Lipsey, Carlaw and Bekar's definition appears inadequate and inaccurate.  
  
Is it really "technological knowledge" that adds value?  Is it not rather actual
technology that does so?  In fact, it is not even technology by itself that adds value
(books and manuals full of technological knowledge sitting on a shelf don't add vale, nor
does a machine rusting by a roadside), rather it is the successful and financially
productive *operation* of technology that does so to an economy.
  
Prabhu Guptara