Carrillo, P (1994) Technology transfer: A survey of international construction companies. Construction Management and Economics, 12(1), pp. 45-51. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This paper reports on a survey of technology transfer undertaken by international construction companies in developing countries. The views of construction professionals with extensive work experience in developing countries were consulted in a questionnaire survey of top UK and U S consultants and contractors. The aim of the survey was to determine the areas of construction technology transfer that provide maximum benefit to local communities, the most effective way of improving technology transfer, the main obstacles experienced and how these obstacles may be overcome. The results show that several companies actively undertake technology transfer exercises in an ad hoc manner and their obligations to the recipients need to be specifically defined.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | developing countries; international companies; technology transfer |
| Index terms: | survey, developing country, technology transfer, questionnaire, exercise, construction technology, international construction, construction professional |
| Subjects: | development economics, professional development, health behaviours and lifestyles, digital engineering, data collection methods, strategic management, knowledge management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Health and Safety, International Construction, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here