. Manufacturing
firms with technology transfer on their agenda are among those
organizations that should do their best to identify, fascinate and
utilize their employees’ organizational knowledge effectively due
to the scope and complexity of technology transfer processes.
Knowledge management has a direct relationship with
technology transfer effectiveness, and it plays a mediating role in
this regard. Knowledge management creates the necessary
opportunity to improve factors related to technology transfer
process, organizational performance and, ultimately, to acquire
competitive advantage.

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

88/1 (2016) 178 –188 Received 30 November 2013
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1748-8842] Revised 25 May 2015
[DOI 10.1108/AEAT-11-2013-0220] Accepted 1 June 2015

178
 Successful technology transfer
Abbas Rafiei, Peyman Akhavan and Saeed Hayati
The present study attempts to identify organizational,
relational and technological and knowledge factors which impact
on technology transfer effectiveness in several Iranian
universities, research centers and aerospace industries. Likewise,
the impact of knowledge management and technology transfer
effectiveness in the surveyed population is measured.
In the present paper, factors related to technology transfer
processes are called “capabilities”. And words related to
knowledge-based centers and aerospace industries are also
referred as university and industry. Concerning the aims of the
research, one can point out the identification of relational and
organizational capability constituents, factors related to
technology transfer and constituting variables of technology
transfer effectiveness in knowledge-based centers and
aerospace industries.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents a
pertinent literature and research hypotheses review. Section 3
describes the methodology. Section 4 analyzes data while the
final section concludes this study.
Literature review
Academic researches and transferring them to industry are
highly respected in knowledge and technology management.
Since early 1980s, authors and policymakers have paid special
attention to the relations between university and industry.
Overall, technology transfer literature can be categorized into
three main segments: a segment which studies organizational
and relational capability factors, one for knowledge
management and the final segment which focuses on
technology transfer effectiveness. On technology transfer
process factors segment, all factors affecting technology
transfer including organizational, relational, technological and
knowledge factors are studied.
In the literature, the importance of organizational structure
in firms’ organizational performance is highlighted.
Gopalakrishnan and Santoro (2004) studied effective
organizational attributes (structure, culture, strategy and
trust) in relation to university and knowledge attraction for
academic studies.
Regarding relational capability, its role in innovation, new
product development and time new products enter market are
studied (Jonker et al., 2006; Griffith and Harvey, 2004). Mohnen
and Hoareau (2003) found that there is a positive link between
the introduction of basic product innovations and reliance upon
research organizations (Fontana et al., 2006). Concerning
knowledge management, the role of knowledge management in
improving the organizational performance and innovation is
studied. Darroch (2003) believes that organizations need
knowledge management to improve their own organizational
performance and successful competition in global markets.
Maglitta (1995) and Cole-Gomolski (1999) assert that
knowledge is an effective way to improve the performance, the
productivity and competitiveness and techniques and processes
of decision making, to distribute appropriate information in the
organization and to be aware of the best patterns and successful
experiences of other people. Concerning technology transfer
effectiveness, Wang and Zheng (2010); López-Nicolás and
Meroño-Cerdán (2011) and Wu (2012) have studied the role of
economic, qualitative, operational, learning and human resource
in successful technology transfer.
179
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Volume 88 · Number 1 · 2016 · 178 –188
Technology and technology transfer
Technology is a tool or skill, a product or process, physical
equipment or execution methods by which human’s capability
increases. In operational terms, technology is technical
knowledge that increases the capability of an organization to
produce goods and services (Stock and Tatikonda, 2000).
Technology concept is like a bridge between science and new
products (Asghari et al., 2013). Technology transfer is a
process that allows technology to be transferred from one
source to a receptor. The source can be the owner of
technology like an organization or a country (Rodosovic,
1999). Another specialist believes that technology transfer is
from a location to another, e.g. from an organization to
another, or from a university to an organization, or from one
country to another (Reisman, 2005).
In most cases, technology transfer requires physical
processes related to knowledge (physical elements such as
digital components) as well as know-how or advanced skills on
installments. Knowledge is divided into two implicit and
explicit categories (Nonka and Takeuchi, 2001). Explicit
knowledge refers to detailed plans, designs, diagrams,
attributes, etc. Therefore, information is transferred more
easily by technological support (Antonelli, 1997), while
implicit (latent) knowledge is hardly devised, and is not
basically devised in an organization. Implicit knowledge was
coined by Polanyi (1967). Antonelli (1997) asserted that since
information technology (IT) has a limited capacity for implicit
knowledge transfer, we generally use it to transfer explicit
knowledge. By using knowledge management, organizations
are able to create an environment where one can regularly
identify implicit knowledge, and explicit knowledge is
transferred more easily and rapidly with the helps of IT tools.
Factors affecting technology transfer
Technology transfer is a complicated and hard process which
is not fruitful without investigation and it may waste capitals
and weaken technology (Asghari et al., 2013). Transfer steps
from negotiations to contract conclusion, implementation and
localization have their own importance, and neglecting them
can be a factor in deviation from the aim of achieving the
technology. Technology transfer process enjoys some
preventive and contingent factors that should be considered
before taking account of technology transfer model including
awareness of needed radical factors to transfer technology, and
factors of past technology transfer failures.
The necessary condition for technology transfer is to be
aware of radical and effective factors. Technology transfer
authorities should always be aware of main factors. These
factors should be respected before technology transfer to
achieve the benefits of technology for both technology
resource and receiver.
In relevant literature, several factors are introduced
fragmentally on the role of organizational and relational
capabilities in technology transfer success as well as knowledge
management that are identified and classified below.
Organizational capability
Organizational capability refers to innovation and reshaping
internal resources (Hawawini et al., 2004). Structural
organization of the company is a factor affecting new
technology attraction. Generally, the organizational structure
 Successful technology transfer
Abbas Rafiei, Peyman Akhavan and Saeed Hayati
of a company should be homogeneous to new technology and
respond to its needs (Rauner, 2003; Tarafdar, 2006). By
entering new technology, it is necessary to adapt
organizational and official structures of organizations to
technology needs and to redesign employees’ tasks in
accordance with technology needs (Abdul Ghani et al., 2002).
To facilitate knowledge flow, organizations should design
structures and the system by which they can generate,
aggregate, integrate, disseminate and manage the knowledge
effectively. Gopalakrishnan and Santoro (2004) believe that
organizational structure is an effective internal factor in
knowledge acquisition and transfer from academic institutes.
Chen and Huang (2007) and Pertusa-Ortega et al. (2010)
have determined the traits of organizational structure as the
critical factors in affecting knowledge transfer process and
innovation in companies. Most researches on organizational
theory confirm that organizational structure plays a vital role
in the capability of an organization to adapt, create and
integrate knowledge and innovation in the organization.
Some authors claim that adaptation between organizational
knowledge and structure to achieve flexibility and efficiency of
competitive environments is very vital (Liao and Wu, 2010;
Chen and Huang, 2007).
Relational capability
Another factor affecting successful technology transfer, less
respected in the literature, is the role of rivals, customers,
supportive organizations and scientific centers in the success
of technology transfer. Overall, one can call it “organizational
relational capability”. All above factors are effective in a
business success when a company plans to transfer a
technology, such technology should have a right interaction
with customers, suppliers and rivals.
In his research, Jonker et al. (2006) introduced relational
capability as the “ability of relationship” and measured it by
such metrics as relation to customers, rivals, suppliers,
financial firms, technical/vocational organizations, research
centers and universities. In another research by Ritter
Gemünden (2004) on German firms, he defined relational
capability as interactions of an organization with customers,
suppliers, rivals and research institutes.
The volume of relations between research institutes and
industry would increase knowledge and technology transfer to
companies. Intensity of relations between a company and
knowledge suppliers or generators is very important for
constant learning, and is considered the infrastructure of
innovation process (Bramwell and Wolfe, 2008; Herrera et al.,
2010). Gomez et al. (2014) indicate that academic researches
have important impacts on industrial productivity increase,
and any increase in cooperation between university and
industry would cause the transfer of academic implicit and
explicit knowledge (Bekkers and Freitas, 2008; Hong, 2008).
Mohnen and Hoareau (2003) found that there is a positive
relationship between introducing basic product innovations
and reliance to research organizations (Fontana et al., 2006).
Knowledge management
Knowledge management is a new term with different
definitions. US Center for Quality and Productivity defines it
as strategies and processes to identify, acquire and utilize
knowledge (Monavvarian et al., 2013). Darroch (2003)
180
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Volume 88 · Number 1 · 2016 · 178 –188
defined knowledge management as processes that generate
knowledge and manage its sharing, dissemination and
utilization inside the organization. Organizations need
efficient knowledge management to improve their
organizational performance and successful competition in
global markets (Akhavan et al., 2013). Davenport and Klahr
(1998) believe that knowledge management is to manage
organizational knowledge through special and systematic
processes to attain, organize, retain, use, share and extend
both implicit and explicit knowledge of employees to improve
organizational performance and to generate value. Gupta et al.
(2000) believe that knowledge management is a process which
helps organizations explore, organize, disseminate and
transfer important information and necessary experiences for
such activities as problem solving, dynamic learning, strategic
planning and decision-making. Knowledge management can
effectively facilitate fast accessibility to common and properly
needed knowledge for different tasks to improve
decision-making and to permit the dissemination and sharing
of necessary knowledge and information in the organization
(Bohhn, 1994; Davenport and Prusak, 1998).
Technology transfer effectiveness
To identify important factors in technology transfer
effectiveness, the relevant literature was initially reviewed, and
then these important factors were extracted in Iranian elites’
views. In a research by Wang et al. (2004) in Taiwanese
companies, technology transfer effectiveness was measured. In
this research, the amount of aims achievement was already
determined (Wang et al., 2004). In another research, Stock
(2001) introduced operational effectiveness and economic
effectiveness to measure technology transfer effectiveness.
In his study on Croatian firms, Shaojie (2006) measured
technology transfer effectiveness through three factors:
1 “receptor’s technical knowledge learning”;
2 “dependency of receptor to sender in order to conduct the
operations”; and
3 “using transferred technology on other projects to
improve the operations”.
In most technology transfer projects in Iran, technical aspects
and, to a lesser extent, organizational aspects are considered
more while the role of knowledge management in technology
transfer process is not respected. Therefore, the present paper
studies the impact of knowledge management on knowledge
capability and technology transfer effectiveness in
knowledge-based centers and aerospace industries.
Technology transfer and its experiences in Iranian
aerospace industry
In the present research, numerous dissertations are studied in
the field of technology transfer in Iranian aerospace industry
and those which were closer to the research title were finally
gathered. The most important barriers in successful
technology transfer in Iranian aerospace industry are:
● lack of specialized manpower;
● serious managerial problems;
● disrespect to R&D;
● problems in cooperating with suppliers;
● disrespect to specialized training and retraining;
● lower attraction capacity;
 Successful technology transfer Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Abbas Rafiei, Peyman Akhavan and Saeed Hayati Volume 88 · Number 1 · 2016 · 178 –188

Figure 1 Research conceptual model General model and hypotheses

In the model provided in the theoretical literature, the
Organizational sequence of technology transfer is addressed more while the
capability capabilities of technology sender (university), technology
receptor (industry), knowledge management and its
influential role on technology transfer from university to
Knowledge Technology industry are not considered.
transfer
managment
effectiveness
The provided conceptual model in the present study
constitutes dependent variables (technology transfer
effectiveness) and independent ones (knowledge
management, organizational, organizational and knowledge
Relational capabilities). Figure 1 indicates research conceptual model
capability
along with the elements of each part. To study the
relationship between the impacts of knowledge
management on organizational and knowledge capabilities
● lack of motivations among personnel; and and technology transfer effectiveness, mentioned indicators
● using license path in most technology transfer contracts. were initially devised by referring to elites’ opinions as well
as reviewing the relevant literature. In this vein, technology
In some dissertations and papers, key successful factors in
knowledge management and strategic knowledge transfer indicators are categorized in two aspects. Different
management in aerospace industry are studied (Jafari et al., aspects of technology transfer capabilities along with their
2007; Jafari et al., 2010)”. constituents and sources are depicted in Table I.
In most technology transfer projects, technical aspects and, Knowledge management constituents, technology transfer
to a lesser extent, organizational aspects are considered more, effectiveness and its resources are outlined in Table II.
while the role of knowledge management in technology Concerning the aforementioned points and the aims
transfer process is not respected. Therefore, the present paper discussed earlier, the following hypotheses are provided:
studies the impact of knowledge management on
organizational/relational capability and technology transfer H1. There is a positive and significant relationship between
effectiveness in knowledge-based centers and aerospace knowledge management and organizational/relational
industries. capability.

Table I Constituents of technology transfer process capabilities and their sources

Indicator
Organizational capability
Organizational structure (concentration in decision making); managers’ skills
in strategy formulation; transparency in conducting technology projects
process; establishing multipurpose and specialty teams; identifying and
devising processes proportionate to technology transfer functions; awarding
methods; facilitating policies (domestic laws on regulating employees’
partnerships and keeping intellectual property rights)
Relational capability
Fluent flow inside the organization; fluent flow outside the organization;
working with supplier, rivals and customers; working with research
institutes; networking of R&D personnel with other institutes
Source
Santoro and Goplakrishnan (2000), Chen and Huang (2007),
Pertusa-Ortega et al. (2010), Abdul Ghani et al. (2002), Liao
and Wu (2010), Zheng et al. (2010), Abdul Ghani and
Jayabalan (2000), Gopalakrishnan and Santoro (2004),
Aldridge and Audretsch (2010), Siegel et al. (2003), Caldera
and Debande (2010)
Hemmert (2004), Abdul ghani et al. (2002), Nahm et al.
(2003)

Table II Constituents of knowledge management, technology transfer effectiveness and its sources and indicators
Indicator Source
Knowledge management Darroch (2003), Gupta et al. (2000), Young (2010), Davenport
Knowledge generation and acquistion; documentation; refining, listing and and Prusak (1998), Akhavan and Pezeshkan (2014), Atefeh et al.
integrating knowledge resources; knowledge storing; revising, evaluating (1999)
and updating the knowledge; knowledge dissemination; using the
knowledge; and knowledge development
Technology transfer effectiveness Reisman (2005), Shaojie (2006)
The rate of manufacturing spare parts inside the company; dependency of
receptor to technology sender to perform the activities; sale growth;
increasing market share; profitability; developing new products;
improveing the quality of products

181
 Successful technology transfer Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Abbas Rafiei, Peyman Akhavan and Saeed Hayati Volume 88 · Number 1 · 2016 · 178 –188

H2. There is a positive and significant relationship between validity and reliability. According to Iranian elites, all three
technology transfer capabilities and technology transfer parts enjoy proper validity. Chronbach’s alpha was also
effectiveness in knowledge-based centers. measured to get insured about the reliability of designed
questionnaire. Table III illustrates the demographical
H3. There is a positive and significant relationship between
distribution of gathered samples.
knowledge management and technology transfer
Research population consists of all aerospace industries in
capabilities and technology transfer effectiveness.
Iranian knowledge-based centers and aerospace industries
H4. Organizational capability and knowledge capability can with technology transfer experience among which three
elucidate technology transfer effectiveness. aerospace industries and four universities and research centers
were randomly selected. Initially, 500 questionnaires were
distributed personally or through correspondences with
Methodology managers and senior experts at R&D, planning,
Research proposal manufacturing, training and research departments of which
In the present study, important factors in measuring 295 ones (59 per cent) were returned. In total, 18 returned
organizational and relational capabilities and knowledge questionnaires were omitted due to information deficiencies
management, as well as technology transfer effectiveness in and, ultimately, 277 questionnaires were used to analyze data.
Iranian knowledge-based centers and aerospace industries, are Likewise, 500 questionnaire were distributed among faculty
identified by precise and multilateral review technology members and research project managers in universities and
transfer literature, organizational structure literature, research centers of which 168 (34 per cent) were returned; 17
knowledge management, by interviews with academic elites, questionnaires were omitted due to information deficiencies;
authors and managers of technology transfer projects and and, ultimately, 151 were used to analyze data.
knowledge management skillful authors in two separate steps.
To achieve this aim, the relevant literature was broadly and
precisely reviewed, and then a preliminary questionnaire was Table III Demographic distribution of respondents
devised in three separate parts based on existing indicators in Cumulative
the literature. Technology sender/receptor Respondents (%) percentage
The first part of the questionnaire was devoted to questions
Industry
on organizational, and relational, capabilities while the second
Educational degree
part covered questions on knowledge management, and the
Associate of arts
third part consisted of questions on technology transfer
and lower 12 4.7 4.7
effectiveness in Iranian knowledge-based centers and
Bachelor 140 54.9 59.6
aerospace industries. Likert five-scale spectrum was used to
Masters 100 39.2 98.8
devise the questions from very low to very high. This
questionnaire which was based on relevant literature was Doctoral 3 1.2 100
submitted to 20 academic elites, as well as technology transfer The number of transferred projects
authors and knowledge management researchers. After Less than 10 258 94.1 94.1
face-to-face interviews and concluding their opinions, some 10–20 10 3.6 97.8
questions were deleted and some others that had interferences More than 20 6 2.3 100
were merged, and indicators related to organizational, Organizational position
relational and technology transfer effectiveness factors in Expert 83 41.3 41.3
Iranian knowledge-based centers and aerospace industries Senior expert 41 20.4 61.7
were added to the preliminary questionnaire. Manager 77 38.3 100
Likewise, the clarity of questions in each part and their
University
relevance to organizational and relational capabilities,
knowledge management and technology transfer effectiveness Educational degree
in universities under study was confirmed by elites and Bachelor 7 4.7 4.7
authors. Masters 46 30.7 35.4
In the second step, the questionnaire revised as a result of Doctoral 95 63.2 98.6
the first step was devised in three separate steps and submitted Others 2 1.4 100
to 20 technology transfer project managers, senior experts, Scientific degree
authors and faculty members of the universities and surveyed Researcher 45 29.8 29.8
aerospace industries. In this step and in addition to the Instructor 8 5.3 35.1
questionnaire, semi-structured interviews with project Assistant professor 78 51.7 86.8
managers were conducted, and their experiences on Associate professor 12 7.9 94.7
knowledge management and technology transfer were Professor 8 5.3 100
gathered and recorded. In these interviews, special points, as Organizational position
well as their suggestions/needs to accelerate technology Faculty member 104 68.9 68.9
transfer process and the role of knowledge management in Senior researcher 42 27.8 96.7
improving technology transfer process, were determined. The Expert 5 3.3 100
questionnaire was severally evaluated and revised in terms of

182
 Successful technology transfer
Abbas Rafiei, Peyman Akhavan and Saeed Hayati
However, efforts were made to respect the condition of at least
ten questionnaires for each studied variable to use path
analysis technique and structural equation modeling (SEM)
for data analysis.
Introducing technology transfer capabilities,
knowledge management and technology transfer
effectiveness indicators
After reviewing the relevant literature on technology transfer
capabilities, knowledge management and technology transfer
effectiveness, some indicators were extracted to measure
organizational capability, relational capability, knowledge
management and technology transfer effectiveness in Iranian
knowledge-based centers and aerospace industries. Having
been evaluated and revised by elites, totally ten indicators were
suggested for organizational and relational capabilities, ten for
knowledge management and five for technology transfer
effectiveness in Iranian knowledge-based centers and
aerospace industries (Appendices 1 and 2).
Data analysis
As mentioned, research population consisted of Iranian
knowledge-based centers and aerospace industries. To this
end, 277 questionnaires in industry and 151 in university
sections are used to analyze data. Chronbach’s alpha value
shown in Table IV suggests the perfect reliability of the
questionnaire while Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy (KMO) indicates proper size of collected sample.
Confirmatory factor analysis models also were used to
investigate consistency of measurement structures of designed
factors. Table V shows goodness-of-fit statistics of these
models. The proper values of these indices support the last
results about goodness of measurement structures.
Below, according to hypotheses mentioned before, SEM in
AMOS software used to study the relations among latent
variables. Because this in the first step, we must get be assured
about the goodness of designed measurement structure
(questionnaire), as mentioned, while we have to consider
Table IV Questionnaire and KMO statistic
Technology transfer The quantity of Chronbach’s
related factors constituents alpha
Technology transfer capabilities
Organizational capability 4 0.76
Relational capability 4 0.84
Total 8 0.91
Knowledge management 10 0.91
Technology transfer
effectiveness 5 0.89
Total questionnaire 23 0.95
Table V CFA analysis results
Technology transfer related factors Chi2/df
Relational capability 2.755
Organizational capability 2.232
Knowledge management 2.647
Technology transfer effectiveness 1.384
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Volume 88 · Number 1 · 2016 · 178 –188
feedback of those experienced in the designing process of
questionnaire and Chronbach’s alpha value has also indicated
a good reliability of this; what we are worried about is the
concept statisticians refer to it as “invariance phenomena”,
and this is a situation in which the designed questionnaire
measures the same feature in both groups, i.e. both people in
universities and industries, to get a same idea when they read
the questions we have asked to measure those factors. This is
what Chronbach’s alpha cannot determine.
In such studies, when we use a common measurement tool
in different groups, a substantial concern is to assure that what
this tool is measuring in one group is the same as what it is
measuring in another group. Hence, invariance test of
measure structure between both groups seems to be necessary
before studying the relations between latent variables (factors)
and comparing their relations (Billiet, 2003). Otherwise,
comparing relations among latent variables of both groups will
be problematic.
Horn and McArdle (1992) have defined invariance as:
“Does measuring a phenomenon under certain conditions and
in different societies lead to capturing identical traits?” In the
lack of measure invariance, observing the difference between
latent variables or their relations in different groups may stem
from the differences in understanding or conceiving these
groups about measurement concepts. Similarly, consequences
like observing no difference between both groups would not
guarantee that there is not real difference between them.
So an important step in analyzing and comparing the
relations between latent variables in two different groups is to
prove the invariance of measures in those groups. In the
present study, two levels of invariance are studied to examine
the relations between latent variables in both groups:
configuration and structure.
Configural invariance is the lowest level of invariance
concept and determines items which loaded into each factor
are identical in both groups. Configural invariance is
confirmed when the model that determines the structure of
measures (relations between items in the questionnaire and
latent variables) is well fitted with data in different groups.
Structural invariance is in the highest level of invariance
KMO concept and indicates that latent variables have equal scales in
both groups, i.e. factor loadings are equal in different groups.
Structure invariance makes it possible to compare the
0.77
relationship between latent variables among different groups
0.87
(Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998).
0.94
Figures 2 and 3 indicate structures of measurements and
0.93
standardize path coefficients between latent variables. Here,
TTE, KM, OC and RC stands for technology transfer
0.87
effectiveness, knowledge management, organizational
0.95
capability and relational capability, respectively.
RMR RMSEA PClose GFI AGFI CFI
0.034 0.044 0.637 0.960 0.928 0.964
0.026 0.044 0.630 0.990 0.963 0.989
0.036 0.045 0.684 0.929 0.917 0.941
0.026 0.041 0.717 0.959 0.926 0.978
183
 Successful technology transfer
Abbas Rafiei, Peyman Akhavan and Saeed Hayati
Figure 2 Relations between latent variables in knowledge-based centers
Goodness-of-fit statistics are shown in Table VI (Model 1).
They indicate goodness of model fit and also model configural
invariance. Additionally, all factor loadings in the model are
significant which shows that all items reflect latent variable.
To study structural invariance of the measures, it is suggested
to refit the model by constraining the factor loadings to be
equal in both groups. Goodness-of-fit statistics of this model
are shown in Table VI (Model 2). As seen, the difference of
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFI) statistic in two models
(⌬CFI) is less than 0.01 which shows designed measures are
structurally invariant (Cheung and Rensvold, 2002).
By passing this step, we are going to study and test the
mentioned hypotheses. For this, we will use a multilevel
SEM method. Table VII indicates standardized path
coefficients concerning the direct and indirect relationships
between knowledge management and technology transfer
capabilities and technology transfer effectiveness for each
model depicted in Figures 2 and 3. For example, the
184
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Volume 88 · Number 1 · 2016 · 178 –188
standardized direct effect of knowledge management on
technology transfer effectiveness in universities and
aerospace industries is 0.648 and 0.246, respectively, and
both of these paths are significant at 0.05 level. Bootstrap
resampling method was applied to test whether parameters
are equal to zero or not. Asterisks in this table indicates the
significant relationship at 0.05 level.
Referring to Table VII, there is a positive and significant
relationship between knowledge management and
organizational and relational capabilities in 0.05 level in both
university and industry (H1 is supported).
There is a positive and significant relationship between
technology transfer capabilities and technology transfer
effectiveness in 0.05 level in both university and industry (H2
is supported).
There is a positive and significant relationship between
knowledge management and technology transfer effectiveness
(H3 is supported). The only difference is that in university,
 Successful technology transfer Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Abbas Rafiei, Peyman Akhavan and Saeed Hayati Volume 88 · Number 1 · 2016 · 178 –188

Figure 3 Relations between latent variables in aerospace industries

Table VI Goodness of fit indices in fitted model Table VII Standardized path coefficients in Figures 2 and 3

Model X2/df RMSEA GFI AGFI CFI RMR Model KM RC OC TTE

Model 1 1.92 0.046 0.912 0.905 0.931 0.046 University

Model 2 1.89 0.045 0.914 0.903 0.931 0.047 KM (Direct) – 0.826ⴱ 0.867ⴱ 0.648ⴱ
Desired value ⬍3 ⬍0.08 ⬎0.9 ⬎0.9 ⬎0.9 ⬍0.05 KM (Indirect) – – – ⫺0.45
TTE (Total) 0.603ⴱ 0.204 ⫺0.252 –

Industry
knowledge management impacts directly on technology transfer
KM (Direct) – 0.687ⴱ 0.698ⴱ 0.246ⴱ
effectiveness, while in industry, in addition to direct impact of
knowledge management on technology transfer effectiveness, KM (Indirect) – – – 0.326ⴱ
technology transfer capabilities play a mediating role between TTE (Total) 0.572ⴱ 0.202ⴱ 0.268 –
ⴱ
knowledge management and technology transfer effectiveness. Note: standardized p ⬍ 0.05

Discussion recommendation to managers at aerospace industries and

The conducted research indicates that technology transfer is a research centers.
multilateral phenomenon, and many factors are involved in its Development and progress of societies is the result of
success. In this line, one can provide the following scientific and industrial development links. By linking

185
 Successful technology transfer
Abbas Rafiei, Peyman Akhavan and Saeed Hayati
university and research centers as the incumbents of
scientific development to industry, as the incumbent of
industrial development, one can achieve positive results in
economic development that would lead the country to
constant progress and dynamism. Studying relevant literature
indicates that all countries have acknowledged the role of
technology and knowledge in economic growth, and that they
have conducted broad initiatives to build a bridge between
research and industry sections. Concerning research results
that show direct impact of knowledge management on
successful technology transfer, attraction and design, it is
appropriate that domestic managers in research centers and
aerospace industries pay more attention to technology transfer
and pave the ground for executing its processes and
mechanisms. In the meantime, they should make technology
transfer projects, and projects easier and more suitable to
facilitate technology transfer flow and to enhance researchers’
performance in technology transfer activities by devoting
sufficient resources to such activities.
Likewise, managers at aerospace industries should improve
the capacity of technology fascination through increasing
proper relations with supporting organizations, research
institutes and universities to raise specialists’ skill and, training
levels, devoting sufficient resources to research and
development activities. Such initiatives not only promote
knowledge and technical levels of technology receptors but
also make it possible for research centers to transfer concerned
knowledge and technology in a shorter time and at lower costs.
Conclusion
In the provided model, the relations between research
variables were studied by SEM. The findings indicated that
knowledge management impacts directly on technology
transfer effectiveness in both knowledge based centers and
aerospace industries while the impact was stronger in
knowledge-based centers. And while the indirect impact of
knowledge management through relational and organizational
capability on technology transfer effectiveness in knowledge-
based centers is not significant, it is significant in aerospace
industries, confirming the role of relational and organizational
capability in aerospace industries to acquire transferred
technology.
References
Abdul Ghani, K.A. and Jayabalan, V. (2000), “Advanced
manufacturing technology and planned organizational
change”, The Journal of High Technology Management
Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Abdul Ghani, K., Jayabalan, V. and Sugumar, M. (2002),
“Impact of advanced manufacturing technology on
organizational structure”, The Journal of High Technology
Management Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 157-175.
Akhavan, P. and Amir, P. (2014), “Knowledge management
critical failure factors: a multi-case study”, VINE: The
journal of information and knowledge management systems,
Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 22-41.
Akhavan, P., Ramezan, M. and Moghaddam, J.Y. (2013),
“Examining the role of ethics in knowledge management
process: case study: an industrial organization”, Journal of
186
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Volume 88 · Number 1 · 2016 · 178 –188
Knowledge-Based Innovation in China, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 129-145.
Aldridge, T. and Audretsch, D.B. (2010), “Does policy
influence the commercialization route? Evidence from
National Institutes of Health funded scientists”, Research
Policy, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 583-588.
Antonelli, C. (1997), “New information technology and the
knowledge-based economy: the Italian evidence”, Review of
Industrial Organization, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 593-607.
Asghari, M. and Pakhshanikia, M. (2013), “Technology
transfer in oil industry, significance and challenges”,
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 75 No. 1,
pp. 264-271.
Atefeh, S., Mccamble, L., Moorchead, C. and Gitters, S.H.
(1999), “Knowledge management: the new challenge for
the 21 century”, Journal Of Knowledge, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 172-179.
Bekkers, R. and Freitas, I.M.B. (2008), “Analysing knowledge
transfer channels between universities and industry: to what
degree do sectors also matter?”, Research Policy, Vol. 37
No. 10, pp. 1837-1853.
Billiet, J. (2003), Cross-Cultural Equivalence with Structural
Equation Modeling, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Bohhn, R.E. (1994), “Measuring and managing technology
knowledge”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 1,
pp. 61-73.
Bramwell, A. and Wolfe, D.A. (2008), “Universities and
regional economic development: the entrepreneurial
University of Waterloo”, Research Policy, Vol. 37 No. 8,
pp. 1175-1187.
Caldera, A. and Debande, O. (2010), “Performance of
Spanish universities in technology transfer: an empirical
analysis”, Research Policy, Vol. 39 No. 9, pp. 1160-1173.
Chen, C.J. and Huang, J.W. (2007), “How organizational
climate and structure affect knowledge management – the
social interaction perspective”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 104-118.
Cheung, G.W. and Rensvold, R.B. (2002), “Evaluating
goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement
invariance”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 233-255.
Cole-Gomolski, B. (1999), “Knowledge “Czars” fall from
Grace”, Computerworld, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Darroch, J. (2003), “Developing a measure of knowledge
management behaviors and practices”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 41-54.
Davenport, T.H. and Klahr, P. (1998), “Managing customer
support knowledge”, California Management Review, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 195-208.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge:
Managing What Your Organization Knows, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Fontana, R., Geuna, A. and Matt, M. (2006), “Factors
affecting university–industry R&D projects: the importance
of searching, screening and signaling”, Research Policy,
Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 309-323.
Gomez, F., Daim, T. and Jorge, R. (2014), “Characterization
of the relationship between firms and universities and
innovation performance: the case of colombian firms”,
 Successful technology transfer
Abbas Rafiei, Peyman Akhavan and Saeed Hayati
Journal of technology management and innovation, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 70-83.
Gopalakrishnan, S. and Santoro, M.D. (2004),
“Distinguishing between knowledge transfer and
technology transfer activities: the role of key organizational
factors”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 57-69.
Griffith, D.A. and Harvey, M.G. (2004), “The influence of
individual and firm level social capital of marketing
managers in a firm’s global network”, Journal of World
Business, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 244-254.
Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000), “Knowledge flows
within multinational corporations”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 473-496.
Harrington, S.J. and Guimaraes, T. (2005), “Corporate
culture, absorptive capacity and IT success”, Information
and Organization, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 39-63.
Hawawini, G., Subramanian, V. and Verdin, P. (2004), “The
home country in the age of globalization: how much does it
matter for firm performance?”, Journal of World Business,
Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 121-135.
Hemmert, M. (2004), “The influence of institutional factors
on the technology acquisition performance of high-tech
firms: survey results from Germany and Japan”, Research
Policy, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 1019-1039.
Herrera, L., Muñoz-Dyague, M.F. and Nieto, M. (2010),
“Mobility of public researchers, scientific knowledge
transfer, and the firm’s innovation process”, Journal Of
Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 5, pp. 510-518.
Hong, W. (2008), “Decline of the center: the decentralizing
process of knowledge transfer of Chinese universities from
1985 to 2004”, Research Policy, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 580-595.
Horn, J.L. and McArdle, J.J. (1992), “A practical and
theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging
research”, Experimental Aging Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 117-144.
Jafari, M., Akhavan, P., Nour, J.R. and Fesharaki, M.N.
(2007), “Knowledge management in Iran aerospace
industries: a study on critical factors”, Aircraft Engineering
and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 375-389.
Jafari, M., Rezaeenour, J., Akhavan, P. and Fesharaki, M.N.
(2010), “Strategic knowledge management in aerospace
industries: a case study”, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace
Technology, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 60-74.
Jonker, M., Romijn, H. and Szirmai, A. (2006),
“Technological effort, technological capabilities and
economic performance: a case study of the paper
manufacturing sector in West Java”, Technovation, Vol. 26
No. 1, pp. 121-134.
Jonson, J. (1998), “Culture, freedom, economic growth”,
World Business, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 332-356.
Liao, S.H. and Wu, C.C. (2010), “System perspective of
knowledge management, organizational learning, and
organizational innovation”, Expert Systems With
Applications, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 1096-1103.
López-Nicolás, C. and Meroño-Cerdán, Á.L. (2011),
“Strategic knowledge management, innovation and
performance”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 502-509.
187
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Volume 88 · Number 1 · 2016 · 178 –188
Maglitta, J. (1995), “Smarten Up!”, Computerworld, Vol. 29
No. 23, p. 84.
Marques, J.P.C., Caraça, J.M. and Diz, H. (2006), “How can
university–industry– government interactions change the
innovation scenario in Portugal? – the case of the University
of Coimbra”, Technovation, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 534-542.
Mohnen, P. and Hoareau, C. (2003), “What type of
enterprise forges close links with universities and
government labs? Evidence from CIS 2”, Managerial and
Decision Economics, Vol. 24, pp. 133-145.
Monavvarian, Aslgari, N., Akhavan, P. and Ashena, M.
(2013), “Developing social capital for facilitating
knowledge management practices”, International Journal of
Social Economics, Vol. 40 No. 9, pp. 826-844.
Nahm, A.Y., Vonderembse, M.A. and Koufteros, X.A.
(2003), “The impact of organizational structure on
time-based manufacturing and plant performance”, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 281-306.
Nonka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (2001), The Knowledge Creating
Company, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Pertusa-Ortega, E.M., Zaragoza-Sáez, P. and Claver-Cortés,
E. (2010), “Can formalization, complexity, and
centralization influence knowledge performance?”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 310-320.
Polanyi, M. (1967), The Latent Demention, Rouledge and
Kegan Paul, London.
Rauner, F. (2003), “Cultural determinants of transfer
technology”, Al and Society, Vol. 17 Nos 3/4, pp. 266-277.
Reisman, A. (2005), “Transfer of technologies: a
cross-disciplinary taxonomy”, Omega, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 189-202.
Ritter, T. and Gemünden, H.G. (2004), “The impact of a
company’s business strategy on its technological
competence, network competence and innovation success”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 548-556.
Rodosovic, S. (1999), International Technology Transfer &
Catch Up In Economic Development, Evard Elgar Publishing,
MA.
Santoro, M.D. and Gopalakrishnan, S. (2000), “The
institutionalization of knowledge transfer activities within
industry– university collaborative ventures”, Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 299-319.
Shaojie, A. (2006), “The influence of market, cultural,
environmental factors on technology transfer”, Journal Of
World Business, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 100-111.
Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D., Atwater, L.E. and Link, A.
(2003), “Commercial knowledge transfer from universities
of firms: improving the effectiveness of university-industry
collaboration”, Journal Of High Technology Management
Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 111-133.
Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and Hans Baumgartner (1998),
“Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national
consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25
No. 1.
Stock, G. (2001), “Organizational and strategic predictors of
manufacturing technology implementation success”,
Technovation, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 625-636.
 Successful technology transfer
Abbas Rafiei, Peyman Akhavan and Saeed Hayati
Stock, G.N. and Tatikonda, M.V. (2000), “A typology of
project-level technology transfer processes”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 719-737.
Tarafdar, M. (2006), “Challenges in adoption of e-commerce
technologies in India”, Information Management, Vol. 26
No. 6, pp. 428-441.
Wang, P., Tong, T.W. and Koh, C.P. (2004), “An integrated
model of knowledge transfer from MNC parent to China
subsidiary”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 39 No. 2,
pp. 168-182.
Wang, Y. and Zheng, J. (2010), “Knowledge-management
performance evaluation based on triangular fuzzy number”,
Procedia Engineering, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 38-45.
Wu, W.W. (2012), “Segmenting critical factors for successful
knowledge management implementation using the fuzzy
DEMATEL method”, Applied Soft Computing, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 527-535.
Young, R. (2010), Knowledge Management, Tools and
Techniques Manual, Asian Productivity Organization,
Tokyo.
Zheng, W., Yang, B. and McLean, G.N. (2010), “Linking
organizational culture, structure, strategy, and
organizational effectiveness: mediating role of knowledge
management”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 7,
pp. 763-771.
Further reading
Gallivan, M. and Srite, M. (2005), “Information technology
and culture: identifying fragmentary and holistic
perspectives of culture”, Information and Organization,
Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 295-338.
Santoro, M.D. and Bierly, P.E. (2006), “Facilitators of
knowledge transfer in university-industry collaborations: a
knowledge-based perspective”, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 495-507.
Appendix 1
Research variables/indicators (technology transfer process
capabilities):
1 Organizational capability:
● Organizational facilitating and supportive policies
(devised laws on protecting intellectual property
rights, rules and regulations on technology transfer
offices, using shorter official structures, adjusting
authors’ contributive activities and proper
motivational plans to award authors’ efforts;
● identifying and devising organizational processes and
activities;
● building multipurpose and multispecialty teams; and
● top managers’ skills in strategy formulation.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
188
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Volume 88 · Number 1 · 2016 · 178 –188
2 Relational capability:
● relations to industries and other research centers and
universities;
● considering customers’ opinions and the ability to
predict their needs;
● relation to supportive organizations;
● relations to rivals;
● relations to similar organizations; and
● free flow of knowledge and information in adjacent
units and centers.
Appendix 2
Research variables/indicators (knowledge management,
technology transfer effectiveness):
1 Knowledge management:
● generating and acquiring knowledge from different
resources such as employees, customers, business
partners and rivals;
● identifying knowledge gaps and creating proper
processes to fill such gaps regularly;
● generating “new knowledge” from “available
knowledge”;
● documenting, refining, listing and integrating
knowledge resources;
● databases, knowledge stores and IT applications to
store knowledge and their easy accessibility;
● revising, evaluating and updating the knowledge
regularly;
● knowledge dissemination throughout the organization;
● fascinating, sharing and disseminating individuals’
knowledge and experience in different formats such as
working gatherings and discussions;
● using “individuals’ current knowledge and experiences” in
“resolving new problems”; and
● developing employees’ knowledge and using it in new
situations.
2 Technology transfer effectiveness:
● Providing new products;
● improving product quality, market share increase, and
economic indicators of the industry (profitability,
production share increase, ROI increase, etc.);
● self-sufficiency in such activities as installment,
repairing and maintenance;
● manufacturing needed components inside the
industry; and
● reducing dependency on technology sender.
Corresponding author
Peyman Akhavan can be contacted at: akhavan@iust.ac.ir
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.