conTenTs · 10 roadmapping 183 Introduction 183 Where and why it is used 184 9780230_233348_01_prels.indd 6 19/02/2010 14:26. Contents vii Process 185 Case study 190 11 s-curve 195

C o n t e n t s v

List of figures ix

List of tables xi

Notes on the authors xiii

Preface xv

Acknowledgements xvii

Abbreviations xxi

1 introduction: a framework for understanding TM activities and tools 1Definition 2The TM framework to set the context 5TM activities behind technological capabilities 8TM tools 13Cases illustrating different TM system configurations 19

ParT i: Technology ManageMenT acTiviTies 292 acquisition 33

Introduction 33Internal acquisition: R&D 34R&D processes 35External technology acquisition 42External acquisition processes 47Case study 51

3 exploitation 57Introduction 57Commercialization/marketing 58Marketing processes 63

conTenTs

9780230_233348_01_prels.indd 5 19/02/2010 14:26

vi C o n t e n t s

Technology transfer 66Technology utilization 74Utilization processes 75Case study 80

4 identification 85Introduction 85Definition 86Identification processes 88Case studies 100

5 learning 105Introduction 105Definition 106Learning processes 109Case study 120

6 Protection 125Introduction 125Definition 126Protection processes 129Case study 137

7 selection 141Introduction 141Definition 142Selection processes 143Case study 154

ParT ii: Technology ManageMenT Tools 1598 Patent analysis 163

Introduction 163Where and why it is used 164Process 166Case study 169

9 Portfolio Management 173Introduction 173Where and why it is used 174Process 175Case study 178

10 roadmapping 183Introduction 183Where and why it is used 184

9780230_233348_01_prels.indd 6 19/02/2010 14:26

C o n t e n t s vii

Process 185Case study 190

11 s-curve 195Introduction 195Where and why it is used 196Process 199Case study 201

12 stage-gate 205Introduction 205Where and why it is used 206Process 207Case study 210

13 value analysis/value innovation 215Introduction 215Where and why it is used 217Process 218Case studies 221

14 resources for tools 225EU sources 225University sources 229Academic books 230Professional associations’ websites and publications 233Commercial company websites 233Some useful links 236

15 conclusion: linking TM activities with TM tools 237

Glossary 249

Bibliography 257

Index 269

9780230_233348_01_prels.indd 7 19/02/2010 14:26

I N T R O D U C T I O N 1

chapteR

1INTRODUCTION

Technology can represent a major source of competitive advantage and growth for companies. However, effectively integrating tech-nological considerations into business processes is a complex task, requiring consideration of multiple functions, including technical, marketing, finance and human resources. Technology, combined with highly motivated and properly trained people, enables a business to respond rapidly to changing customer demands and to access and develop new market opportunities.

The challenges associated with the management of technology are compounded by a number of factors, including the increasing cost, complexity and pace of technology advancement, the diversity of technology sources, the globalization of competition and alliances, and the impact of information technology (IT). These challenges also represent a great opportunity for organizations that can fully harness their technological potential.

To compete successfully, companies must assess their technology

management (TM) strategy and practice, and address how they:

◗ recognize technological opportunities and threats and convert them into sales and profit

◗ exploit existing technology by the effective translation of strategy into operational performance

◗ differentiate products using cost-effective technological product and process solutions

◗ identify and evaluate alternative and emerging technologies in the light of company policy and strategy and their impact on the business and society

◗ reduce the risks inherent in new or unfamiliar technologies

t echnology management

(TM) is the management of technological capabilities to shape and accomplish the strategic and operational objectives of an organization.

a FRameWoRK FoR UnDeRStanDIng tm actIVItIeS anD toolS

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 1 19/02/2010 11:14

2 I N T R O D U C T I O N

◗ harness technology that supports improvement in processes, information and other systems

◗ decrease the time to market of new products and services through effective identification and exploitation of technologies that provide competitive advantage

◗ protect and exploit intellectual property (IP).

Six key questions must be answered if the full potential of tech-nology investment is to be realized:

1 How do we exploit our technology assets? 2 How do we identify technology that will have a future impact on

our business?3 How do we select technology for business benefit? 4 How should we acquire new technology? 5 How can we protect our technology assets?6 How can we learn from our experience, to improve our ability to

develop and exploit the value of technology?

This chapter explores the theoretical perspectives that underpin the practice of TM, providing the pillars of a technology system upon which the structure of the book is based, with practical examples included to illustrate the application of these concepts. This book will focus on the micro-level analysis of TM in order to understand how firms carry out their TM activities and what tools and tech-niques are needed. Technological changes are continuously creating new challenges and opportunities for application to new product, service and process development. However, these opportunities need to be captured and turned into value through effective TM.

After the definitions of key concepts, the TM framework will be introduced. This framework will show the context within which TM activities take place. The description of each TM activity will then become a separate chapter in Part I. Following the TM activi-ties, the chapter will discuss which TM tools and techniques are useful to carry out TM activities and introduce the rationale behind selecting key tools, which are given at length in Part II of the book. Three case studies at the end of this chapter illustrate the TM system.

DefINITIONThe definition of TM includes planning, directing, control and coordination of the development and implementation of techno-

logical capabilities so that firms can shape and accomplish their strategic and operational objectives (NRC, 1987). This definition

I ntelle ctU al p Rope Rty

(IP) is an umbrella term for various legal entitlements that attach to certain names, written and recorded media, and inventions.

the tm F Rame W o RK

considers technology as a resource and emphasizes the dynamic nature of the knowledge flows that must occur between the commercial and technological functions in a firm, linking to the strategy, innovation and operational processes.

act I V I ty

is used interchangeably with ‘process’ or ‘routine’, and is associated with the concept of capability.

tech no l og I cal capab I l I t I eS

consist of dynamic and operational capabilities that are a collection of routines/activities to execute and coordinate the variety of tasks required to manage technology.

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 2 19/02/2010 11:14


1attempts to combine both ‘hard’ aspects of technology (science and engineering) and ‘soft’ dimensions such as the processes enabling its effective application (Phaal et al., 2004a). However, it does not make an explicit distinction between the technical and managerial issues associated with TM, and is a rather static definition. Techno-logical changes are continuously creating new challenges and opportunities for new product, service, process and organizational development and industrial diversification. In order to capture and convert these opportunities into value through effective and dynamic TM, a new definition is needed.

An appropriate paradigm or perspective on understanding TM could be the dynamic capabilities theory. Capability implies an ability to do something and is constituted both by strategies and opera-tional activities (Bergek et al., 2008). In its most elaborate form, dynamic capabilities are the ability to reconfigure, redirect, trans-form and appropriately shape and integrate existing core competen-

cies with external resources and strategic and complementary assets to meet the challenges of a time-pressured, rapidly changing world of competition and imitation (Teece et al., 2000). Three main reasons explain why the dynamic capabilities theory could enhance the understanding of TM (Cetindamar et al., 2009):

1 It is not specific technological innovations but rather the capa-bility to generate a stream of product, service and process changes that matter for long-term firm performance (Rush et al., 2007).

2 It is possible to observe the dynamics taking place in the organization of firms, since the unit of analysis is the capabili-ties (Best, 2001).

3 Dynamic capabilities theory considers the market or the product as objects of strategic reconstruction and thus emphasizes the key role of strategic management in appropriately adapting, inte-grating and reconfiguring internal and external organizational skills, resources and functional competencies towards a changing environment (Teece et al., 1997).

As firms develop and respond to productive opportunities, they alter and further differentiate and, in the process, recharacterize the market parameters, such as those related to technology, product, service or organization (Best, 2001; Teece, 2007). In this evolu-tionary perspective, the firm shapes the market as much as vice versa. So success is achieved by developing distinctive organiza-tional, technological and production capabilities. These different sets of capabilities affect each other in an evolutionary manner, as

Dynam Ic capab I l I t I e S

are the ability to reconfigure, redirect, transform and appropriately shape and integrate existing core competencies with external resources and strategic and complementary assets to meet the challenges of rapidly changing competition and imitation.

c oRe competenc I eS

are competencies that are applicable to a wide variety of products and business markets, are not imitable, and make a significant contribution to the perceived customer benefits of the end product.

c omplementa Ry a SSet S

are the assets, infrastructure or capabilities needed to support the successful commercialization and marketing of a technological innovation, other than those assets fundamentally associated with that innovation.

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 3 19/02/2010 11:14


described in different production systems developed in the USA (Best, 2001).

TM develops and exploits technological capabilities that are changing continuously (NRC, 1987; Best, 2001). Technology capa-bilities improve or develop products, processes and existing tech-nology as well as generate new knowledge and skills in response to the competitive business environment (Jin and Zedwitz, 2008). However, TM cannot be conceived as innovation management, where many capabilities, not just technological capabilities, are developed and exploited.

Capabilities might be dynamic or operational (Helfat and Peteraf, 2003). Dynamic capabilities build, integrate or reconfigure opera-tional capabilities, which are defined as:

a high-level routine (or collection of routines) that, together with its implementing input flows, confers upon an organization’s management a set of decision options for producing significant outputs of a particular type (Winter, 2000: 983).

A routine describes a ‘repetitive pattern of activity’. Similarly, compe-tencies refer to activities to be performed by assembling firm-specific assets/resources. This is why dynamic capabilities are conceived as the routines/activities/competencies embedded in firms (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Bergek et al., 2008). Defined as such, technolog-ical capabilities consist of dynamic and operational capabilities, which are a collection of routines/activities to execute and coordi-nate the variety of tasks required to manage technology. Thus, this book will analyse the core activities that firms perform in order to achieve effective TM.

Dynamic capabilities theory is not interested in fixed assets per se, rather it aims to explain the way in which a firm allocates resources for innovation over time, how it deploys its existing resources, and where it obtains new resources (Teece et al., 1997). This is relevant for understanding TM, helping to explain how combinations of resources and processes can be developed, deployed and protected for each TM activity.

Although this book will focus mainly on TM activities, resources and skills will be discussed within a specific activity whenever rele-vant. Therefore, the main elements of a TM system in this book will be TM activities that help to build technological capabilities. In order for the performance of an activity to constitute a capability, the capability must have reached some threshold level of practised

I nnoVat I on m anagement

is the discipline of managing innovation processes, so that novel ideas within an organization can be successfully implemented.

capa b I l I ty

is an ability to do something, consisting of strategies and operational activities.

a Ro Ut I ne

describes a ‘repetitive pattern of activity’, a course of normative, standardized actions or procedures that are followed regularly.

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 4 19/02/2010 11:14


1or routine activity. Each TM activity is related to a certain techno-logical capability, comprising one or more processes/routines/competencies. Process can be described as an approach to achieving a managerial objective, through the transformation of inputs into outputs. So, the term ‘activity’ is used interchangeably with ‘process’ or ‘routine’, and is associated with the concept of capability.

Every firm is a collection of activities to design, produce, deliver and support its products and services. Individual activities are a reflection of their history, strategy, resources, approach to imple-menting their strategy, and the underlying economics of the activi-ties themselves. Dynamic capabilities theory does not imply that any particular dynamic capability is exactly alike across firms. While dynamic capabilities are certainly distinctive in their details, specific dynamic capabilities exhibit common features that are associated with effective processes across firms (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). Thus, each chapter in Part I will describe general processes/routines to illustrate the set of tasks needed to be carried out in order to achieve a particular technological capability.

The TM fRaMewORk TO seT The CONTexTThe TM discipline has a history of over 50 years (Kocaoglu, 1994; Roberts, 2004; Larson, 2007). The discipline has evolved from research and development (R&D) management to strategic TM along three dimensions:

1 scope, such as R&D, corporate and strategic focus 2 view of technology – as a tool, system or source of value in the

business – and associated issues, such as product development, development of other technologies

3 integration of technology (Drejer, 1996).

The evolution of TM is observed to take place from a stable and predictable situation within an R&D department to a discontinuous and unpredictable situation taking place at the strategic level.

In the past 20 years, innovation has become the leading topic in TM (Cetindamar et al., 2009). The innovation theme is present in almost all areas of management as well as in TM. However, the dominance of one topic starts to misrepresent the TM field, resulting in confusion. For example, Hidalgo and Albors’ (2008) study gives an account of innovation management tools based on an under-standing that innovation management is related to six specific areas in the management of technological innovation, namely, R&D,

pRoce SS

involves the transformation of inputs into outputs in order to achieve a managerial objective.

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 5 19/02/2010 11:14


new product development, commercialization of innovation, oper-ations and production, technological collaboration and technology strategy. These studies lead to confusion about the borders between innovation and technology management.

The increased use of TM and innovation management in an inter-changeable manner is also observed in practice. An analysis of the past 50 years (Larson, 2007) shows that R&D central labs are still considered essential in the 2000s, but that these labs are now known as ‘global R&D centres’ or ‘global innovation centres’. This confu-sion is further strengthened with a popular new business concept – open innovation systems (Chesbrough, 2003). The central idea behind open innovation is that in a world of widely distributed knowledge, companies cannot afford to rely entirely on their own research, but should instead buy or license processes or inventions from other companies. In addition, internal inventions not being used in a firm’s business should be taken outside the company through mechanisms such as licensing and spin-offs. Described as such, the concepts of innovation and technology become confusing, necessitating clarification.

In simple terms, innovation is doing something new such as a product, process or service, including newness in the firm (Hobday, 2005). Although implicit in this definition, the critical issue is the fact that innovation is not limited to technology. Innovations might be organizational and come from many sources. For example, Amazon’s offering of book delivery over the internet was a service-related innovation. So innovation management is the successful implementation of novel ideas within an organization. Technology

innovations, however, refer to technologically new products, services and processes as well as significant technological improvements in products, services and processes (OECD, 1995).

Recognizing that technological innovations are increasingly inter-twined with other innovation types, there is a need to have a TM framework that will draw boundaries and clarify the relationships between TM and other management principles, particularly with respect to innovation. Additionally, TM studies offer few univer-sally accepted conceptual models or frameworks to understand and communicate structures and relationships within a TM system (Phaal et al., 2004a). This book integrates the theory of dynamic capabilities into a TM framework developed by Phaal et al. (2004a) and offers this model as a comprehensive framework in under-standing TM (Cetindamar et al., 2009).

comme Rc Ia l I zat Io n

is the process of introducing a new product/service into the market.

I nnoVat I on

is doing something new such as a product, process or service, including newness in the firm. It may refer to incremental, radical and revolutionary changes in thinking, technologies, products, processes, markets or organizations.

tech no l ogy Inno Vat Ion S

refer to technologically new products, services and processes, as well as significant technological improvements in products, services and processes.

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 6 19/02/2010 11:14


1TM activities are based on technological capabilities. Due to the complex nature of firms and industries, it is difficult to describe where exactly firms exercise these activities. In the TM framework presented in Figure 1.1, the TM activities – acquisition, exploita-tion, identification, learning, protection and selection – are typic-ally linked to or embedded within three core business processes: strategy, innovation and operations (Phaal et al., 2004a). For example, technology selection decisions are made during business strategy and new product/service development.

Environment

Organization

Strategy

Innovation

Operations

Technology base

A

S

E

P

I

L

Pull mechanisms – requirements (knowledge

flows)

Commercial perspective

Push mechanisms –

capabilities (knowledge

flows)

Technological perspective

Figure 1.1 TM frameworkSOurCE: Adapted from Phaal et al. (2004a)

The proposed TM framework offers many advantages. It allows us to conceive that TM activities might operate in any business process, department or business system level, for example project, corporate and strategic business unit, in the firm. It also indicates that the specific TM issues faced by firms depend on the context (internal and external), in terms of organizational structure, systems, infra-structure, culture and structure, and the particular business envi-ronment and challenges confronting the firm, which change over time. Although not explicitly depicted, time is a key dimension in the TM framework as well. The time dimension concerns synchro-nizing technological developments and capabilities with business requirements, in the context of evolving markets, products and technology. Thus, the TM framework is in line with the dynamic

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 7 19/02/2010 11:14


capabilities framework. While the former focuses on managing technological capabilities, the latter covers all capability types.

An advantage of the TM framework is its applicability to all firms regardless of their size, in contrast to the frameworks/models that implicitly assume firms with leadership status. Most are oriented towards large firms with R&D departments and elaborate organiza-tional divisions of labour rather than small or medium-sized enter-prises (SMEs) that might operate with more informal processes with perhaps no official R&D or engineering department. Many SMEs lack R&D departments and they are followers, but the TM frame-work can still apply in these firms.

Further, the framework considers technology as a resource. This is why the technology base of a company represents the technological knowledge that needs to be turned into products, processes and services through the technological capabilities developed by TM.

The framework emphasizes the dynamic nature of the knowledge flows that must occur between the commercial and technological functions in the firm, linking to the strategy, innovation and opera-tional processes (Phaal et al., 2004a). An appropriate balance must be struck between market ‘pull’ (requirements) and technology ‘push’ (capabilities). Regardless of the driver of technological change, managers need to link markets and technology through various mechanisms, including traditional communication chan-nels, cross-functional teams or meetings, management tools, business processes, staff transfers and training.

Firms vary widely in size and scope, ranging from a one-person firm to a company with multi-department/multi-country oper-ations. In each case, this basic TM framework can be applied, adapted appropriately for the particular organizational context. After identifying the business processes behind strategy, innov-ation and operations, managers could integrate TM processes into them. The next section focuses on the generic TM processes that can be observed within firms.

TM aCTIvITIes behIND TeChNOlOgICal CapabIlITIesMany TM handbooks consist of numerous managerial tasks that are very general and have no explicit link to specific TM concepts (Dorf, 1999). This results in no clear set of TM activities and confusion as to what technology managers need to do. This book considers the

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 8 19/02/2010 11:14


1management of technology to be a professional task, and thus it focuses on a micro-level analysis of TM. This micro-focus makes it possible to understand how firms carry out their TM activities and what tools and techniques are needed to carry out these activities.

The initial step is to use the TM framework and dynamic capabili-ties theory to find a set of core/generic technological capabilities. The firm’s knowledge base includes its technological competencies as well as its knowledge of customer needs and supplier capabilities. These competencies reflect individual skills and experiences as well as distinctive ways of doing things inside firms. In other words, capabilities are gradually accumulated through various processes, procedures, routines and structures that are embedded in practice (Rush et al., 2007). Thus, the goal in this book is to identify the various common processes/routines forming the key technological capabilities that reflect what goes on within companies. An emphasis is given to processes since the dynamic capabilities approach emphasizes the process rather than the asset per se.

Identifying a core set of TM activities naturally does not cover all possibilities. Managers can benefit from a general TM framework and its grouping of TM activities only when they consider their firms’ own particular circumstances, resources and purposes. So the purpose here in offering a generic set of TM activities is to achieve four key learning objectives:

1 The core set of generic TM activities can be customized by any organization (manufacturing or services) and is applicable at any level, such as R&D unit or business unit, as well as at any size, either SMEs or large firms.

2 Knowing the main TM activities can reduce confusion between TM and other management activities such as innovation management.

3 Linear and limited perceptions on TM activities can be replaced with a dynamic view that emphasizes the links between activities.

4 Managers as well as engineers and management students who want to pursue careers in TM can conceive what skills and know-ledge are necessary to manage technology.

brief literature overview

TM activities are abundant, but it is possible to identify a small set of processes/routines that address the fundamental and common tasks needed to manage technologies and build technological capa-bilities. As shown in Figure 1.1, the technology base lies at the heart

t oolS

include devices for supporting action/practical application and frameworks for conceptual understanding.

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 9 19/02/2010 11:14


of the TM framework (Phaal et al., 2004a), on which five generic TM processes operate: acquisition, exploitation, identification, protec-tion, and selection (as originally developed by Gregory, 1995). This study adds the learning process to this five-process model.

The capability-based model described here aims to simplify the TM concept in order to provide a general understanding of what kinds of core activities form the body of TM. Choosing the unit of analysis as technological capabilities, the activity name is the same as the specific technological capability it aims to develop. The general TM model is based on six generic TM activities (Gregory, 1995; Rush et al., 2007; Cetindamar et al., 2009):

1 Acquisition: Acquisition is how the company obtains the technol-ogies valuable for its business. Acquisition is based on the buy–collaborate–make decision. In other words, technologies might be developed internally, by some form of collaboration, or acquired from external developers. The management of acquis-ition differs on the basis of the choice made.

2 Exploitation: Exploitation entails commercialization but first the expected benefits need to be realized through effective imple-mentation, absorption and operation of the technology within the firm. Technologies are assimilated through technology transfer either from R&D to manufacturing or from external company/partner to internal manufacturing department. Exploi-tation processes include incremental developments, process improvements and marketing.

3 Identification: Identification is necessary for technologies at all stages of development and market life cycle. This process includes market changes as well as technological developments. Identifi-cation includes search, auditing, data collection and intelligence processes for technologies and markets.

4 Learning: Learning is a critical part of technological competency; it involves reflections on technology projects and processes carried out within or outside the firm. There is a strong link between this process and the broader field of knowledge management.

5 Protection: Formal processes such as patenting and staff retention need to be in place in order to protect intellectual assets within a firm, including the knowledge and expertise embedded in prod-ucts and manufacturing systems.

6 Selection: Selection takes account of company-level strategic issues, which requires a good grasp of strategic objectives and priorities developed at the business strategy level. Then, the selection process aligns technology-related decisions with business strategy.

acq U I S I t I on

is how a company obtains the technologies valuable for its business, based on the buy–collaborate–make decision.

explo I tat I on

entails commercialization, but first the expected benefits need to be realized through the effective implementation, absorption and operation of the technology within the firm.

I Dent I F I c at I on

is necessary for all sorts of technologies – enabling, critical, pacing or emerging.

leaRn Ing

is a critical part of technological competency.

pRot ec t I on

aims to protect the intellectual assets within a firm.

Selec t I on

takes account of company-level strategic issues, which requires a good grasp of strategic objectives and priorities.

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 10 19/02/2010 11:14


1This list of TM capabilities does not include the innovation capa-bility for two main reasons (Cetindamar et al., 2009). First, the innovation capability is the ability to mould and manage multiple capabilities (Lawson and Samson, 2001; Wang and Ahmed, 2007). The set of TM capabilities is a subset of capabilities that are inte-grated within the innovation system. Depending on innovation type, the required technological knowledge set and the way they interact with each other will differ as well (Tödtling et al., 2008). Second, each of the TM capabilities involves an innovative element in itself. For example, the acquisition capability is to a large degree a major innovative activity, dealing with product, service, process and organizational innovations in a company.

As a final note, the level of TM activities will change over the life cycle of a firm for many reasons, such as product diversification or complexities in technologies. For example, Bell’s (2003) study shows that organizations pass from the point of ‘acquiring and assimilating imported technologies’ to reach a stage where the organization is ‘generating core advances at international frontiers’. Depending on the capability requirements, firms will naturally adapt their activi-ties to meet the requirements. In addition, depending on where a firm operates (within an advanced or developing economy), the technological capabilities of firms and their degree of development will vary considerably, as shown by the mobile phone producers operating in China (Jin and Zedtwitz, 2008).

Nonlinearity of TM activities

In the TM activities model proposed here, TM activities corre-sponding to each technology capability are represented as indi-vidual processes like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, as shown in Figure 1.2. The analogy of a jigsaw puzzle aims to avoid enforcing a hier-archy of processes. It also avoids a perception that ‘one model fits all’, as if all TM activities must exist in an organization. It is likely that some companies will focus on particular activities at any one time, and that the set might change over the course of time, depending on the needs and circumstances of the company. Another advantage of the jigsaw puzzle representation is its emphasis on showing TM as an art, where technology managers need to identify which processes are required and find ways of making them work properly together.

The links between TM activities might not necessarily follow a linear relationship. Naturally, there will be process flows among them but

D IV eRS I F I c at Ion

is a marketing strategy used by a company aiming to increase profitability through greater sales volume obtained from new products and new markets.

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 11 19/02/2010 11:14


it is not possible to generalize the input–output relationships in a deterministic way. Any process might be the starting point that trig-gers a number of TM activities to take place. For example, in contrast to the traditional product development approach, where the starting point for concept creation is the improvement of functional benefits, it is possible to develop research, products and invention ideas from the patent strategy, regardless of whether or not there are functional benefits (Nissing, 2007).

Supporting activities

Project managementKnowledge managementInnovation management

TM activities

Identifi

cation

Protection

Exploitation

Learning Selection

Acquisition

Figure 1.2 TM activities and supporting activities

The flexibility of the jigsaw puzzle concept indicates that each organization will have specific elements that show their own indi-vidual picture. If the organization is a large company with consider-able R&D activity, the story/completed picture might include all elements in the TM activities model. However, if the organization has no R&D and the innovation is incremental, the corresponding activities will be different.

The recent criticisms of many innovation models focus on two critical concerns (Hobday, 2005): their static nature and their deter-ministic approach. The nonlinear feature of innovation activities has been highlighted. The TM activities model avoids these two criticisms at least for TM. In addition, the new model helps to draw the boundaries between different disciplines and TM activities by proposing two categories: primary/core and supporting activities, as shown in Figure 1.2.

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 12 19/02/2010 11:14


1activities supporting TM

Drawing a basic framework for describing the core TM activities is useful for understanding the relationship between TM and other management activities, particularly project, knowledge and innov-ation management, as shown in Figure 1.2:

1 Projectmanagement refers to managerial activities associated with all types of projects such as product development. Each TM activity can be considered as a project, necessitating knowledge and skill to manage it.

2 Knowledge management (KM) is a widely used term for managing the knowledge accumulated in a company, including non-technology-based knowledge. Knowledge constitutes not only cognition or recognition (know-what), but also the capacity to act (know-how) as well as understanding (know-why) that resides within the mind (Desouza, 2005). Therefore, all TM processes are involved with knowledge at some level and they necessitate adopting KM practices.

3 Innovation management is involved with various innovations being financial, organizational and technological, so it natu-rally shares common ground with TM but it is a broader management exercise, covering the management of all sorts of innovations.

Supporting activities will vary from case to case depending on the company size, objectives and technology characteristics. For example, an SME with a few small product development projects will have different project management needs from a multinational company with multiple projects. The latter will have more struc-tured and formal project management exercises embedded in its processes used to manage technology.

TM TOOlsOnce the general outlook of the TM field is sketched by presenting a generic set of TM activities, the next task is to identify the generic tools used in carrying out these activities. This will not only improve the understanding of TM in academic terms but also as a profession. TM needs to offer some practical guidelines to apply and reinforce TM concepts within the business so that managers can incorporate TM into their daily routines.

KnoWleD ge management

(KM) collects and manages critical knowledge in an organization to increase its capacity for achieving results.

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 13 19/02/2010 11:14


Brady et al.’s study (1997) clearly highlights the difficulty of precisely defining what a tool is, considering a variety of terms used inter-changeably, such as ‘tools’, ‘techniques’, ‘procedures’, ‘processes’, ‘models’, ‘maps’ and ‘frameworks’. This book adopts the definition used in Phaal et al.’s study (2006):

in the broadest sense, tools include devices for supporting both action/practical application and frameworks for conceptual understanding.

The confusion is not only in definition but also in deciding on the list of TM tools. A recent study by Liao (2005) reviews the literature from 1995 to 2003 on the basis of TM methodologies and applica-tions. Based on 546 articles on TM, Liao classifies TM methodolo-gies in eight categories:

1 TM framework 2 general and policy research3 information systems 4 information and communication technology 5 artificial intelligence/expert systems 6 database technology 7 modelling 8 statistics methodology.

These categories are broad and their connections with actual appli-cations are hard to understand even though some examples are given. To illustrate, the list of applications mentioned for the TM framework category are (Liao, 2005):

◗ computer integrated manufacturing ◗ construction project management ◗ business process re-engineering ◗ project appraisal ◗ product design ◗ space disaster management ◗ technology assessment ◗ process design ◗ engineering design ◗ knowledge management.

The only comprehensive coverage of TM tools was carried out by a European Commission (EC) project published in 1998. As the outcome of this project, Temaguide (Cotec, 1998) had the explicit goal of explaining different TM tools, and grouped them under six headings on the basis of their functions in a company:

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 14 19/02/2010 11:14


11 tools for external information analysis, such as technology fore-

cast and benchmarking2 tools for internal information analysis, such as skills and innov-

ation audit 3 tools to calculate workload and resources needed in projects,

such as project management and portfolio management4 tools to manage working together, such as interface management

and networking5 idea creation and problem-solving techniques, such as creativity

and value analysis6 tools related to improving efficiency and flexibility, such as lean

thinking and continuous improvement.

Even though the Temaguidelist might seem coherent, it also poses problems in understanding TM for two reasons. First, the level of tools applicable to TM activities makes it difficult to grasp. For example, project management is a large discipline but is just one of the tools mentioned in Temaguide. Second, the wide spectrum of tools, from conjoint analysis used in market analysis to Delphi analysis for technology forecasting, raises the question of their relevance to TM. Some of these techniques, such as Delphi analysis, can be applied in any forecasting activity for any managerial problem. So these lists do not necessarily clarify which tools consti-tute the body of TM as a distinct discipline and which are not developed particularly for TM but are widely used in carrying out TM activities.

The TM handbooks (Gaynor, 1996; Dorf, 1999) do not make life easier either. There is no clear description and discussion on the methodologies, tools and techniques published in these handbooks and no effort is made to link TM activities to the tools to be used to carry out these activities. For example, Gaynor’s methodologies section has seven chapters with the following titles:

◗ tools for analysing organizational impacts of new technology, techniques such as checklists

◗ forecasting and planning technology ◗ knowledge mapping – a tool for the management of technology ◗ the process of developing an R&D strategy ◗ decision support systems in R&D project management ◗ enterprise engineering in the systems age ◗ managing the ‘technology gradient’ for global competitiveness.

The lack of systematic gathering of tool lists makes it difficult to operationalize them. Similarly, Dorf’s list (1999) in the tools section

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 15 19/02/2010 11:14


includes financial tools such as cash flow, legal issues (with no tool reference), information systems such as database and decision support systems, and finally decision and simulation methods such as value-focused thinking and uncertainty.

The major confusion might be due to the multidisciplinary nature of TM. According to the International Association for Management of Technology (IAMOT), one of the most influential associations in the field of TM, four major disciplines are considered to constitute the basis for a Master of Science programme in a Management of Technology curriculum. These four disciplines show the wide spec-trum of TM:

1 Management of Technology-centred Knowledge: management procedures associated with the exploitation of technological resources. Examples are technology acquisition, exploitation and transfer, new product development, project management, entre-preneurship, technology forecasting and planning, innovation and R&D management, knowledge management, IP manage-ment, and strategic management of technology.

2 Knowledge of Corporate Functions: classic business functions such as marketing, finance, accounting, operations, management information systems, human resource management, and business strategy.

3 Technology-centred Knowledge: topics that relate to specific technology fields or critical technology areas. Examples are infor-mation and computer technologies (ICT), pivotal and emerging technologies, manufacturing technology, petroleum and mining technology, and production technologies.

4 Knowledge of Supporting Disciplines: important supporting topics such as national policy frameworks, economics, general systems theory, risk analysis, environmental management, ethics, human behaviour, quantitative methods, legal issues, research methods, and statistics.

This book presents a small number of tools applicable specifically for managing technology, the first knowledge set mentioned above, namely Management of Technology-centred Knowledge. Limiting the list of tools is a daunting task but it is necessary to reduce the confusion about what TM tools are.

What should be the criteria to decide on the tools that go into the TM toolkit? Obviously, the most critical tool is not the same as the most useful or the most important, neither it is the same as the most used or most popular. The toolkit will not make any reference

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 16 19/02/2010 11:14


1to the quality of tools, since there are almost no studies measuring the performance of tools as such and it is outside the scope of this study. Even though a particular tool will be listed in a final tool set, there will be many others serving a similar purpose, for example capture of technology information, competitive analysis, creativity development, external R&D cooperation.

The goal of this study is to write a practical book that recommends certain tools and techniques with clear and rich content without confusing the concept of a tool. This is why it is good to borrow the carpenter analogy used by Straker (1997) in his book ToolbookforQuality Improvement and Problem Solving. Straker points out that there are a large number of possible tools that a carpenter could have in their toolbox, but the carpenter typically carries around only a small set of the most commonly used tools, keeping a larger set of more specialized tools at their workbench. Even then, the carpenter pays an occasional trip to the hardware store for special jobs. In the case of quality improvement and problem solving, Straker argues that the toolkit consists of seven tools and, interest-ingly, together they can solve 90% of all problems. So this book would like to suggest a toolkit for TM; a number of tools that will be handy when managers face decisions regarding TM.

Deciding which tools should be in the TM toolkit is a difficult task. Similar difficulty has been observed in innovation management in recent years. Due to heightened interest, there are numerous studies offering tools for innovation management. A recent EC study (1999) has a list of 10 techniques that are driven on an ad-hoc basis. Another EC study published in the journal R&D Management (Hidalgo and Albors, 2008) uses three criteria as the basis for selecting the tools suggested in its study:

1 the level of standardization of a tool 2 the level of knowledge involved in the process 3 the free accessibility of a tool, for example not subject to any

copyright or licence restrictions.

Brown (1997) and Farrukh et al. (1999) list some principles of good practice for tool design such as:

founded on an objective best-practice model; simple in concept and use; flexible, allowing ‘best fit’ to the current situation and needs of the company; not mechanistic or prescriptive; capable of integrating with other tools, processes and systems; result in quan-tifiable improvement; and support communication and buy-in.

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 17 19/02/2010 11:14


Thus we believe that the basis for delineating the six core tools of TM is:

◗ simplicity and flexibility of use ◗ degree of availability ◗ standardization level.

In addition, as this book is based on dynamic capabilities, key tools should be dynamic in nature and applicable in all TM activities. So key tools will also be:

◗ the prevailing ones across TM processes, which capture internal and external dynamics.

Accordingly, the final list consists of six tools listed in Table 1.1: patent analysis, portfolio management, roadmapping, S-curve, stage-

gate, and value analysis. The initial list was formed at a workshop organized at the Centre for Technology Management, University of Cambridge and then it was circulated among prominent TM scholars who are members of the IAMOT and European Institute for Technology and Innovation Management (EITIM) executive committees. The authors integrated the responses into the initial list and finalized it. Although the selected tools are applicable in all activities, it is possible to associate each tool with two major activi-ties to which it is widely applied, as shown in Table 1.1. However, TM tools will include tools that are used in TM activities but not all of them are uniquely developed for TM. For example, stage-gate is a project management tool that is used extensively in the analysis of new product development.

Table 1.1 TM tools and their applications

Tools/activities

Patent analysis

Portfolio management

Road-mapping

S-curve Stage-gate

Value analysis

Acquisition « «Exploitation « «Identification « «Learning « «Protection « «Selection « «

Even though the book will cover these six TM tools in depth in Part II, some other tools to be used in TM activities are mentioned in Chapter 14 with detailed reference lists. Some tools are available

pate nt ana lyS IS

is a tool to convert statistical information related to patents into useful information for a specific need.

poRtFo l I o ma nagement

is the centralized management of one or more portfolios.

Roa Dma p p I ng

provides an integrating framework that summarizes at a high level (on one page) the various strategic elements that must be aligned to achieve the overall organizational goals.

S-cU RVeS

are used to illustrate the life cycle of a phenomenon that starts off slowly, grows rapidly, tapers or levels off, and then finally declines.

the Stage -gat e

process is a project management tool for new product development.

Val U e ana lyS IS

(value engineering) is an interdisciplinary problem-solving activity for improving the value of the functions required to accomplish the goal or objective of any product, process, service or organization.

see cha pt e R 1 4

resources for tools

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 18 19/02/2010 11:14


1publicly in rich formats such as the T-catalogue, developed by the Centre for TM at University of Cambridge (see details in Chapter 14). This catalogue and other public sources allow the reader to obtain more detailed information on topics of interest. It is possible to have a long list of tools that might be used in individual TM activi-ties such as decision-making tools or leadership tools. However, they are broad tools that any manager needs to know, so the list will be limited.

As a final remark, the tools are not off-the-shelf medicine, since TM problems are complex. So it cannot be claimed that each TM tool mentioned in this book would solve all the problems and chal-lenges faced by business as a whole. TM tools act in combination with others, adapted and personalized to varying degrees for each specific case due to the diversity of firms and business circum-stances. The benefit gained by the company depends on a combina-tion of TM tools and the firm itself, and the mix of these two elements is what determines an effective outcome.

Cases IllUsTRaTINg DIffeReNT TM sysTeM CONfIgURaTIONsThe characteristics of a TM system based on TM activities and tools can be observed in real-life cases. Three case studies are presented here: Glaxo Wellcome, whose TM system is closer to the idea of open innovation; Boeing’s corporate-wide Global Enterprise Technology System; and Weyerhaeuser, which devel-oped a model just to perform its R&D.

glaxo wellcome

In early 2000, Glaxo Wellcome (GW) was a multinational phar-maceutical company with revenues exceeding £8bn and R&D expenditures of over £1bn. The company decided to implement a TM strategy across the development and manufacturing inter-face prior to its merger with SmithKline Beecham to form Glaxo-SmithKline. This was to augment the new product delivery process that was being introduced.

TM activitiesThe resulting TM process is presented in Figure 1.3. When this process is compared with the six TM activities, it is observed that

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 19 19/02/2010 11:14


neither the acquisition nor protection process is explicit in GW’s TM processes. Although the names are different:

◗ the ‘innovate, search and survey’ step is similar to the identifi-cation activity

◗ the ‘evaluate and select’ step is like the selection activity ◗ the ‘develop and execute’ step corresponds to the acquisition and exploitation activities

◗ the ‘demonstrate benefits’ step resembles the exploitation activity.

The process model is depicted in a linear format, without showing any feedback/learning loops – in this regard Figure 1.3 is a simpli-fication of the real situation, aiming to provide an easy-to-under-stand framework for organizing the complex set of TM activities and interactions in the organization.

Develop and maintain technology strategy

Innovate, search and survey

Evaluate and select

Develop and execute project

Demonstrate benefits

Proposal for authorization (business case)

Other networks (GW +)

Projects

Continuous improvement and dissemination and maintain knowledge base

Develop and maintain technology network

Bus

ines

s st

rate

gy

(pro

duc

t, r

&D

, m

anuf

actu

ring,

IT, e

tc.)

Figure 1.3 The TM system at GW

ResourcesTechnology domains, centred on strategic functions or processes in new product development, have overall accountability for the technology strategy for that part of the business. The technology domains operate through a number of technology networks whose members are experts drawn from global development and manufacturing. Each technology network implements the generic TM process. Interestingly, GW had linkages with extended teams in expert networks, or communities of practice, located not only within GW but also across the globe. This opens up

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 20 19/02/2010 11:14


1possibilities for acquisitions and enriches the content of each TM process carried out in the company.

There are one or more domain leaders with budget responsibili-ties, who are full- or part-time members of staff, depending on the size and scope of the domain. A new product development technology steering team was set up, consisting of the tech-nology committee and the leaders of the technology domains. This team reviews and prioritizes the overall portfolio of tech-nology projects.

Shared databases and IT infrastructures were used to support the networks and the TM system.

ToolsFor each TM activity, inputs and outputs (such as information and resources), individual tasks, and a list of information sources and available tools were developed. In particular, an appropriate methodology was selected for valuing potential initiatives and conducting the portfolio analysis and prioritization.

Source:Farrukh et al. (2004) ‘Developing an Integrated Technology Management Process’, Research-TechnologyManagement, 47(4), 39–46

Farrukh et al. (2004) describe in detail how a TM system was developed within GW in a series of cross-functional workshops. This adopts a process-based framework, incorporating aspects of the five-process TM model (Gregory, 1995). The GW TM system builds on active technology networks within the company, with some parallels to open innovation, providing a rich case to illus-trate the use of the TM framework presented in this book.

The GW case is an excellent example for highlighting the differ-ences of core versus supporting TM activities as well as the rele-vance of the TM framework. The technology process in GW is embedded in one important business process: new product devel-opment process. This process is further integrated with strategy, project management, KM and networks. The importance of open

innovation systems for GW can be seen in its structure – to develop and maintain the technology network in parallel with its internal TM activities, so that GW can tap not only into company resources but also the available knowledge base in the external environment. As a tool set, there is not much information on specific tools selected for each TM activity; however, it seems that

open In noVat Ion SySt em S

refer to how, in a world of widely distributed knowledge, companies cannot afford to rely entirely on their own research, but can buy or license processes or inventions from other companies.

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 21 19/02/2010 11:14


portfolio management has particular importance at GW due to the use of process for new product development.

boeing

Boeing, a $54bn a year aerospace company, has collaborated across its business units – Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Inte-grated Defense Systems, and Phantom Works – to establish and operate a systems engineering based and strategically driven process for managing the enterprise technology portfolio. The result is the Global Enterprise Technology System (GETS), the TM process for the central R&D of Boeing.

TM activitiesBoeing names its TM activities as discover, decide, develop and deploy, as shown in Figure 1.4. These processes correspond to activities aiming to develop identification, selection, acquisition, execution and learning capabilities. As one of the leading tech-nology companies, internal technology development is Boeing’s main focus.

R&D

3Develop

Decide

2

4Deploy

Discover

1

Enterprise Markets

• Project management best practices

• Portfolio management methods

• Process improvement methods• Culture change facilitation

• Strategic planning methods such as scenario planning, roadmapping, etc

Figure 1.4 TM processes and tools used in Boeing

ResourcesBoeing has a central research organization called Phantom Works, focusing on technologies that are of broad use across Boeing’s

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 22 19/02/2010 11:14


1current and future product lines. The GETS process is developed and used in this unit.

TM toolsThe key TM tools used in running TM activities in the GETS are roadmapping, portfolio management and project management, as shown in Figure 1.4.

Source:Lind, J. (2006) ‘Boeing’s Global Enterprise Technology Process’, Research-TechnologyManagement, 49(5), 36–42

Although GW and Boeing, two well-structured large corpor-ations, have similar generic activities to develop technology capabilities (development, exploration, identification and selec-tion), the way these processes are put together and their embed-dedness within the overall business processes are different. In the case of GW, TM activities are embedded in the new product delivery process, while Boeing explicitly uses TM for its innov-ation processes. Additionally, the resources and TM tools used in these cases vary. In sum, their TM systems are different. This supports our argument that the way TM systems are designed and applied in each firm will be contingent on the firm, its capa-bilities, resources and goals.

Unlike GW and Boeing, few cases discuss overall TM systems. The overview of company practices is to a large extent limited to R&D departments, so the available cases look at the specific TM activities needed to carry out R&D alone. As the case of Weyer-haeuser shows, TM activities can be observed as individual parts of R&D, which are initiated through a clear link to both ‘pull’ and ‘push’ forces. Even in this limited use of TM activities, it is possible to observe how innovation and strategy are the business processes where individual TM activities are highly integrated.

weyerhaeuser

TM activitiesWeyerhaeuser is a US forest products company. The overall management process for corporate research and development (CR&D) programmes is shown in Figure 1.5, with three distinct processes: technology assessment, selection of programmes and development. According to our terminology, we can call these processes identification, selection and development. Due to the

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 23 19/02/2010 11:14


Mar

ket,

ec

onom

ic,

dem

ogra

phi

c an

d p

oliti

cal

Tech

nolo

gy

asse

ssm

ent

Tech

nolo

gy

asse

ssm

ent

res

earc

h p

rogr

amm

esD

evel

opm

ent

pro

ject

s

Prio

ritie

s

from

co

rpor

ate

stra

tegi

c p

lann

ing

Long

-ter

m

futu

re

need

s of

le

ad

cust

omer

s

Bus

ines

s st

rate

gies

, p

riorit

ies

an

d

rese

arch

p

rogr

amm

es

CR

&D

re

sear

ch

pri

ori

ties

an

d

pro

gra

mm

es

Iden

tifica

tion

and

as

sess

men

t of

sig

nific

ant

chan

ge

Tren

ds

Thre

ats

and

op

por

tuni

ties

Com

mer

cial

id

eas

Sco

pin

g

Cr

&D

dev

elop

men

t p

roje

cts

Op

erat

ing

div

isio

n d

evel

opm

ent

pro

ject

s

Feas

ibili

tyVa

lidat

ion

Com

mer

cial

-iz

atio

nD

evel

opm

ent

Fig

ure

1.5

Wey

erha

euse

r’s o

vera

ll C

r&

D m

anag

emen

t p

roce

ss

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 24 19/02/2010 11:14


1integrated structure, exploration is embedded in the develop-ment process where the results from development are continu-ously transferred into operations and feedback is given to development activities.

ResourcesThe corporate-sponsored R&D programme is broken into three components: core research, strategic programmes and develop-ment projects. About half the Weyerhaeuser businesses have dedicated R&D units. Where these exist, the primary interaction with the business leaders is through the R&D unit leaders. In other businesses, CR&D leaders interact directly with the business leaders.

Weyerhaeuser has a chief technology officer (CTO) who manages three groups responsible for R&D processes: technology strategy and research council, review boards, and project adviser groups.

ToolsThe major tool used is stage-gate, as shown in Figure 1.6.

Stage1

Gate1

Gate2

Gate3

Gate4

Gate5

Stage2

Stage3

Stage4

Stage5

Scoping

*Gates are management decision points

Initial screenR

evie

w/a

pp

rova

l*W

ork

act

ivit

y

Process overview

Second screen

Pre-business plan review

Post-development

review

Pre-commmercial

review

Feasibility Validation CommercializationDevelopment

�

Figure 1.6 Stage-gate process

Source:Comstock, G. L. and Sjolseth, D. E. (1999) ‘Aligning and Prioritizing Corporate R&D’, Research-TechnologyManagement, 42(3), 19–25

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 25 19/02/2010 11:14


SUmmaRy

Technology management studies face three main problems:

1 a lack of distinction between concepts and practice in innovation, knowledge and technology management

2 a lack of universally accepted conceptual models or frameworks to understand the practical application of TM

3 a lack of integration of key tools into the analysis of TM.

In order to tackle the first two problems, this study integrates the theory of dynamic capabilities into a TM framework and offers a model for explaining the core TM activities on the basis of technological capabilities. In this framework, TM is conceived as the development and exploitation of technological capabilities on a constant basis. Technological capabilities, being a subset of dynamic capabilities, require a capacity/ability to integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external competencies to address rapidly changing environments. Furthermore, competencies or routines refer to activities to be performed by assembling firm-specific assets/resources. Thus, the analysis of TM becomes the analysis of six generic TM activities: acquisition, exploitation, identification, learning, protection and selection. All these activities will help to build the technological capabilities associated with them.

The proposed TM framework offers several benefits in understanding TM:

1 It establishes boundaries and relationships between TM and other management principles, particularly with innovation. This is achieved by classifying TM activities into two categories: primary/core and supporting activities that come from other disciplines such as knowledge management.

2 It helps to avoid two critical concerns: the static nature of innovation models and their deterministic approach, thanks to the explicit indication of the nonlinear feature of TM activities in the framework.

3 The framework is based on the management of technological capabilities, enabling the link between TM activities and technological capabilities to be established.

4 The use of the TM framework helps to develop a core set of generic TM activities that can be customized by any organization (manufacturing or services) and applicable at any level, such as r&D or business unit, and at any size.

The TM activities model is highly flexible, and offers a good starting point for managers as well as engineers and management students

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 26 19/02/2010 11:14


1who want to pursue careers in TM. It shows what skills and knowledge are necessary to manage technology in order to develop and exploit particular technological capabilities within firms.

regarding the problem of the integration of key tools that facilitate TM activities into the analysis of TM, the book offers six tools to be included in a toolkit for technology managers: patent analysis, portfolio management, roadmapping, S-curve, stage-gate and value analysis. These tools are the prevailing ones across TM processes and capture internal and external dynamics.

While Part I will present each TM activity, Part II is about the TM tools. Activities and tools are presented in alphabetical order. Although the links between activities and tools are highlighted whenever relevant, Chapter 15 summarizes how activities and tools fit together.

understanding the generic TM activities and the tools used in carrying out these activities will not only improve the understanding of TM in academic terms but also as a profession. TM should offer some practical guidelines to apply and reinforce TM concepts within the business so that managers can incorporate TM into their daily routines.

K ey qUeSt I onS

1 Why does dynamic capabilities theory improve the understanding of TM?

2 How has the TM discipline changed over the past 50 years?

3 What is the TM framework?

4 What are the main generic TM activities?

5 What are the main generic TM tools and what criteria are used to select them?

F URtheR ReaD Ing

Allen, J. T. and Varghese, G. (1989) ‘Changes in the Field of r&D Management over the past 20 Years’, R&D Management, 19(2), 103–13.

Badawy, M. K. (1995) Developing Managerial Skills in Engineers and Scientists: Succeeding as a Technical Manager, 2nd edn (Van Nostrand reinhold Series in: Managerial Skill Development in Engineering and Science, New York: Van Nostrand reinhold).

Christensen, J. F., Olesen, M. H. and Kjær, J. S. (2005) ‘The Industrial Dynamics of Open Innovation: Evidence from the Transformation of Consumer Electronics’, Research Policy, 34(10), 1533–49.

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 27 19/02/2010 11:14


Dodgson, M. (2000) The Management of Technological Innovation (Oxford: Oxford university Press).

ICS uNIDO (2008) Forum for Technology Transfer, Training Course on Technology Management, www.ics.trieste.it/TP_TechnologyManagement/.

Levin, D. Z. and Barnard, H. (2008) ‘Technology Management routines that Matter to Technology Managers’, International Journal of Technology Management, 41(1/2), 22–37.

rothwell, r. (1994) ‘Towards the Fifth-generation Innovation Process’, International Marketing Review, 11(1), 7–31.

Teece, D. J. (2007) ‘Explicating Dynamic Capabilities: The Nature and Microfoundations of (sustainable) Enterprise Performance’, Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–50.

Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (1998) Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change, 3rd edn (Chichester: John Wiley).

9780230_233348_02_cha01.indd 28 19/02/2010 11:14

I n d e x 269

Index

AAbernathy and Utterback model 40,

41, 200absorptive capacity 35, 51, 95acquisition 10, 33–4

using S-curve analysis 197, 198see internal acquisition; external

acquisitionactivity 2, 4–5, 7, 30

core 8–11supporting 11–13TM tools for 237–46

alliances 43, 63, 66role in influencing markets 63–4types of 43–4, 46utilizing S-curves at Aventis 201–4Microsoft and the public sector 139and see collaboration

AlliedSignal and Alcoa case study 210–14

American Society for Quality 233Aplicare 221

case study 222–4Apple 46, 64

I-phone 147appropriability regime 49, 59, 60,

152, 153and see IPR

assessment 62, 87, 91, 241toolkit for 242–3and see environmental impact;

impact assessment; selectionauditing 10, 88, 89–92, 98, 100, 225

knowledge maps 112–13of technology assets 129

availability 79

Aventis case study 201–4see also Harvard Medical School

Bbalanced scorecard 75, 111, 118,

188, 231, 245base/enabling technologies 90, 112

see also critical/key technologies; emerging technologies; pacing technologies

Baxter Healthcare 47, 100 case study 101–3

benchmarking 15, 77–8, 110, 211, 226, 228, 231, 239, 245

BICC Cables 50, 68 case study 80–2

Black-Scholes (option pricing) 130, 176

blue-ocean strategy 149Boeing 19

case study 22–3brand creation 62bubble diagrams 177Burgelman, R. A., M. A. Maidique and

S. C. Wheeelwright 35, 37, 39, 42, 67, 72, 133

business model 58, 59, 62, 142, 147business process re-engineering 14,

42, 145, 215, 228, 231buy–make–collaborate 43, 150–4

Ccapability 3Centre for Technology Management

xvii, xviii, 18, 19, 229change management 74

9780230_233348_19_index.indd 269 19/02/2010 11:29

270 I n d e x

Chesbrough, H. W. 28, 43, 136Clorox 47

case study 100–1collaboration 10, 71

managing long-term 50–1 public sector and Microsoft 139and see alliances

commercialization 6, 58–63, 131–3and see marketing

communication, importance of 72–3complementary assets 3, 43, 59, 60,

126, 131, 152–3, 197, 201computer models 93concurrent engineering 39, 228, 239confidentiality

agreements 136of information 39, 128, 134

continuous improvement 15, 35, 73–4, 77, 116–20, 144

contracting R&D 45, 71contracts 49–50

preparation 70Cooper, R. G. 37, 38, 39, 146, 173,

174, 176, 177, 178, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210

copyright 127core competence 3, 47–8, 51, 164,

235identifying 147–50

corporate entrepreneurship 134–5, 154

corporate research and development (CR&D) 23–5

cost–benefit analysis 48, 91Cotec 14, 113, 163, 168, 228, 238critical/key technologies 90, 93, 155,

221see also base/enabling

technologies; emerging technologies; pacing technologies

Ddata

filtering 87–8, 90gathering (marketing) 61–2

Delphi analysis 15, 93, 177, 243, 244development funnel 38–9

see idea/project funneldiffusion 53, 62–3, 72dissemination (of findings) 20, 100diversification 3, 11, 43, 65, 76 documentation

formats 100

in technology transfer 70, 72, 74, 115

domain name 127dominant design 54, 59, 60, 133,

152, 201 Dorf, R. C. 8, 15–16, 230dynamic capabilities 3–5, 6, 95

Eemerging technologies 1, 16, 59, 90,

95, 96, 153, 200see also base/enabling

technologies; critical/key technologies; pacing technologies

EMI 152environmental impact 97, 228, 239,

243European Centre for Innovation and

Spin-Offs 68European Commission (EC) 14

and see European UnionEuropean Institute for Technology and

Innovation Management (EITIM) 18European Technology Transfer

Initiative 68European Technology Transfer

Network 68European Union (EU) 48

TM tool sources 225–9exploitation 10, 57–8

method choices 58–62using S-curve analysis 195, 197–8and see commercialization;

marketing; technology transfer; utilization

external acquisitioncollaboration 10, 50–1contracted-out R&D 45contracts 49–50definition 42–4goal setting 47method choice 49at P&G 53, 54purchasing transactions 44–5technology transfer 10, 50see also internal acquisition;

acquisition

FFarrukh, C. J. P. xvii, 17, 21financial models 176forecasting 47, 86–8

environmental factors 95methods of 93–4

9780230_233348_19_index.indd 270 19/02/2010 11:29

I n d e x 271

market trends 94–5software tools for 96STEEPA analysis 95–6using S-curve analysis 198–9and see technology intelligence

four ‘Ps’ 61, 62front-end innovation process (FEIP)

211–13

Ggap analysis 144–5Garvin, D. A. 115, 116, 117, 118Gaynor, G. H. 15Glaxo Wellcome (GW) 23

case study 19–22Global Enterprise Technology System

(GETS) 22global innovation centres 6global R&D centres 6growth curves see S-curves

HHarvard Medical School 202–3

see also AventisHRM

role in KM 113, 119, 134–5in technology transfer 70–1, 72techniques 227

IIBM 64idea/project funnel 38, 39

see development funnelidentification 10

core competencies 147–50of external technology 48forecasting of markets 61–2forecasting techniques 93–7of organizational capabilities

98–100patent analysis 164–5, 168–9STEEPA analysis 95–6technology auditing 88–93using S-curve analysis 198–9

IKEA 142impact assessment 96–7industrial design right 127innovation 6

diffusion 62–3adoption curve 64–5dynamics of 41–2process funnel 184–5time lag between invention and 62see also stage-gate; technology

innovation

innovation management 4, 13utilization/performance measures

75–7innovation relay centres 48Institute of Manufacturing 229intellectual assets 126

identifying and measuring 129–30intangibles 129–30portfolio management 130–4see IPR

intellectual property (IP) 2identifying and measuring 129–30as market entry barrier 127Microsoft’s management of

137–40and open innovation 136–7portfolio management 130–4protection methods 127–9

intellectual property rights (IPR) 37, 126–9and corporate entrepreneurship

135see also licensing; patents;

appropriability regime; intellectual assets

intelligence 103internal acquisition 34–5

new process development 40–2new product development 37–40at P&G 52–4R&D portfolio management 36–7R&D projects 35–6 using patent analysis 164see also external acquisition;

acquisitionInternational Association for

Management Technology (IAMOT) 16, 18

intranet, role in knowledge sharing 52, 53–4

investment priorities 147IT, role in KM 110–12

and see intranet; websites

KKim, W. C. and Mauborgne, R. 65, 142,

144, 146, 149, 216, 218, 219, 220knowledge 107–9

mapping/auditing 112–13knowledge management (KM) 13, 106

best practice 110, 111IT, role of 110–12

knowledge sharing, intranet role in 53–4

9780230_233348_19_index.indd 271 19/02/2010 11:29

272 I n d e x

Llearning 10, 71–2

categories of 106–7knowledge 107–9organizational processes 109–20see also learning organization

learning curves 117learning organization 72, 115–20

see also learninglearning-by-doing (LBD) 121licensing 6, 45–6, 53, 63, 131

patent analysis 165–6see also patents; IPR

life cycle analysis 97and see S-curves

Lucent Technologies 190–3

Mmaintainability 79make–buy–collaborate 43, 150–4market research 38market trends, forecasting 94marketing

customer relationships 60–1, 66data gathering 61–2execution 66market preparation 63–4positioning 65targeting 64–5of technology 62–3

McDonald’s value curve 219mergers and acquisitions (M&A) 43,

46, 231using patent analysis 164, 168

Mexican Petroleum Institute (IMP) 206 case study 178–81

Microsoft 96, 129 case study 137–40

Mindtools 233–5

NNational Research Council (NRC) 2, 4network externalities 66networks, utilizing 112–15Nokia 63NPV 176, 179NTT DoCoMo 63

O/P/Qopen innovation systems 6, 21, 33,

34, 38–9, 43, 115, 130, 236and managing IP 136–7

pacing technologies 48, 90, 145, 150, 153see also base/enabling

technologies; critical/key technologies; emerging technologies

patent analysis 18, 129, 163–4and HRM 166and identification 164–5, 168–9and licensing 165–6and M&A 164, 168and protection 165, 167Siemens-Acuson case study

169–71using S-curves 164, 168

patent search 163, 165, 166–7patent strategy 12patents 126, 127

difficulties tracing 165see also IPR; licensing

PEMEX 178Phaal, R., C. J. P. Farrukh, and D. R.

Probert 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 94, 183Phantom Works 22–3Pixo 46Portal-Player 46Porter’s diamond 51–2portfolio 36portfolio management 18, 36–7, 114,

156adjustment stage 175, 178applications 174–5definition 173–4of intellectual assets 130–4models, for project analysis

175––8use of stage-gate process at IMP

178–81, 206probabilistic financial models 176process 5process development projects 35–6Procter & Gamble (P&G) 34, 58, 100,

130, 133, 205case study 51–5

product development new 37–40, 153projects 35–6and see stage-gate

product family 40product/technology matrix 89project management 13

and see stage-gateprotection 10

HRM issues 134–5of intellectual assets 125–9IP portfolio management 130–4

9780230_233348_19_index.indd 272 19/02/2010 11:29

I n d e x 273

managing IP in open innovation 136–7

patent analysis 165, 167technology assets 129–30

purchasing transactions 44–5quality function deployment (QFD)

146

RR&D 5–6

alliances 46collaborative 69communication, importance of

72–3contracted-out 45, 71definition 34–5global centres 6new process development 40–2new product development 37–40portfolio management 36–7, 178,

179projects 35–6

Raytheon Company 149record-keeping 72–3red-ocean strategy 149reliability 78research organizations 67–8Research-Technology Management

161, 240resources for tools 225–36return on investment (ROI) 73, 74,

176risk analysis 16, 91, 234roadmapping 18, 94, 144, 229

case studies 154–8, 190–3definition 183–4, 185process funnel 184–5process steps 185–90

Rockwell Automation 94, 183case study 154–8

ROI 73, 74, 176routine 4Rush, H. 3, 9, 10

SS–curves 18, 40, 41, 90, 164

as an alliance strategy 201–4application in TM 195–9in patent analysis 164, 168phases of 199–201use in decision making 200–1

Samsung Electronics 223case study 221–2

Sandia National Laboratories 186

scenario analysis/building 93, 95, 186, 244

scoring models 176secrecy 127–8selection 10

decision alternatives 144investment priorities 147portfolio management 174–5as strategy process 141–3strategic analysis 144–6technology planning steps 143–4technology sourcing 150–4

Siemens-Acuson 169–71SMEs 8, 13, 68, 226, 227software tools for forecasting 96Sony 63stage-gate 18, 25, 38

application 206–7critical product innovation activities

207–10definition 205–6front-end innovation process (FEIP)

211–13use at IMP 179

STEEPA analysis 95–6, 245strategy analysis and planning 141–6,

151, 157, 164, 178, 183, 191, 221, 243

SWOT analysis 144, 212, 226, 232, 235, 241, 246

Symbian 63

Tteam management 113–15T-Cat (Management Tool Catalogue)

19, 229–30technological capabilities 2–8

analysing competence levels 91–3and see core competence;

dynamic capabilitiestechnological competence 91–3technological competitiveness 91,

92, 144, 163technologies, competitive potential

90–1technology innovations 6

and organizational structure misfit 79–80

see also innovationtechnology integration and synergy 79technology intelligence 85–6, 87–8

and see forecastingtechnology life cycles 97, 202–4

and see S-curves

9780230_233348_19_index.indd 273 19/02/2010 11:29

274 I n d e x

technology management (TM) 1major disciplines of 16real world systems, examples

19–25technology readiness level scale 68technology suppliers 48technology transfer 10, 50, 57, 58,

66–8actors 69communication activities 71–3contracts 70documentation 70, 72, 74, 100,

115evaluations and improvements

73–4methods 68–9start-up process 71timing 69workforce training 70–1

Teece, D. C. 3, 49, 59, 86, 95, 99, 100, 113, 116, 142, 147, 151, 152–3, 154

Temaguide 14–15, 228, 238–9see Cotec

TM framework 2, 5–8, 26 TM toolkit 16–17tools 2, 13–19, 53–4

activities and methods’ relationship 240–2

applications 18, 238–9, 244–6EU resources 225–9university resources 229–30

Toshiba 46total quality management (TQM)

74–5, 80, 82, 116, 146, 240 trade secrets 128trademark 127TRIPs 127

Uunderutilization 78–80United Kingdom (UK) 81, 229

patent classification/search 165, 167

using IP as market entry barrier 127United States (US) 4, 23, 120, 130,

149, 186, 211, 219, 222national technology transfer

centres 67–8patent classification 166using IP as market entry barrier 127

universities as TM tool resources, 229–30

University of Brighton’s Centre for Research in Innovation Management (CENTRIM) 229

University of Cambridge xvii, 18, 19, 229

USG 74case study 120–4

utilization 42, 57, 58, 74–5performance measurement 75–8prioritizing improvements 78–80

Vvalue analysis 16, 18, 42, 94, 144,

145–6, 149applications 217–18definition 215–16methodology 218–21see also value engineering; value

innovationvalue chain 144value curve 149, 219–21

see also value analysis; value innovation

value engineering 18, 145–6definition 215–16see also value analysis; value

innovationvalue innovation 146, 149, 216, 220

at Aplicare 222–4role in improving acquisition

217–18at Samsung Electronics 221–2,

223–4see also value analysis; value

curve; value engineeringvalue propositions 146

W/Xwebsites (professional associations

and commercial) 233–6see also intranet

Weyerhaeuser 19case study 23–5

Whirlpool 135value analysis at 220

World Trade Organization (WTO) 127Xerox 135

9780230_233348_19_index.indd 274 19/02/2010 11:29

Documents

conTenTs · 10 roadmapping 183 Introduction 183 Where and why it is used 184 9780230_233348_01_prels.indd 6 19/02/2010 14:26. Contents vii Process 185 Case study 190 11 s-curve 195