Technology transfer involves the flow of knowledge from technology developers or possessors to technology acquirers that benefit from the knowledge. This article proposes a model for the evaluation of knowledge flow in complex technology transfer projects from developed to developing countries. The proposed knowledge flow model is built by combining the concepts of knowledge viscosity and velocity with the concepts of architectural and component knowledge. The model rests on the idea that the transfer of knowledge to resource-limited organisations such as those in developing countries requires a balance between viscosity and velocity on one hand, and between architectural and component knowledge on the other. The knowledge flow model has been tested on data sourced from three Earth-observation small satellite collaborative projects leveraged by Algeria in order to acquire small satellite technology from abroad and build local capability. The implementation of the model revealed that the collaborative projects enabled only the acquisition of a shallow form of architectural knowledge detached from the local environment. The findings are reflective of the limitations of the collaborative projects mechanism and the challenge faced by the technology acquirer to strike the appropriate component/architectural and viscosity/velocity balance.

This article proposes a 'systemic experiential learning model' for the evaluation of technological learning. Technological learning is effective when combining learning by doing, by searching and by interacting. The proposed model is based on parallels drawn between the typology -learning by doing, by searching and by interacting-and the Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory through its cyclical combination of action and reflection. It argues that learners, whether they be individuals, groups, organisations, or inter-organisations, are more effective when completing Kolb-like cycles. The proposed model is the combination of horizontal and vertical processes. Each learning level (individual, group, organisation or inter-organisation) is modelled, horizontally, according to a Kolblike learning cycle. Vertical connections are made between the horizontal levels of aggregation by borrowing March's concepts of 'exploration' and 'exploitation'. The model has been used for the evaluation of learning occurring in the Algerian small satellite capability-building programme. The implementation of the model revealed that learning is not systemic and therefore ineffective. Findings are reflective of the difficulty of striking the right balance between action (learning by doing) and reflection (learning by searching) and densifying interactions (learning by interacting) within and between learning levels.

This article focuses on the transferor‐transferee relationship in the context of technology transfer collaborative projects between developed and developing countries. The case of the Algerian satellite industry, which utilized three small satellite collaborative projects with foreign companies over twenty years in order to acquire technology from abroad, has been used as an empirical study. The study evaluates transferor‐transferee relationships when small satellite collaborative projects are used as a technology transfer mechanism. It assesses whether technology transfer effectiveness or ‘learning’ is mutually understood by the two key transferor and transferee actors. It identifies a potential schism when transferor motives are often economic (business-oriented) whilst transferee motives are non-economic, aiming to learn and develop local capabilities for national developmental objectives. The study reveals that this initial non-alignment of objectives led to the adoption of a transfer mechanism where learning is not the main thrust. The principal finding extrapolated from this research is that this inadequacy is rooted in the fact that Algerians had not clearly dissociated the objective of ‘satellite technological learning’ from that of ‘satellite applications’. Recommendations for future research include the need to clearly prioritize the objective of ‘technological learning’ to avoid confusion as to the transfer mechanisms to adopt.