Knowledge and technology both are important for the development of a region/country. The fact is, not many countries, especially developing ones, are rich in both. That’s why such countries ask for transfer of technology/knowledge from the developed ones. The question is, what should be the right priority: knowledge first then technology or vise versa.
According to research 20% is given for the technology while 80% focuses on how to convince others to share knowledge via technology and this is for the developed countries. However, in developing countries the formula is harder as need a long journey for both assets!
Transfer technology is more important. As train the people, then they will give you the product. As technology is very expensive to developing country.
By transfer the knowledge usually people who get it adapt and develop more by creativity technology that is similar but at lower cost.
As china product that duplicate famous product or technology combine it with lower cost at first maybe not as good as its real but now on it closer to the real trechnology.
Short term - Transfer of technology
Long term - Transfer of Knowledge
In fact, I agree with Nageswara. In the short run, transfer of technology is more important, whereas, in the long run, transfer of knowledge is more important.
I agree with Nageswara and Judeh. In countries like The Gambia and Senegal individuals need the technology first. Once they have the technology they need individuals to have the knowledge to maintain, support, exploit, and develop further on that technology.
While agreeing with Nageswara, I would like to add that transfer of technology helps the target group in achieving their short term goals, transfer of knowledge would help them perfect the same over a longer period of time. Mere transfer of a particular technology would not be helpful if problems arise during its adoption process, but if the knowledge is there, it can be modified to suit the individuals needs and aspirations. Technologies may fade over time, but knowledge once gained would last a life time.
It is quite a long debate. Knowledge is god gifted, it is knowledge that creates technology not the inverse. According to this perception , i go for knowledge.
@Shafig Ibrahim Al-Haddad, It is true both are important. But question is which should be acquired first, Sir.
@Nageswara Rao Posinasetti, Excellent. Can you please quantify like @Ra'ed (Moh'd Taisir) Masa'deh. Would you please refer or mention in which research 20%, 80% is cited.
Transferring knowledge is not a standalone process. If you want to transfer something like science successfully you must prepare a receiving environment as well. Developing countries starve for advanced countries science, but I believe before asking for any favor they should answer following questions: a) Are the universities in their country ready for handling research projects and continue them in a long term process? b)Do they have proper infra structures like laboratories, libraries, scientific databases and ? c) Have they trained scientific management teams? People who does understand team work and goal oriented management? I believe one may extend this list to several questions. So, if we are looking for sustainable progress, preparing infrastructures and then transferring knowledge is the answer, but if we are looking for short term development and sudden jumps (which could lead to bubble progress), transferring technology is the answer.
“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime” – Ancient Proverb
Short term - Transfer of technology, Provides immediate benefit I terms of employment, economic activity and general prosperity in the region where the technology transferred is implemented. When you require the next technology you have to go back to some other company. For example you have a technology transfer for a refrigerator. It works for a few years. When the next model is required, again you have to go back to the company that supplied the previous model.
Long term - Transfer of Knowledge along with transfer of technology. The next model of refrigerator will be designed by the company in your country because it has the knowledge. You do not have to go back for the next technology.
@Babak Maghbooli, you have raised really interesting questions. Let us see, what actually is happening in case of PhD scholars of developing countries who complete their studies abroad, they bring home only knowledge not the technology.
@Nageswara Rao Posinasetti, thanks a lot for detailed explanation of the terms and also for citing a relevant proverb. But what to do Sir, if you get advanced scientific knowledge but necessary infrastructure to shape the knowledge into technology is not in place in the home country as argues @Babak Maghbooli.
I completely agree to those above who defend the technology transfer in a first move, succeeded by the transfer of knowledge. It is interesting to observe the knowledge management principles, where it values correctly the technological infrastructure to retain and share knowledge, as a fact that guides one example of technology first - knowledge after process.
An important aspect is the management of knowledge, which contributes to search, sort, filter and present information in order to improve the understanding of people in a specific area of interest. In the field of technological innovation processes, knowledge management key for use, learning experiences and growth; this way you can contribute and develop capacities to anticipate and adapt to change, accelerate the speed of creation, learn from competitors and collaborators, actually learn from mistakes, implement strategic changes faster and introduce continuous improvement processes.
the distinction between technology and knowledge is quite artificial. Technology is often the physical embodiment of knowledge and knowledge is needed to use it. So that means that asking which is more important is not a meaningful question (sort of like which come first, the chicken or the egg).
@Jere L. Gilles, thanks for contributing. I strongly believe, you have missed the context. It may not be a meaningful question in the context of developed countries such as US but is very much relevant in the context of developing countries that cannot excel in both sectors i.e. Knowledge as well as Technology due to various reasons including brain drain, fragile economy and digital divide etc. Moreover, if both words i.e. knowledge and technology are synonymous and only fuzzy boundary exists between these then why so far these words still exist in the dictionary. Being an evaluator of National ICT R&D projects in Pakistan for more than 10 years, I always look at both aspects i.e. technology transfer to the potential beneficiary in addition to knowledge.
I my opinion knowledge should be transferred prior to technology due to many reasons .
1-Relevant knowledge is major contributor towards the creation of new technology or improvement of existing technology.
2-Adoptation of new or improve technology in any environment depend on the relevant and pertinent knowledge of the people of that environment.
3-Fectching true benefits from new or improved technology is only possible if anyone have knowledge about the technology.
Same rules apply to computer sciences and information technology.
Each Country must resolve it's specific equations' system with constraints.
Y = alpha*(Short term - Transfer of technology) + beta*(Long term - Transfer of Knowledge).
alpha + beta = 1
time, rate of growth and development asked, correlation with evolution of other countries, ...
Dear Asmat
The problem with knowledge transfer with Ph D students depends upon the area concerned. If you are working in a foreign university, the area of your research May or may not be appropriate for your country. Also a single Ph D will not be sufficient to provide any transferable technology because it is only a part in it. Converting academic research into product technology requires an organization with infrastructure and other technological resources, which may or may not be the priority of politicians. Until such time we elect politicians based on their desire to work for the country and not for themselves, this problem will remain.
I agree with most of responses. In my view, it is important that technology be transferred first as it is first step in the development of a developing country. Latter knowledge should be transferred. It is the point on which technologically advanced countries ditch the developing countries. Even, sometime considering scientific potential of a country they do not give even technology as India was denied several sophisticated technologies one for example being the Super Computer like Cray etc.
@Mohammad Firoz Khan, thanks for joining us. The reasons for not giving Super Computer like Cray etc may be more strategic, Sir. What do you say about immigration being offered to experts of various disciplines of the developing countries. Will they take with them technology to the new country. Definitely, no. They will contribute with their knowledge and expertise at the new destinations.
The answer lies in the type of technology and the country receiving the technology. For example, some technologies such as mechanical devices which do not require specialized knowledge can be transferred without much knowledge transfer at the beginning. On the other hand transferring nuclear power plant technology requires knowledge transfer first and then the technology will follow.
The country also contributes to the type of transfer that happens first. If the infrastructure is solid then the transfer of technology can follow easily. On the other hand if the infrastructure is not developed then it will be even more complicated to transfer any one of them.
Another important factor lies in the priorities of the countries doing the transfer. In much needed countries the request will be to implement the technology to solve an immediate need and then later worry about the sustainability through knowledge transfer.
I agree with the post from Mr. @Arturo Geigel, which, I think, clarifies a context for the discussion (controversial and valid) proposed by Mr. @Jere L. Gilles. The knowledge transferred firstly, with the basic mechanisms and processes at the end or operational phases of a value-aggregated chain (as in automotive, naval and electronics sectors, for instance) are predominantly based on "learn by doing" and do not represent a more sofisticated or productive - in the sense of "thinking" knowledge. And, reaffirming my opinion, it comes first.
It is perfectly seen in Brazil (where I live) for instance, and other "Brics" or "Mint" countries, where it is rare, or more difficult, to have a transference of strategic, decision-making knowledge, for several reasons (educational deficit, lack of experience, learning curve position, and so on).
I think there is a clear distinction to be made in technology transfer and knowledge transfer. When technology is transferred, it is necessary for the receiving nation to train their personnel to operate the equipment. But that is not what we mean as knowledge. Knowledge is the ability to design new equipment for different applications similar to the one received. Knowledge to design is what will help the countries towards progress. Knowledge to operate the received equipment is a prerequisite to the successful transfer of technology. If the receiving country is not doing that part then they are wasting their resources.
@Asmat Ali,
Whether the receiving party can install a mechanical device or not will depend on the degree of knowledge of the receiving party as mentioned in the second point. You are correct in that an assumption of the degree of knowledge of a country of a specific type of a complex mechanical device should not be assumed.
Due to self illness I was away, sorry for that. It is encouraging to see that more responses have been shared and contributed.
@George Leal Jamil , I endorse your words "The knowledge transferred firstly"
@Nageswara Rao Posinasetti, it is true that knowledge is the ability to design new equipment for different applications similar to the one received. Let me say knowledge is a process and technology is one of its products.
@Arturo Geigel, thanks for acknowledging my view point also. You are not absolutely wrong. We are all learning from each other.
I would really love to have more responses in order to reach at a "agreed conclusion"
Asmat,
I agree with your observation,"What do you say about immigration being offered to experts of various disciplines of the developing countries. Will they take with them technology to the new country. Definitely, no. They will contribute with their knowledge and expertise at the new destinations." In the case of India this process dealt a serious blow. Indians sent to the developed countries to get expertise in science and technology, they never returned. The point is that what India got in aid, Indian scientists' patents in the host countries contributed to their economies ten times of what they gave as aid to India. May be in the case of Cray there were strategic reasons though it is a simple hypothesis, but in fact technologically advanced countries earn by selling their technology, they cannot take risk of transfer. In the case of countries like India where Scientific workforce is not only strong but also versatile, they don't take risk even selling sophisticated technology because their apprehension is that these countries will develop their own version of transferred technology and in future these countries may grab some of their clients.
@Mohammad Firoz Khan, I fully agree with you. I would say, it is a kind of fear that once knowledge is transferred, then the developing countries would be able to update and upgrade technologies. For that, dedicated infrastructural and financial support is needed as mentioned by some of the respondents. Moreover, new knowledge is being generated continuously. So, even once knowledge transfer takes place, it would also be essential to update it regularly and for that individuals of developing countries once again have to do refresher courses. So, dependency on developed countries would not be over though it would decrease gradually.
1) One need not re-invent a wheel. One can transfer technology.
2) There are certain classified work that can not be shared with all (like Trade Secrets, Nuclear Energy, Space Engineering, Certain Designs of Special Instruments, Security items etc.) and so, one has to have an indigenous technology developed and tested.
Yes, I agree with you. May be, one can repeat the basic experiments, depending on the nature of work.
In the fields of engineering; one needs prior experience in small things like - correct procedure to fix a meter, its calibration, error analysis etc. It is important even with small and simple instruments like a thermometers and pressure gauges. We learn with little time and energy, such an experience is required to avoid major errors in an important research. In case of a CFD analysis; an experimental test on a scale model may be very useful to support or validate the results.
In the fields of bio-medical or medicine, no doubts, the tests shall be repeated to have confidence in the procedure or the medicine itself.
In the case certain marine and space applications, repeated experiments will prove to be too expensive.
My suggestion is not to waste much time, energy and money. A good literature survey shall help in drawing a line.
Dr.S.Ravindran
One of our Arabic brother says that the Instrument purchased is not being effectively used. Why don't you get trained on the specific instrument? Ask for support from your supplier. They shall happily extend their supporting hand. Once you are trained, then its a child's play. Wish you good all the best.
By definition, technology is the application of knowledge so knowledge precedes technology. Through history, there has been the 2 types of transfer. For example, the oldest universities in Europe were established by those who originally studied in the Andalusia (Spain now) universities. No nation on earth is ready to spoon-feed persons from another nation & to give them all the information. There must be highly motivated persons who dedicate themselves to teach, install, and (extend) in their countries what has been learnt abroad .
Transfer of knowledge or technology for developing countries is the fundamental question of economic development for the developing countries. However, the main problem is not in the order of transferring knowledge and technologies, but in conditions of those transfers.
What is technology? Is it these equipments that are recently invented? If yes then I, am personally, do not give it any priority. The priority is for knowledge that helps the developing countries participate in the development of civilizations on the world.
I do not understand the dichotomy! Why not transfer both: Knowledge and technology. Any way I believe that knowledge and technology are interconnected. Finaly there is a problem with all these "transferrings". The real data , say that if the developing country has some rich, medals, oil, etc. then instead of transfer of knowledge and technology, essentially they transfer and get profit.
I am in full agreement with Abedallah that the priority is for knowledge that helps the developing countries participate in the development of civilizations on the world.
@Sylantyev Sergiy, thank you for contributing and enriching the debate with the term “economic development”. I fully agree with you, knowledge as well as technology is foundation for economic development of any country including developing countries, as well. You have raised a good point that conditions for the transfer of the both matter in fact.
@Abedallah M Rababah, thanks for participating again. I endorse your words, “The priority is for knowledge”. I believe, software is also part of technology in addition to hardware.
@Costas Drossos, thanks for sharing your experience and knowledge, Sir. For a moment, just think if you have to choose one of these i.e. knowledge or technology then what would be your choice, please.
@Mahfuz Judeh, thanks for participating and mentioning transfer of knowledge as your 1st priority in the context of developing countries, Sir. I find so far, most of the respondents are in favor of transfer of knowledge.
If I have to choose one of them, I would choose technology. A developing country needs more technology in order to be developed. Knowledge is a long term adding to the development. On the other hand technology without background knowledge, will be useless if technology changes, which in reality does!
Yes I agree, money is indispensable! So one can act in accord with the budget. It is not easy to became like the French IHES, or Max Planck Institute for Mathematics, at Bonn!
Any way you need to optimise!
Respected Costas Drossos, I really appreciate your efforts and passion in sharing your knowledge and expert opinion with all of us. I agree and endorse your words," money is indispensable & It is not easy to became like the French IHES, or Max Planck Institute for Mathematics, at Bonn!"
Best Regards
asmat
Both the things are important, as knowledge is made for sharing and technology are essential for development but unless we are having basic knowledge we can innovate the technology.
Dears, I think technology without knowledge hurts; while knowledge without technology leads to having better technologies.
What we need to understand is which is beneficial for a developing country whether the transfer of technology from a developed country or the knowledge. So when the transfer of technology is being done by the parent company, it will have to safeguard its future interests. It will be therefore selective in transferring the knowledge related to the technology that will be just enough to operate the technology satisfactorily. The ability to make improvements to the technology require a higher level of knowledge which will not be automatically provided unless the receiving nation has the necessary preparation for doing so. Here a few reports that provide good information in this regard.
http://www.colorado.edu/ibs/pubs/pec/pec2004-0003.pdf
http://unctad.org/en/Docs/iteipc20045_en.pdf
http://www.gsk.com/content/dam/gsk/globals/documents/pdf/GSK-on-technology-transfer-capacity-building.pdf
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1194&context=ilj
The statement (technology without knowledge hurts) by Dr. Abedallah M Rababah is remarkable. We are witnesses to how technology products (e.g. TVs, mobile phones, computers...etc.) are not utilized well or ,sometimes, misused in 3rd world countries like ours. In many occasions, there were debates among scholars on these products: are they a curse or a blessing ? In our part of the world, they are more of a curse.
@Nageswara Rao Posinasetti, thanks for contributing and bringing back the original context of the question as well as providing links to quite useful relevant documents. I agree, development as well as the ability to make further improvements to the technology, require a higher level of prior knowledge.
@Dr. Nizar Matar, You are right to mention that "technology without knowledge hurts" has very wide meaning for which I am grateful to @Abedallah M Rababah.
From Wiki: 1. "Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills".
2. "Technology is ... a knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems, and methods of organization, in order to solve a problem..."
The needs of developing countries are:
Transfer of knowledge & technology.
@Hanen Salhi , Welcome. Thanks for joining and answering the question. I appreciate your smart reply but can you please give reasons for this choice.
@Joseph Dubrovkin, I appreciate your participation and welcome you in this discussion.If you have to select one of these in the first phase, what will be your choice Transfer of knowledge or technology.
It depends on your definitions. My definition of technology (based on components identified by the Technology Atlas Team) includes a knowledge component. Which then makes it more or less a simultaneous issue. However it also depends on your definition of economic development and what country you look at. Using Porter, who identified three (in one source four) 'levels' of economies: factor driven, efficiency driven, and innovation driven, they require different things.
I dont think there is one answer to your question.
The interlink between knowledge, tewchnology, strategy and competitiveness is explored in article below
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260638458_Strategies_for_enhancing_Jamaican_competitiveness_in_the_global_knowledge_economy
Conference Paper Strategies for enhancing Jamaican competitiveness in the glo...
Transfer of technology is a short cut but highly applied and economical. On the other side Transfer of knowledge is the background and core for developing the technologies.
Transfer of knowledge is continuous through many sources but how to convert the knowledge into technology, it is critical. Countries which are investing more in this conversion or applied knowledge, are now leading the world.
For low income countries the high investment in all aspects of research and development is difficult, therefore the step of conversion from knowledge to technology become unrealistic. There are thousands of examples where a support (investment) has led developing countries for good technological contributions. But of course it is not consistent in case of developing countries.
In my opinion, it depends on the goals of the countries what they want. Are they really interested in contributing in the development of technology for their own use or for others OR not. All developed countries were the same in past as the developing countries are now.......
Which is more important: transfer of knowledge or technology for developing countries?
Both knowledge & technology transfer are equally important. Knowledge refers to content know how whereas technology refers to enabler for a country's success. Of course there are many considerations depending on each developing country's immediate & long term needs & priorities, generosity / agenda of the developed countries that transfer the technology / knowledge, types of technology and kind of knowledge required, totality impacts to the developing country etc.
If only can choose one at a time - from the perspective of "top down approach", "doing the right things", or "teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime", there should be transfer of knowledge as this is comparatively more important in transforming a developing country to developed country. Moreover, with the right knowledge in place, then the developing country can assess & adopt the right technology to transfer into its country (rather than retrofit technology transferred to meet knowledge demand). But this approach will take times, depending on the readiness of the developing countries & might not see immediate results. But from the perspective of "bottom up approach", or aiming for "immediate ROI" or "low hanging fruits", perhaps transfer to technology can be an immediate option.
Alternatively, perhaps a developing country should consider both at the same time so that "top down" knowledge transfer and "bottom up" technology transfer approaches can meet somewhere with a strategic plan in place to "stitch" them together - this approach might enable the developing country to harness the benefits of both transfer of knowledge & technology at the same time speedily.
Literature suggests that the innovative performance of a country greatly depends on the particular arrangement of these agents within the collective knowledge system and the technologies. But we should consider knowledge as its core element.
Dear Napoleon Ono Imaah,
Thanks for contributing. I agree with you. Certainly, sometimes it becomes difficult to transform knowledge into technology with traditional wisdom.
Dear Han Ping Fung,
Well said, "doing the right things" but it is also important to “do the things, right”. Thanks for your impressive and generous contribution.
Dear Kiran Grover,
Thanks for joining. I guess, you see technology as agent?
Dear Pelumi Oguntunde,
I appreciate your smart contribution.
Sir,thanks for response.Knowledge is inner one but technology is outer part,both are important.
I believe both are equally Important and should be transferred toghether
Similar questions:
Build factories or to import finished products?
Transfer of skilled labor or teach local workers?
Education through the transfer of knowledge for the preparation and development of new technologies -> the pledge of progress
Dear Joseph Dubrovkin,
I appreciate your valuable comments. Well said, transfer of knowledge for the preparation and development of new technologies.
Respected David Bolton,
Superb contribution. Thanks for adding value to the discussion. Agree, Infrastructure is the 3rd leg and imported "technology" may soon become unsustainable. But technology itself is not Infrastructure component?
In my view, Knowledge and Technology must be two parts of the overall integrated whole named "DEVELOPMENT". Currently, in most cases, these parts parts artificially divided. That's why there is a huge gap between the RESEARCH and PRAСTICE ( http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/the_research-practice_gap_1.html ). In my opinion, more important must be transfer technology than knowledge. The best example of this approach could be Stalin's Indusrialization. During industrialization, then shots were prepared in order to learn necessary knowledge to develop new technologies. Thus, here I see the following sequence of events: FOREIGN TECHNOLOGIES -> OWN KNOWLEDGE -> OWN TECHNOLOGIES.
I think the two are important. Because of international conspiracy, there is the need to pursue the two pari-passu. In Africa, transfer of technology has not worked due to the conspiracy between the original owners of the technology and the leaders of the recipient countries. Also, the ability to developed the kind of knowledge that will bring about a breakthrough in science and technology are lacking due to the inefficient educational system in these countries.
What is more important is a radical overhaul of those impediments militating against the transfer of knowledge and technology.
If you have the technology and you don't have the knowledge to use, the knowhow, that technology is useless. In general if you know how to do something yourself, it is far better. That's why it is better to help setup universities and knowledge institutions in developing countries, so they can learn and create local knowledge. Frugal technology can be created by them, it doesn't have to be 'high tech'. And from research capacity building, not only theoretical, have shown to be very important. Capacity building entails knowledge, culture and the enabling environment.
In my professional opinion, I believe that both hold equal significance. However, it is noteworthy that the presence of high-quality knowledge yields a substantial impact on both short-term and long-term outcomes.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Disease
- Infectious Diseases