Claudia Nelcy Jiménez¹, Andrés Darío Cristancho², Oscar Fernando Castellanos³

¹ Chemical Engineer and Master in Business Administration, PhD student in Industrial Engineering, Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Professor, School of Engineering Organization, School of Mines, Universidad Nacional de Colombia,Sede Medellín. Member of the research groups BioGestión and Innovation and Technology Management. cnjimenezh@unal.edu.co

² Industrial Engineering and Master in Industrial Engineering, Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Member of the research group BioGestión, Colombia. adcristanchoa@unal.edu.co

³Chemical Engineer, M.Sc., Ph.D., Universidad Estatal de Moscú. Associate Professor, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Bogotá. Coordinador Grupo de Investigación y Desarrollo en Gestión, Productividad y Competitividad, BioGestión, Colombia. ofcastellanosd@unal.edu.co

ABSTRACT

Technology valuation has traditionally been approached from an economics-based financial approach applied to project management. However, some authors have detected flaws in such approach, proposing that techniques should be included allowing technology' s qualitative and intangible aspects to be taken into account. Considering a broader definition of technology covering production systems' technological capability, this article was aimed at analysing such capability as part of technology valuation, emphasising technological resources' intangible aspects and their exploitation. The tendencies and some of the tools which have been developed for such valuation are shown, identifying the challenges involved in assessing technological capability within the context of developing countries where the creation of such capability must be promoted, implying a strategic vision of technological development.

Keywords: technological capability, intangible, technology, technology valuation, innovation.

Received: March 5th 2011

Accepted: July 24th 2011

Introduction

Technology valuation is a key decision-making mechanism, covering both financial and technical components and strategic technology management (Li & Chen, 2006). Angelo et al., (2008) have stated that knowing the value of specific technologies for encouraging technological transfer is a prospective objective. Likewise, assessing a collection of related assets, including technology, is a prerequisite for determining whether a selected business strategy generates an acceptable rate of return (Watkins, 1998).

The view of technology has changed as time has elapsed, becoming a strategic factor for organisations in the sense that as well as being a tangible resource represented by equipment and machinery, its intangible component has been recognised as being a key factor in generating competitive advantages through identifying and exploiting it. Technological capability must be assessed as part of such intangible component and the result of exploiting an organisation' s available resources (including technological ones) taking it into account that each company or production system achieves a different level of capability since resources are not uniformly and equitatively distributed and that their exploitation strongly depends on a particular context, corresponding to the supposition arising from resource- and capability- based theory (Bogner & Thomas, 1994; Cool & Schendel, 1988; Deutsch, et al.,1997).

This article has thus been based on analysing technological capability to reveal its role regarding the topic of technological valuation, focusing on the broadest conceptualisation of technology including such capability, and presenting some of the tools which have been produced for assessing them within contexts involving less development. Some challenges involved in assessing technological capability in such settings are also identified.

Limited and broad conceptualisation of technology

Figure 1 shows how the concept of technology has changed, becoming enriched by contributions from different authors (this Figure also shows the evolution of the concept of technological valuation which will be dealt with later on). From the predominant Taylorist viewpoint at the beginning of 20th century, technology was considered to be a fundamentally tangible means of production, even though towards the middle of the century the role of knowledge became recognised as being imbued with such goods when talking of technological packages; an extended viewpoint was eventually reached which also included organisational technological capability in the 1990s. Such change has been mainly driven by the strategic level achieved by technology in production systems, going beyond the operational level. Thus, according to Angelo et al., (2008), a limited definition and a broad definition of technology may be referred to, the former being related to tangible elements and associated technical knowledge whilst the broad concept covers productions systems' total technological capability. The broad conceptualisation of technology will be taken as referent in this article.

Technological capability

Applying concepts related to capability and skills is based on resource-based theory, a strategic management tool aimed at identifying specific factors consolidating organisations' performance differences (Bogner & Thomas, 1994; Cool & Schendel, 1988). Different approaches to the topic can be found in the pertinent literature, ranging from regarding capability to be a consequence of competence, to a completely contrasting viewpoint, to considering them as being synonymous.

Regarding the former point of view, one could mention Teece et al., (1997) who stated that capability refers to the strategic application of competences/skills (i.e. their use and deployment for achieving production systems' strategic objectives). The definition and creation of capability will thus be determined by future objectives or establishing the need for improving or strengthening specific skills. Likewise, such authors associate competence with organisational routines covering all assets involved in an organisation' s distinct activities and which allow them to be carried out even when involving multiple lines of products.

Adopting the viewpoint that competence results from capability, Prahalad & Hamel (1990), Coombs (1996) and Hitt et al., (2004, cited in Castellanos et al., 2009) have proposed that distinct competences (i.e. superior competences to those of one' s competitors) are based on resources, capability and core competences (those which are strategically important for organisations and production systems' successful performance). According to these authors, capability refers to a set of resources' aptitude for the integrated performance of a task or an activity, whilst competences are the result of ongoing resource deployment and integration involving several characteristics.

It is worth mentioning Huerta et al., (2004), regarding the latter case, as they have used the terms capability and competence indiscriminately, stating that they can be grouped into two levels. The former groups individual resources or assets whilst the latter groups an organisation' s collective capability, competence or ability. These authors have also summarised the differences between the concept of resources and capability, mentioning the stock nature of the former regarding the flow of capability, as well as the collective nature of capability regarding the individual nature of resources.

The discussion concerning the concept of capability and competence is ongoing; capability will be taken as the centre for analysis in this article, considering it to be a fundamental factor for competitiveness, whose existence forms the basis for the consolidation of organisational, technological and innovation-type competences, in turn leading to the creation of competitive advan tages.

A production system may have technological, commercial, methodological and logistical, social capability. Technological capability, as a key aspect for innovation, leads to efficient performance being achieved and is mainly based on specialised resources, such as qualified personnel, capital goods and technological know-how (Bell & Pavitt, 1995). Bearing technological knowhow' s characteristics in mind, technological capability may be classified into three categories (Lall, 1992): a) investment capability: this concerns an organisation' s fundamental skills before creating new plants or expanding existing installations, needs are identified, preparations are made and technology obtained and the personnel needed for the new infrastructure are identified, planned for, equipped and recruited; b) connection capability: this is necessary for transmitting and receiving information, skills and technology from and to providers, assessors, serviceproviding companies; and c) production capability: this covers basic skills, such as operation, quality control and maintenance, as well as some more specialised ones such as improving and adapting, designing, investigating and developing equipment, including surveillance and both process and product control.

The capability of generating technology is almost exclusively associated with physical systems used in producing high valueadded finished goods. Taking this perspective further, Leonard- Barton (1998) has stated that business skills are achieved by developing in-house technological skills, meaning that a company' s technological capability depends on the simultaneous development of a particular company' s standards and values in their own physical systems (equipment and installations), management systems and their employees' skills and knowledge.

An organisation' s technological advance is directly linked to the possibilities of its setting; research into technological capability must thus be focused on two dimensions: production systems' performance for developed countries and for developing economies. Such perspectives tend to be differentiated as a developed economy has technological capability (as most companies are on the technological frontier) and thus investigation is centred on the suitable identification of technological capability thereby leading to market advantages, the consolidation of support mechanisms aimed at promoting such capability, better understanding of components, the routinisation of activities and their optimum renovation. Developing countries do not normally have production systems providing a cluster of technological capability, meaning that debate arises around the activities required for constructing and accumulating it (Figueiredo, 2001).

Valuing technology from its limited and broad perspective

Similarly to what happened with the definition of technology, and according to that presented in Figure 1, technological valuation has been complemented from a purely accountancy-based approach by including an assessment of intangible aspects such as knowledge and capability, leading to different approaches involving social aspects being adapted when measuring the impact of technology in determined contexts.

Technology valuation has been defined by different authors; nonetheless, its academic concept has begun to be explored during the last few years (Li & Chen, 2006). The aforementioned authors have stated that technology valuation seeks to determine maximum economic benefit by using information effectively through a series of reasonable methods, i.e. allowing a buyer or seller to benefit through the full use of all available information.

Elói and Santiago (2008) have indicated, in a broader approach, that evaluation is not concerned with predicting technology' s exact value but rather with providing an expected value, thereby capturing the risks and uncertainties inherent in technological innovation. They have stated that valuation and technological evaluation are complementary processes forming part of a much broader one known as new technology commercialisation (marketing). Valuation is orientated towards determining a technological asset' s intrinsic value, differently to pricing (LES, 2008).

The foregoing shows that differing concepts can be found in the pertinent literature about technological valuation, some being more restricted/limited than others, depending on the conceptualisation of technology being used and the context in which assessment takes place. As in the concept of technology, technological valuation can be interpreted from a broad perspective in which the object being evaluated is a particular production system' s technological capability as one of its fundamental intangible assets for creating innovation.

Valuing technological capability

Technological capability is linked to intellectual capital which is why its valuation represents a key factor in the proposal for determining the real impact of technological learning which is acquired through five important routes (Freeman, 1993; Pérez and Adarmes, 2005, cited in Castellanos et al., 2009):(1) educating many students graduating in engineering; (2) promoting a wide range of technical and scientific activities within trade and industry; (3) technological learning inside companies and a public and private assessment and consultancy service network, research associations, patents offices and other scientific and technical infrastructure and networks for innovation; (4) ongoing learning through the horizontal integration of research and development (R&D), design, production and marketing activities; and (5) investment in physical equipment, plant and new and used machinery.

Technological capability has been studied using models in which its strategic impact has been categorised. Table 1 summarises the taxonomies which have been proposed by several authors for evaluating technological capability.

Table 1 shows the different approaches which can be adopted when classifying technological capability, starting from very detailed, staggered levels, such as those proposed by Lall (1992), the two-level approach of Bell and Pavitt (1995) or the differentiation of technological capability for generating and managing technical change proposed by Amsden (2001) who stated that the step from production capability to innovation is made via the capability to execute projects, as a viewpoint organisationally promoting capability for producing internal change. Bell (2007) has proposed another classification dealing with operation capability which allows the use and operation of technology and innovation capability for creating knowledge and transforming it, in turn making up design, research and development capability.

Tools for assessing technological capability

Several authors like Bell & Pavitt (1995) and Dutrénit et al. (2002) have proposed tools for assessing production systems' technological capability, seeking to respond to application contexts' specificities. Some of these tools referred to in the next section have been designed and used mainly within the setting of developing countries.

Technological capability assessment matrix

Characterising technological management in developing countries has been focused on describing the use and adaptation of foreign technology to local characteristics until innovative technological management dynamics similar to those of the most advanced companies in the respective field have been achieved. Matrix analysis structures have thus been developed sequentially describing technological development, details of technological functions being given in the columns whilst the rows describe the degrees of complexity related to managing each function.

Bell and Pavitt' s 1995 proposal provides a relevant example due to the frequency of its application and the derivations which it has led to; they proposed framing technological capability within investment, production and support functions (as described in Table 2). Investment functions would include users' ability to decide on, produce and control technology and preparing and implementing projects. Production functions would include organising processes and production and product-centred functions; support functions would include developing links and supplying capital goods.

The technological dimension is difficult to characterise because of the diversity of criteria contributing towards its development. It may be evaluated by using the technological capability assessment matrix for determining conditions achieved in the advanced and innovative use of technology; however this tool is limited because it only reveals the state of an organisation at a given moment. Complementary tools have been developed for overcoming such drawback as they try to identify additional variables, such as causality or the speed of achieving technological capability, these being useful for structuring proposals concerning suitable technological management.

Technological capability measurement tools based on the matrix proposed by Bell and Pavitt (1995) have been developed in Latin-America by the region' s organisations. A proposal has been formulated in Mexico (Dutrénit et al., 2002) for approaching transnational subsidiaries' operation dynamics, specifically assembly- plants. Technological capability assessment matrix support activities would include internal links, external links and equipment modification functions describing the administrative and operational complexity developed during the interaction between the company' s matrix and that of subsidiary encompassing the construction of assembly-plant companies' goods and service supply networks. Investment functions would also include decision-making and control as large-scale investment projects depend on headquarters' decisions and not those made by Mexican assembly-plants.

Technological capability index

Dutrénit et al., (2002) and Sampedro (2003) have developed a tool based on the aforementioned technological capability assessment matrix in which they numerically weighted compliance with such matrix' s attributes (Table 3). They could thus coordinate measurement dynamics as time elapsed or by comparing organisations but without being able to explicitly identify achieved capability, thereby facilitating extending the exercise of measuring technological capability, without necessarily describing the characteristics of advantages acquired by organisations.

Table 3 shows a differential distribution of the value provided by each technological function obeying particular reflections regarding conditions in line with technological management within the framework of the assembly-plant sector (Sampedro, 2003). Applying this tool in different sectors and contexts thus requires fresh weighting regarding each technological function' s contribution.

Evaluating learning in emerging economies

This proposal emerged in Brazil complementarily to technological capability matrix assessment and is aimed at identifying the causality of learning in relation to consolidating technological capability. Learning process are categorised according to their origin (internal or external) and how they convert knowledge within an organisation (socialisation or encoding). Four aspects of learning are evaluated to determine their relevance in consolidating technological capability: variety, intensity, functioning and interaction (Figueiredo, 2001).

This tool is based on a method for categorising the quality of knowledge acquired in a particular organisation from its usefulness in consolidating technological attributes. A description of the learning developed throughout an organisation' s history and its objective assessment regarding proposed attributes are required. Production systems which usually lose direction or the possibility of constructing new capability should thus be subjected to learning as they are immersed in the dynamics of competitiveness.

Technological capabilities' accumulation trajectory

Constructing a technological capability accumulation trajectory measurement tool begins from identifying the time which an organisation takes in consolidating each capability in different technological functions. This must be complemented by a projection of capability growth on the technological frontier. An organisation' s speed of accumulating technological capability must thus be greater than that of its international competitors so as to reach satisfactory performance levels (Bell, 2007). This tool' s main strength is based on the possibility of extrapolating performance expectations for accumulating technological capabilities and achieving superior technological performance.

Entrepreneurial performance and technological innovation capability

Robledo et al., (2009) have proposed studying Colombian companies and sectors' performance by using data from national innovation surveys through analysing technological innovation capability, this being understood as being organisational capability related to the dynamics of technological innovation going beyond just R&D. Robledo' s proposal is based on seven types of capability for analysing entrepreneurial performance, described in other works (OECD, 2002; Guan & Ma, 2003; Yam et al., 2004; Sher & Yang, 2005, cited in Robledo et al., 2009): R&D capability, resource management capability, organisational learning capability, strategic planning capability, production capability, marketing capability and organisational capability. Such capability must be measured indirectly, meaning that questions in national innovation surveys providing information related to each of them were identified by Robledo and his team, according to such capability' s definition established in the pertinent literature. Statistical techniques for analysing association between variables were used by these authors for establishing the relationship between technological innovation capability and entrepreneurial performance even though they have mentioned the difficulty involved in obtaining the necessary data for valid work on their proposed theoretical framework, due to innovation survey design, frequency and gaining access to them.

Challenges involved in valuing technological capability within the context of less developed economies

The production systems of less developed economies, such as those in the Latin-American region, have limited resources forming the basis for generating capability; this type of process is consequently restricted. Nonetheless, such limitation cannot be considered the main reason for their technological backwardness since the impact of failure in both technological development and technology transfer (implicit in the assimilation and command of acquired technology) is also relevant from a strategic viewpoint. The challenge thus lies in going from simply having some resources to creating and accumulating capability through their suitable exploitation, this in turn leading to competitive advantages being generated.

Likewise, the foregoing requires that tools and methodologies are designed for measuring advances regarding the consolidation of capability which must take social, technological, political and regional economic variables into account, as well as dealing with the dynamics of technological appropriation of the production systems forming the object of study. This means that such approach must be adaptive for describing the complexity of accumulation of technological capability given organisations' diversity and their specificities within the context of countries such as Latin-American ones.

The challenge in consolidating valuation tools lies in obeying very specific guidelines for applying them to economic sectors of interest so that they lead to results being replicated and compared so

that social actors (entrepreneurial sector, education sector, government) can suitably manage measurements allowing them to make advances in accumulating such capability. Case studies are common in a Latin-American setting; they usually propose identifying the precise state of technological capability in organisations. However, some analysis models have greater added-value as they compare competing organisations (Figueiredo, 2002), in different regions (Ariffin & Figueiredo, 2006) or in the same organisation as time has elapsed (Sampedro, 2003) and from which more solid bases can be generated for defining an organisation' s activities regarding the exploitation of synergy or overall technological performance.

Conclusions

Technological valuation is a developing subject in which the concept itself is still evolving, valuation being understood here as being the determination of not just a good' s value but also its impact on the particular organisation which acquires or generates it. In terms of technology, valuation must consider both traditional techniques orientated towards tangible goods represented by the technological package' s hard component as well as a fresh approach to evaluating the soft component where technological capability may be located. Likewise, a variety of proposals can be found in the literature concerning technology valuation methods and techniques in that regarding technological capability; such proposals are characterised by responding to precise needs in particular contexts, thereby hampering their generalisation. They usually deal with knowledge construction exercises regarding organisations and production systems' technological evolution, their learning dynamics and analysing decision- making structure for determining technological capability accumulation routines.

Technological capability valuation represents an interesting field of study for emerging Latin-American economies as a topic in the field of organisational or entrepreneurial development in the sense that few investigators have made incursions into it to date (mainly in countries like Brazil and Mexico); proposals in Colombia have fundamentally consisted of approaches seen to be limited by the availability of information. Technological capability thus constitutes a fundamental element within the framework of technology valuation which must be taken into account in the search for covering all dimensions and the complexity characterising technology.

As part of such search and forming a novel perspective for tackling the valuation of technology regarding its broad concept, studying this topic by introducing elements from other fields of knowledge, such as biology, forms part of some ongoing research by the authors of the present article (advances have been published in Jiménez and Castellanos (2011)). This attempts to enrich technological valuation by bestowing attributes on it such as dynamicity, flexibility and adaptability, starting from the fact that biology has been the basis for relevant support in areas such as understanding organisations, technological management and manufacturing management.

References

Aït-El-Hadj, S., Gestión de la tecnología. La empresa frente a la mutación tecnológica., Ediciones Gestión 3000, Estados Unidos,1990.

Amit, R., Schoemaker, P., Strategic assets and organizational rent., Strategic Management Journal, (14), 1993, pp. 33- 46.

Amsden, A. H., The rise of ' the rest' : Challenges to the West from late-industrializing economies., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001.

Angelo, R., Domenico, C., Luigi, I., Iacobelli, M., Technology Valuation for Biotechnology: techniques for valuation of Intellectual Property., IBIC Conference, Italia, 2008.

Ariffin, N., Figueiredo, P. N., Internationalisation of Innovative Capabilities: Evidence from the Electronics Industry in Malaysia and Brazil., Rio de Janeiro: Escola Brasileira de Administracao Pública e de Empresas, 2006.

Bell, M., Types and Levels of Technological Capability in Developing Countries., En: M. Bell, Technological Learning and the Development of Production and Innovative Capacities in the Industry and Infrastructure Sectors of the Least Developed Countries: What Roles for ODAš- Background Paper No. 10 (págs. 100-111), Brighton, United Kingdom: University of Sussex, 2007.

Bell, M., Pavitt, K., The Development of Technological Capabilities., En Trade, Technology and International Competitiveness, The World Bank: Washington DC: I. U, Haque, 1995.

Bell, M., Pavitt, K., Technological Accumulation and industrial Growth: Contrast between Developed and Developing Countries., Industrial and Corporate Change, 2 (2), 1993, pp. 157-210.

Black, F., Scholes, M., The pricing of options and corporate liabilities., Journal of Political Economy 81, 1973, pp. 637- 654.

Bogner, W., Thomas, H., Core competence and competitive advantage: a model and illustrative evidence from the pharmaceutical industry., En: G. H. Hamel, Competence-Based Competition, Chichester: Wiley, 1994, pp. 111-144.

Cabanes, R., From Sociology of Interest to Sociology of Innovation: Transfer of French Tecnology to Brazil., Journal of Scientifics & Industrial Research, 50, 1991, pp. 133-144.

Castellanos, O., Jiménez, C. N., Domínguez, K., Competencias tecnológicas: bases conceptuales para el desarrollo tecnológico en Colombia., Ingeniería e Investigación, 29 (1), 2009, pp. 133-139.

Castellanos, O., Fúquene, A., Ramírez, D., Análisis de tendencias: de la información hacia la innovación., Editorial Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2011.

Cortes de C., E., Acumulación de Capacidades Tecnológicas y Procesos de Aprendizaje: el caso de la Acería de la Compañía Siderúrgica Nacional., Tesis presentada a la EBAPEEscola Brasileira da Administracao Pública e de Empresas, CFPA-Centro de Formacao Academica e Pesquisa, para optar al grado en Mestrado Executivo em Gestao Empresarial, Rio de Janeiro, 2002.

Dahlman, C., Westphal, L., Technological effort in industrial development: an interpretative survey of recent research., World Bank, 1982.

Deutsch, K., Diedrichs, E., Raster, M., Westphal, J., Gewinnen mit Kernkompetenzen: Die Spielregeln des Marktes neu Definieren., Mu¨nchen.: Carl Hauser Verlag, 1997.

Dutrénit, Vera-cruz, Arias, Avendaño, Gil, Sampedro., Marco Analítico para el Análisis de los Procesos de Acumulación de Capacidades Tecnológicas, documento de trabajo, proyecto: “ Aprendizaje Tecnológico y Escalamiento Industrial: Generación de Capacidades de Innovación en la Industria Maquiladora de México”., COLEF/FLACSO/UAM, 2002.

Edvinsson, L., Sullivan, P., Developing a model for managing intellectual capital., European Management Journal, 14(4), 1996.

Elói, D., Santiago, L., Avaliar X valorar novas tecnologias: desmistificando conceitos., Laboratório de Apoioà Decisão e Confiabilidade, Departamento de Engenharia de Produção: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Consultado el 3 de enero de 2011. Disponible en: http://www. Institutoinovacao.com.br/downloads/Avaliar_x_Valorar_1.pdf, 2008.

Figueiredo, P. N., Acumulação de competências tecnológicas e processos de aprendizagem; estruturas conceituais e experiências de empresas no Brasil., Mimeo, Fundación Getulio Vargas - Escola de Administracao Pública, 2001.

Figueiredo, P. N., Technological Capability-accumulation and the Underlying Learning Processes: Analytical Frameworks and Differences between Latecomer Steel Firms., Copenhagen/ Elsinore: Paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference on “Industrial Dynamics of the New and Old Economy - who is embracing whom§” , 2002.

Hetman, F., Society and the Assessment of Technology., OECD. 1973.

Huerta, P., Navas, J. E., Almodóvar, P. La Diversificación desde la Teoría de Recursos y Capacidades. Cuadernos de Estudios Empresariales, Vol. 14, 2004, pp. 87-104.

Jiménez, C. N., Castellanos, O., Enfoque multidimensional y dinámico de la valoración tecnológica., Sexto congreso internacional de la Red de Investigación y Docencia sobre Innovación Tecnológica RIDIT, Manizales, Abril de 2011.

Lall, S., Technological capabilities and industrialization., World Development, 20, 1992, pp. 23-28.

Leonard-Barton, D., Nascentes do Saber: Criando e Sustentando as Fontes de Inovação., Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Getulio Vargas, 1998.

LES., Technology valuation and License negotiation course., The Licensing Executives Society International, 2008.

Li, y. R., Chen, Y. G., Managing Technology: The Technology Valuation Approach. Technology Management for the Global Future., Presented at the Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology, PICMET, Turquía: IEEE, Vol. 2, 2006, pp. 535-540.

Park, Y., Park, G., A new method for technology valuation in monetary value: procedure and application., Technovation, 24(5), 2004, pp. 387-394.

Prahalad, C., Hamel, G., The core competence of the corporation., Harvard Business Review, 1990, pp. 79-91.

Robledo, J., Gómez, F., Restrepo, J., Relación entre capacidades de innovación tecnológica y el desempeño empresarial y sectorial., En: Encuestas, datos y descubrimiento de conocimiento sobre la innovación en Colombia, Bogotá:Javergraf, 2009

Sábato, J., Ensayos en campera., Juárez Editor, Buenos Aires, 1979.

Sampedro, J. L., Aprendizaje y acumulación de capacidades tecnológicas en la industria maquiladora de exportación: el caso de Thomson-Multimedia de México., Tesis presentada a la Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Xochimilco, para optar al grado en Maestría en Economía y Gestión del Cambio Tecnológico, Xochimilco, 2003.

Simonetti, R., Technical change and firm growth: “creative destruction” in the fortune List, 1963-1987., En: F. Helmstadter,& M. Perlman, Behavioral Norms, Technological Progress, and Economic Dynamics, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996.

Taylor, F. W., Scientific management., New York, 1911.

Teece, D., Pisano, G., Shuen, A., Dynamic capabilities and strategic management., Strategic Management Journal, (18), 1997, pp. 509-533.

Tidd, J., From knowledge Management to Strategic Competence., UK: University of Sussex, 2000.

Tran, T. A., Daim, T. U., A taxonomic review of methods and tools applied in technology assessment., Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(9), 2008, pp.1396-1405.

Valhondo, D., Gestión del Conocimiento: Del Mito a la Realidad., Madrid, España: Ediciones Díaz de Santos, 2003.

Waissbluth, M., El paquete tecnológico y la innovación., En: Conceptos Generales de Gestión Tecnológica - Colección Ciencia y Tecnología, No. 26, 1990.

Watkins, W. M., Technology and business strategy: getting the most out of technological assets., Wesport, USA: Greenwood Press, 1998.