1997 Strategic Management of Technology

Int. J. Technology Management, Vol. 14, No. 5, 1997

539

Strategic management of technology – a glimpse of literature Zafar Husain and Sushil Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110 016, India Abstract: A literature review exercise was undertaken to identify the research issues in the area of Management of Technology. The articles reviewed have been grouped under seven headings which are strategic management of technology, technology planning and forecasting, technology transfer and acquisition, development and innovation management, technology and organizational issues, adoption and implementation of new technologies, and technology management: implications for developing countries. A brief review of technology management in the automobile industry has also been presented. Keywords: Strategic management of technology; technology transfer; innovation management; implications for developing countries. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Husain, Z. and Sushil, (1997) ‘Strategic management of technology - a glimpse of literature’, Int. J. Technology Management, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp.539—578. Biographical notes: Zafar Husain is Reader (Assistant Professor) at Devi Ahilya University (DAU), Indore and presently involved in a research assignment on strategic management of technology in the Indian automobile industry at Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi (IITD). He has published research articles in journals including Technology Management, Maryland, USA. He was instrumental in starting the Master of Computer Management (MCM) programme at DAU. He has consulted widely in Indian private industrial organizations. He is a recipient of Rotary Foundation’s Group Study Exchange Fellowship to Utah, USA. His active area of research interest is management of technology in developing countries. Dr. Sushil is Professor of strategic, flexible systems, and technology management. He is currently the head of department of management studies, 11TD. He has over 100 publications in various journals and conferences. Some representative journals are Systems Practice, System Research, Technology Management, European Journal of Operations Research, International Journal of Production Research, etc. He has acted as consultant to both governmental and private industrial organizations. He has a special interest in flexibility in management and has also proposed a situation-actor-process-learning-action-performance (SAP-LAP) model for management. _________________________________________________________________________ 1 Introduction In recent years scenario managers have been told by management gurus that ‘Technology Strategy’ has joined the ever-lengthening list of concerns which demand their majority

Copyright © 1997 lnderscience Enterprises Ltd.

540

Z. Husain and Sushil

attention [1]. This has caused a fair amount of concern in management circles to work in the area of technology management. We start with a working definition of Technology and Management of Technology. Technology defined: “The classical definitions of ‘Technology’ speak of application of science, the entire body of methods and materials, and other characteristics related to it. Any technology has clearly three identifiable components: •

Hardware: the physical/logical plant (machine, equipment, contrivance); the means of carrying out the tasks to achieve objectives or goals. Hardware includes not only to the physical structure of components, but their logical layout also.

•

Software: the set of rules, guidelines, and algorithms necessary for using the hardware, i.e. the know-how to carry out tasks to achieve goals or pursue objectives.

•

Brainware: The purpose (objectives and goals), the application, and the justification of hardware/software deployment, the know-how and know-why of technology”.

Noon and Radford [2] say that these three components are interdependent, codeterminant, and equally important: their relationship is circular and not linear or hierarchical. Management of Technology defined: “Management of Technology links engineering, science, marketing, operations, human resources, and other management disciplines to formulate strategy, develop technological capabilities, and use them to achieve strategic objectives” [3].

2 2.1

Strategic management of technology Technology strategy

In western countries the investment in technology and technological innovations is at an all time high. Japanese firms are spending 30% more on technological innovations and R&D activities than their US counterparts. As a result there has been increased interest in the 1990s among the management scholars, and practitioners in the role of technology in matters such as corporate strategy, global competition, strategic alliance, core competence, resource leverage [4] and the like. Pavitt [5] has suggested four characteristics of technological innovation activities in an organization. Such activities involve continuous and intensive collaboration and interaction among functionally and professionally specialized groups. They remain profoundly uncertain activities. They are cumulative in nature. Lastly, they are highly differentiated. According to him, the strategic management tasks are to find and maintain a stable product niche and to systematically benefit from user experience. In R&D based technologies, the key opportunities are for horizontal diversification into new product markets. According to him the firms do not have a free choice about whether or not to be broad front or specialized, product or process oriented. Similarly they do not have a completely free hand about being a leader or a follower. In many areas, it is not clear before the event who all are in the innovation race, where the starting and finishing lines are, and what the race is all about.

Strategic management of technology - a glimpse of literature

541

Despite all these constraints the strategic technology management should indicate the future direction as to where the organization would like to be. The author has not suggested contents of technology strategy but have mentioned about the criticism of the contained view of technological strategy. The author has concluded that conventional wisdom from business school and management consultants about technology strategy is irrelevant and even misleading. According to him the successful management of technology requires the capacity to orchestrate and integrate functional and specialist groups for the implementation of innovations, continuous questioning of the appropriateness of exploitation of existing technology and a willingness to take a long view of technological accumulation within the firm. Frohman [6] has explained that what may happen when an organization does not consider inclusion of technology in its business plans. The author has also suggested that strategic planning cannot anticipate all technical developments or their impact on markets and products. But when strategic planning systematically considers technology forecasts and assessments relevant to both market needs and opportunities, technology can become an effective competitive weapon. A framework for incorporating technological issues into business strategy has been proposed, which consists of four steps that are: 1 “Identifying the organization’s distinctive technological competence(s), 2 identify technology that contributes or will contribute to business success, 3 coordinating business goals and technological implications, and 4 aligning systems for implementation”. Corporate strategy often focuses on financial and marketing factors and neglects the technology as the key resource to be planned [7]. A key to bridging the gap lies in re positioning the technology as a strategic resource in the business planning process. The emerging principles which could help in integrating technology and strategic planning are anticipation of direction and timing of technology, technology to be viewed as a capital assets, and assuring congruence of investment in technology and business strategy to successful technology management. What is technology strategy? The answer to this burning question has been attempted by Ford [1]. “It consists of policies, plans and procedures for acquiring knowledge and ability, managing that knowledge and ability within the company and exploiting them for profits. Technology strategy is not the same as R&D strategy which is concerned only with acquiring technology through in-house activities.” It is further explained that technology strategy is that aspect of overall business strategy which is concerned with exploiting, developing and maintaining the sum total of the company’s knowledge and abilities. The author has also proposed a methodology for framing a technology strategy in which it is suggested the auditing of distinctive technologies which a company possesses, its strengths in basic technologies of the product(s) which the organization manufactures or markets or both, and the external technologies which are either existing or there is reasonable chance of it being a successful one. He has also recommended auditing of customers’ know ledge particularly in industrial and hi-tech products and stage of technology in the technology life cycle. The author is a proponent of the idea that the technologies no more in use within the organizations should be phased out by finding a suitable market for such ‘old

542

Z Husain and Sushil

technologies’. Technology strategy may have three elements, strategy for technology acquisition, strategy for technology exploitation, and strategy for technology management. Finally, the article concludes with a suggestion that the chief executive officers to ensure that long-term technology acquisition and exploitation of technology portfolios are seen as the organizations’ primary purposes. Wilson [8] in his brief comment on strategic management of technology leaves no doubts about considering the technology management as a function at par with other classic functions of management. The author observes that “Technology strategy. (no matter how broadly defined) is itself but one part of an overall business strategy. I have often linked business strategy to a cable, made up of interwoven strands (a marketing strategy, a manufacturing strategy, a human resource strategy, etc.) bound closely together to give greater tensile strength to the whole. A technology strategy, therefore, like any other functional strategy, must always be conceived and implemented within the context of the overall strategic management of the business.” Sethi and Hickey [9], through their study have proposed a methodology for inserting the strategic approach for technology management function into overall business planning process. The methodology evolved by them will go a long way in strategically managing the technology function of the present and future organizations. The author has argued on technology management to be performed as investment planning in business. In their work on technology investment priorities, some interesting issues have been raised related to the products which are already in the market but in different quadrants of growth and market share (BCG) matrix. Managers in this technology age wish to wed the scientific and technical knowledge with existing strengths of the firms which may lie in engineering, in marketing, in human resources, in manufacturing, or in any combination of these functions [10]. They also want to make better choices in selecting new technologies for development and especially want to minimize the time required between development in the laboratory and commercialization. In meeting these challenges, the practising managers have shown use of some fascinating principles like for example, know the technological core and link it to strategic intent, take a global view of technical competence, and time of the essence which may form the essential components of the technology strategy. Banerjee and Krishnamoorthy [11] describe the perfect operation of joint venture depends on internal policy decisions, carrying out of meaningful market research, the proper selection of a partner, proper maintenance of support teams and staff, and an effective feasibility study. They have suggested the implications of joint venture partnerships coming up in developing countries in formulating technology strategy. The two partners coming together pool their funds and technological resources for the mutual benefit of each other. As an alternative to joint venture partnership the direct foreign investment has been discussed for its advantages and various risk factors associated with it to be considered for technology strategy formulation. Erickson et al [12] have suggested that the short-term profit motives should not be able to derail the long range plans of R&D of a firm. The strategic management of technology calls for focus on developing technologies that supports a firm’s products and markets. A balance has to be struck in new technology development and incremental improvements in existing product lines and adapting old products for new markets which brings down business risk and improves profitability. The authors have also outlined the goal of strategic technology management as a contributor to the firm’s value by


543

improving the cash flows and thereby assuring the continued growth. It should also be purposeful and must always be connected with the firm’s overall business strategy. The advantages and disadvantages of joint ventures have been described with special reference to the organizations based in developing countries. The problems which have been highlighted draw attention towards the understanding and the grasp of the organizations which are going in for the joint venture partnership. Such organizations seem to work towards short term advantages and not focusing on building a successful competitive advantage using the acquired technology. The firms must also learn how to utilize the strategic alliance as a mode of learning new technologies and building a sound technology base. The market advantage can prove to be temporary while technology advantage can turn out be a long lasting and permanent in nature. In the process of taking the advantage they need to protect themselves from technological deskilling and work towards assimilation of new sources of technologies, skills, and core competencies. In interesting and extensive research carried out at International Motor Vehicle Programme (IMVP) based at MIT, strategic options for automobile manufacturers in the global market were considered [13]. The empirical study has considered the ‘post -Japanese’ model for stud y and has taken into account factors like developments in industry, stronger vertical and horizontal integration, multi-market presence, global sourcing and global operations, new manufacturing technologies and techniques, size of the industry, growth rate, resource concentration, ownership and international operations, technology, pressures of change, supply policies, economies of scale, and implications for the components industry. Jones [14] has discussed the importance of having a technology strategy in long run for a developed country like Australia. The author has suggested a broad framework for preparing the national technology strategy. The factors which may be taken into consideration while working out a long term national technology strategy are development capabilities, manufacturing culture, need to improve R&D, education planning, and venture capital and financial markets.

2.2

Technology management and corporate strategy

Corporate strategy can be seen as interaction of four major components which are portfolio management, restructuring, transferring skills, and sharing activities [15]. Moving from competitive strategy to corporate strategy is like passing through the Bermuda Triangle where the failure rate is higher than the success rate. The corporate strategy which increases the competitiveness of the firm is the best defence against the raiders and takeovers. Technology and its effective management also support the competitiveness of various business units of the firm and therefore takes pressure from the corporate strategy. But technology strategy must figure in corporate strategy. Hamel and Prahalad [16] have defined ‘strategic intent’ as the obsession to win at all levels of the organization and sustain this spirit of wining for substantial period of time. The authors have indicated that the organizations those which have emerged as global leaders in their respective sectors of industry, started with the ambitions that were out of all proportions to the resources they had at their disposal. But what they have created is the obsession with winning and eventually satisfying the quest for global leadership. Strategic intent of CEO who sets ambitious targets for a period of time, relentlessly develops the firm’s capabilities, and transforms the b asis of competition to its advantage.

544


In extremely dynamic industries, alignment between the strategic intent and strategic action is not likely to last long. Strategic action either lead or lag the strategic intent over time. Such divergence between intent and action has been termed as ‘strategic dissonance’ [17]. In an exclusive global study undertaken at Sloan School of Management and supported by the International Centre for Research in Management of Technology (ICRMOT), it was concluded that technological advantage can be realized by effectively linking the technology strategy with overall corporate strategy and leveraging internal technology with an increasing number and variety of external technology sources [18]. The study reveals that CEOs of Japanese firms play a more prominent role in the process of technology strategy development, project selection and prioritization, internal resource allocation, and selection of outside technological investment proposals. The CEOs of Japanese firms involve themselves more rigorously in linking the two strategies than their North American and European counterparts. The study has taken into consideration 244 organizations which are spending 80% of the total money invested in R&D in North American, European, and Japanese firms. The importance of technology management in Japanese firms can be estimated from a simple fact that in 95% of the firms included in the sample were having their Chief Technology Officers (CTOs) on the board of directors. Maybe it is one of the important reasons behind Japanese global success on the technology front. Green [19] empirically proves the importance of involvement of top management and its support of R&D projects lead to the success of the firm. Jelinek and Goldhar [20] suggest that the impact of new technologies are far-reaching and widespread. To extract maximum benefit from these technological changes there has to be a smooth and strong interface of technology strategy and corporate business strategy. Gerwin [21] establishes research agenda for manufacturing flexibility in strategic perspective. The research agenda which the author has derived, grows out of the appraisal of theoretical and applied work, and includes generic flexibility strategies, the flexibility dimensions, methods of delivery, ways of evaluating and changing a process’s flexibility, and measurement problems. Managing a major technological change proactively is always a big challenge for any firm [22]. Major technological change also brings in some kind of technological discontinuity, and the real challenge lies in the smooth transition from old to new technology. The technology would continue to evolve and shift, and this property of technology brings in the discontinuity. According to him “A strategic posture implies that leadership adopt a long-term perspective on technology and the inevitability of change.”

2.3

Technology Management and future approaches

Werther et al [23] have outlined the characteristics of technology management function. Emphasizing the precise distinction between technology and technology management, it is mentioned that “technology addresses the application of scientific and engineering knowledge to the solution of problems” while “technology management, has a broader charter: the integration of technology throughout the organization as a source of sustainable competitive advantage.” The authors have indicated that the changing dynamics of technology management can be best seen as an evolving technology paradigm for competitive advantage. Technology management function was not recognized in management theory and science because there was very little transparency in it. It used to work like a ‘black-box’ where people, money, and other resources were


545

consumed and technological innovations were coming out. According to the authors, ‘control’ paradigm emerged out of black-box framework with the growing demand for technology. Strategic approach has evolved out of control paradigm, it is also referred as the ‘Third generation Paradigm’ which argues for an integration of technology with corporate strategy. Technology has been seen as an essential component of corporate strategy and hence cannot be separated from the strategic thinking and planning process. The authors have indicated towards the ‘Fourth Generation’ paradigm which is likely to evolve from the ‘Third Generation’ paradigm and is an execution -oriented approach. The firms will concentrate on continuously refining their abilities to acquire and deploy relevant technologies which is treated as the integral part of its corporate strategy. The technology leaders will battle with the competition on two fronts and they are acquisition and deployment. But the sustainable competitive advantage will come from the organization’s capability to learn continuously the technology acquisition and deployment tactics. According to the authors “the measurable payoffs from this execution-oriented paradigm will be a sustainable competitive advantage because the strategic edge that results is neither easily observed nor quickly duplicated by competitors.” How the businesses be managed in the twenty-first century and what will be there problems and aspirations? How will they be forecasting the business scenarios and technologies of the future? Makridakis [24] has indicated some approaches for resolving these issues. Nobuhiko [25] discusses the effects of increasing consumerism and the rising value of the Yen on the Japanese approach to technology and marketing strategies.

2.4

Technology leadership and core competencies

Prahalad and Hamel [26] have given new dimensions to the core competence which a firm needs to develop. The roots of competitiveness lie in core competencies. Core competencies have been defined as collective learning in the organization to coordinate and integrate the diverse production skill, and multiple streams of technologies. They do not diminish with use and get enhanced with application and sharing. They need to be nurtured. Cultivating core competence does not mean that a firm should spend more on R&D than its competitors. It also does not mean that the firm should become heavily vertically integrated. The authors have suggested tests to identify the core competencies in a company. A core competence should provide potential access to a wide variety of markets, should provide a (perceived) core benefit to the customers, and should be difficult for the competitors to imitate. The physical embodiment of one or more core competencies in the end products results in core products. The authors have insisted that core competencies should constitute the focus for corporate strategy. Masanori [27] has outlined criteria for technological strength which a nation or a firm develops over a period of time. The author indicates that relative priority that is placed on specific technologies and evaluating a specific area and its importance for the development of local industry. Potentials and pitfalls of technologies in context to a country have been considered. By persistently working in a particular area, a nation develops potentials for breakthroughs and failures which come across, goes a long way in developing core competence.

546 3 3.1

Z. Husain and Sushil Technology planning and forecasting Technology planning

Gunsteren [28] based on his study of R&D divisions of diversified technology-based companies which have achieved unparalleled technological breakthroughs initially, but could not sustain their technological leadership because of inappropriate technology, marketing and production plans. There was also lack of understanding and technology was not considered to be an important corporate resource. In this context he has raised some valid questions: “Are we an organization of doers or thinkers? Are we in the business of making and doing things or we are in knowledge business? Are we offering a product or a capacity to our customers?” He has suggested a classification of the various organizations on the dominant roles which they are playing for strategy formulation. According to him four classes are License Taker, License Giver, Jobber, and Consultant. Features of these four classifications have also been provided. An organization is supposed to choose from these four roles which are being played at a given point in time in the present market situation. An organization is free to choose an outside party for the role of license taker and jobber and if it decides to do on its own then there should be an altogether different group of people working on them. By doing this the identity crisis can also be avoided and there will be a balance in all four activities which let a technological innovation see the light of the day, and this is how the technology management function elements are to planned to maintain the traditions of technological breakthroughs in the long run. However, no methodology has been suggested for preparation of long term plans to manage technology function. Petroni [29] with his study of technology based firms has highlighted the growing need between business planning and R&D activities. The author has indicated how an organization can work out its business plans depending upon the organizational strengths in technology management function and the area in which the firms operate. When technology management is thought to be considered at par with other functions in the organization then it also comes under the purview of financial, cost, productivity and profitability analyses and there the technology management function feels pressure from short-term goals and hesitates in undertaking the long term and high risk projects. In a way the firm tries to compromise with organizations long term objectives and involve itself in low-risk and short projects. In order to avoid such situations it is proposed that the company should place itself in one of the two positions that are technology push and demand pull, and then work out the business plans which will better fulfil the organization’s long term obj ectives. A methodology has been proposed for these two types of company classifications. In ‘technology push’ firms technology could be the major driving force with R&D function in a strong top-down approach while in ‘demand pull’ companies a detailed mark etwise analysis needs to be done and business plans are to be worked out in coordination with marketing and R&D with strong bottom-up approach. Koerner [30] has suggested that if technology planning is not done effectively, then no amount of investment in technology development can yield results. In the case study of General Motors, he has made this point very clear that planning is crucial for quick and timely commercialization of technologies developed in house.


547

He has touched upon several aspects of planning with special emphasis to interdepartmental technology transfer. He also discusses the principles of technology planning which are following: “(1)

Balance marketing pull with technology push - you can’t just ask the marketing what they want. If you do, you will miss half the action.

(2)

Don’t fish on the road - keep the business objectives in front of the you all the time. Everybody has limited time and budget.

(3)

Don’t do technology for technology’s sake - try to solve the customer needs and don’t forget to ask them what they want. A good dialogue will help you to be creative. Minimize the disconnects in the flow of ideas - minimize the secrets, have frequent

(4)

reviews; build relationships. (5)

To improve technology transfer. Move the people with the products.”

Swamidass [31] has carried out a survey of US manufacturing firms to find out the technology planning being done by them. It is reported that technology planning was seldom done by these manufacturing units and the units which were doing technology planning consciously, needed an improvement or even total overhaul of current manufacturing technology planning practices. The author has suggested a planning approach with the assumption that the manufacturing technology and competitive equilibrium are constantly changing. These changes are monitored for and exact time frame is captured to modernize the existing facility. He also recommends the continual assessment of the deterioration in manufacturing technology with time. He has compared the US manufacturers with their Japanese and European counterparts on the basis of technology planning practices and cited several reasons for US manufacturing falling behind on this count. The reasons which have been cited include the lack of experience with modern technology, inadequate understanding of the modern technology, the lack of skills to evaluate the intangible and non-financial aspect of process technology and the lack of top management understanding and support for advanced manufacturing technology. Staley [32] argues that technology asset planning is done to minimize the technology gap. The author has identified the various components of technology asset planning process. Discussing the benefits of technology asset planning, reduction in development cycle time and cost, availability of an opportunity to the various role players to develop a shared vision, and objective investment on technological assets have been seen as major advantages apart from making the business more technology driven and improved top management’s control over technology related business risk. Planning the technology transfer is a very crucial factor even when the parties involved are parts of the same firm. Transfer of technology from R&D to manufacturing also needs to be planned carefully and delay in the process can lead to disastrous results [30]. The case of General Motors has been cited by the author to demonstrate that only committing resources is not the end of the problem but only a beginning. Resource leverage is more important than resource allocation [4]. Roller and Tombak [33] have developed and analyzed a model of multiple firm investment in manufacturing technology. One uses FMS and other uses Dedicated Equipments (DE). The authors have found that larger market and more differentiated

548


products result in a higher proportion of FMS firms being sustained. An inverse relationship was observed between number of firms in an industry and proportion of firms investing in FMS.

3.2

Technology forecasting

Today’s economic conditions demand a very serious effort in the direction of technology forecasting. The global characteristics, and fast changing nature of the world economy, the need for sophisticated and conscious exercise on technological forecasting is at an all time high [34]. An array of forecasting methodologies is available to cater to the needs of various problem characteristics. The factors are affecting the choice of forecasting methodology includes availability of resources, availability of data, credibility of source of data, similarities in present and future technologies, and number of variables affecting the development of new technology.

3.3

Technology and its impact on business

Technology has a long term impact on the business scenario of any country or industry. In a study carried out by Business Environment Study Group in the UK. Whaley and Burrows [35] have revealed that market leaders in a particular industry have their own reservations in coming out with new technologies. The group has held several environmental factors responsible for this reason. Major factors which were identified by the study group included people’s conservat ive behaviour, their perception that technological breakthroughs are extremely difficult to make, if one proposes any new technology, there will be stiff resistance either from peer level or from top management level. The study revealed that all major technological breakthroughs are likely from small companies in which a handful of creative people are working, may be such companies are operating from garages. It was also felt that whenever you need any technological breakthrough from a small company, may be from the same group of people, acquire a company which is doing applied technology research in the same area. The observation of the Study Group was in the foreseeable future, firms will rise and fall along with the product life cycle of the industries concerned. There may be few cases where the fortune of a firm is extended because growing activity for innovation in the existing products, or because producing new products, or because of another technological breakthrough in general purpose technology area providing a helping hand. The study group has evaluated the impact of the emerging technologies on the overall business scenario in general, and computer and communication, education, travel, health, distribution, leisure, mining, quarrying, oil, chemicals, metals, construction, clothing, food, utilities, banking and insurance in particular. Another study on how technology based firms monitor the business environment was conducted by Technical Change Centre, London [36]. The study was carried out on UK based companies only. It has revealed that the practice of monitoring the technological environment is found to be related to the absolute size of a company, its capital intensity, planning horizon, degree of diversification, and the most important factor is importance attributed to technological factors in the strategic planning of a company. The study has revealed striking differences in the attitude of the companies to actual or potential innovations occurring outside their own fields of technological competence but are likely

Strategic management of technology - a glimpse of literature 549

to impact upon the demand for their products. It was assumed that the people within the organization are quite aware of the advancements taking place in their own industry. There were two extreme opinions observed, at one hand people were of opinion that product substitution will take place and a large range of products will be replaced with the new solutions, and in order to survive in the market the organizations will need to develop technologically, and technology will play crucial role in corporate business strategy. On the other hand people denied that such a threat exists, and if at all any technological innovation hits the market, they being old timers will be in a comfortable position to exploit the same. Masakazu [37] discusses the issue of Japan’s internationalization in context to its market, technology, and work culture in the organizations. The author has related the work culture in Japan with social value system. The long working hours and low wages in Japan in comparison to other developed countries is talked about and the point made is that all these things are negotiable but what has not been compromised is devotion of Japanese workers. Working for a firm is not treated as a sale of physical efforts for money but is a “spiritual mission or duty to be performed with devotion.” The author has concluded that the Japanese work ethics are as fair as of any of the Western countries. Ashton et al [38] suggest keeping track of worldwide developments is an expensive and time consuming process but it cannot be left alone. The objectives for monitoring efforts can be outlined. The basic goal of technology monitoring programme is to provide an awareness of events, current developments, and trend in S&T areas.

4

4.1

Technology acquisition and transfer

Technology transfer

A framework for technology transfer from developed to developing and under developed (or ‘less developed’) countries has been proposed by Madu [39]. He has covered a wide variety of topics including relevant technology for a country, the nature of technology, evaluation of indigenous technologies and process of technology transfer. “Less developed countries (LDCs) need western technology to alleviate from their economic difficulties. With some noted exceptions, however, technology transfers have not generally been successful.” Inappropriate types of technology have been transferred from the multinational companies of western origin. In some other cases, the technology transfer has been done without any prior analysis of strengths and weaknesses of the recipient organization. In his study the author has proposed a decision-making process for technology transfer and subsequent development on the same. He has also outlined that how well established techniques like Delhpi, Scenarios, Social Judgement Analysis, Simulation, Optimization etc. may be used for making technology transfer decisions. Success factors for technology transfer have also been dis cussed. The advantages and disadvantages of technology transfer in context to both, the transferring country and transferee country have been discussed. The author has indicated that the key to innovation is not to create chaos but to create an environment in which information can be created from chaos. The role of management is very important in creating such type of environment.

550

Z Husain and Sushil

Gibson and Smilor [40] have discussed the importance of factors facilitating technology transfer, effectiveness of different methods of technology transfer, barriers in technology transfer, and ways to improve effectiveness of technology transfer, and key variables for technology acquisition success, and have supported the hypotheses involving these variables with an empirical study. Banerjee [41] has mentioned that technology gap is a reality everywhere. The technology transfer, therefore, becomes imperative in order to bridge the gap. The process of technology diffusion is not transferring shelf knowledge from affluent to poor economies. “Perhaps dispatching technologies to third world country is an act of sale rather than one of technology transfer. Evidently, the international market of technology is an imperfect one as buyers are not adequately informed about the product and they are easily influenced by the potential seller.” The technology transfer problem is different in different sectors and times. In certain cases massive business interest causes favourable influence in deciding the purchase of technology. In some sectors political interests cause an altogether new dimension in choosing or rejecting a technology. In all the cases of technology transfer commercial factor is always present, and wherever it is either weak or absent such sectors can be called as non-commercial sectors. Robertson [42], while describing his own experience of technology acquisition in a pharmaceutical laboratory, has pointed out various reasons for technology transfer. Senior management’s dissatisfaction, availing of an opportunity to acquire technology on very attractive terms, limited or very little effort required to obtain technology, and complementing the existing in-house technological development could form the basis for making a decision on technology transfer. The author has brought out the lessons learned in the process of technology acquisition. According to him, technology acquisition can reduce the total time required to convert an idea or formulation into a commercializable product, and a small or medium scale industry may very well carry out an incremental product or process innovation but evolving full fledged technology may not be possible. The risks in technology transfer are always very high and failure rate is also substantial but a management committed to genuine technology transfer must become tolerant to failures. The organization and human resource aspect of technology acquisition must be planned and executed with great care. Technology transfer should become a part of the organizational culture for progressive firms. All the technologies are subject to refinement and there is always scope for further innovation. The decision of technology acquisition has to be made at the right time otherwise one may lose the opportunity to milk the technology to its fullest extent. Top management have an important role to play in technology acquisition decision making but they genuinely need to establish the need for the technology within the organization and need not appear as advocates of a particular technology. HP-Grenoble is a case of technology transfer in which intra-firm technology transfer for making the firm’s presence felt in the European market turned out to be a great success and technology was made to flow back to parent company and rest of the world’s HP organizations [43]. Discussing the problems of technology transfer, Dearing [44] describes ‘Homophily’ as the degree to which people are alike, and ‘Hetrophily’ as the degree to which the people are different. He has suggested that the technology transfer occurs smoothly


551

between like -minded people. The strategies for technology transfer are always based on reducing the gap among communicative participants. Georgantzas and Madu [45] have presented a comprehensive literature review on technology transfer and management and have also dealt with the various cognitive process involved in the same. Lee [46] discusses the framework of technology transfer keeping competitiveness as the objective for technology acquisition. According to the author acquiring know-how related to product, process, people, procedures, and performance are the forms of technology transfer. The reasons for technology acquisition have been suggested as bridging the gap between the actual and perceived performance and improved competitiveness. Macdonald [47] discusses the nature and ways of industrial espionage and its effects over legitimate technology transfer and subsequent innovations. Technological information is crucia l for a firm to remain competitive. Firms need to keep acquiring the information and the most efficient mode of information acquisition is through individuals and informal networks. It becomes very difficult for informed organizations to concede relevant information from being divulged to the needy firms and individuals. Effectiveness of technology transfer cannot be improved considerably unless industrial espionage is considered alongside other means by which information flows informally, it cannot be seen in perspective. And unless it is seen from the perspective of technology transfer as a whole, the prevailing attitude to industrial espionage will continue to cause suspicions on some of the most important means by which technology transfer occurs and innovations come about. Spann et al [48] have elucidated the measures of technology transfer effectiveness used by sponsors, developers, and adopters. The authors have focused on government funded technologies transferred to private sector industries. An empirically based taxonomy of metrics of technology transfer has been presented. Kroonenberg [49] has emphasized the close co-operation between universities and industry and suggested that it is the key requisite to intensify dialogue which can result in technology transfer.

4.2

Technology management and strategic alliances

Sasaki [50] has brought out the lessons which Japanese auto firms have learned from strategic alliances (SAs). The history of strategic alliances go back to 1925 when Ford established a tie up with Werke AG of Germany. The first strategic alliance took place with a Japanese firm in 1953 when Nissan tied itself up with Austin and could survive only up to 1960. The author has discussed the various case studies and brought out the fact that the Japanese firms have entered into SAs which have served them different objectives from time to time. In 1950s these firms entered into the SAs for acquiring then state-of-art technology from the American and European firms. In l960s the SAs were made to survive the storm of foreign capital in Japan, this was the time when Japan had adopted the free pattern of economy. In 1970s the SAs were made with very heavy emphasis on indigenization and subsequent innovation, this was the time when Japan brought out small cars. In 1980s the SAs were made to explore the economies of scale and scope, and finally in the 1990s the SAs are being made to emerge as true multinational companies. This history of SAs has some very important lessons for all developing countries like India those who are acquiring technologies for a variety of reasons.

552 4.3

Z. Husain and Sushil Strategic alliances and market leadership

Strategic technology alliances come into being for a variety of reasons, market leadership is one of the very frequent reasons [51]. In an empirical study considering two major aspects of strategic interfirm partnering, i.e., establishing stable network of cooperating firms, and market leader firms participating unproportionately, it is revealed that the large international firms play a leading role in such collaborations. This partnering helps them in competitive re-positioning. The strategic SAs have helped the bigger companies more than the smaller firms or inner circle of the nodal companies. While important considerations of SAs could be to increase the corporate flexibility and the extension of core competencies of the partnering firms. Barney [52] has discussed the acquisition of firms as a result of implementation of a particular strategy. A conceptual framework has been suggested by the author to work out returns on investments on such strategic acquisitions. Ohmae [53] suggests that alliances are just the tools of convenience, but are critical instruments of serving the customers in global environment. Catering to global customer needs generation of cash, lower unit cost, and experience to push technology further. Nothing stays proprietary for a very long time and a player can master all the arts, hence operating globally means operating with partners which amounts to SAs which also help in spreading technology. Alliances are to be carefully worked out, particularly on upstream and downstream activities; one should never forget that it is a marriage of two partners and will be happy and successful (will last longer) only when both will do their respective jobs well. SAs can prove to be potent instrument and effective mechanism to meet the challenges of global competition. Apart from technological alliances, the firms enter into logistics alliances with firms which have developed core competencies in this area and help in reducing distribution and storage operating costs and improve the quality of customer services [54].

5 5.1

Development and innovation management Technology development

Masanori [55] has suggested a theory for technological developments. The theory involves five stages which are refinement of technology for existing products and production processes, applied technologies for new products, advanced technologies and its implementation for mass manufacturing, concentrating on future technologies, and finally exploring the Nobel Prize class breakthroughs, technologies and discoveries. He has also indicated the priorities for technology development placed by Japanese firms. Van de Yen [56] defines technological innovations as “the development and implementation of new ideas by people who over time engage in transaction with others in an institutional order.” He has concentrated on four factors namely new ideas, people, transactions, and organizational context, and problems related to them. The author has suggested answers to the questions general management usually encounters, like how innovations develop over time? what kind of problems do they offer? How can they appropriately respond to these problems? A creative idea becomes an innovation when it is commercially implemented and institutionalized. There are good number of creative ideas or inventions which do not see the light of the day. The success of an innovation is determined by the degree of currency it is able to attract.

Strategic management of technology - a glimpse of literature 553 Roberts [57] has outlined some important points of managing invention and innovations which include understanding of the process of the same as a mu ltistage one. To achieve effective and commercializable innovations an organization needs ‘critical role playing’. The highest product development success rate is achieved when the marketing and R&D organizations work in close collaboration, market pull brings in more successful innovations than the technology push, and top management commitment is the key factor for institutionalized development of effective products and processes. Western societies have depended on individual inventor-cum-entrepreneur for many of their most profitable and successful technological developments and innovations [58]. The author has suggested to large institutions to make use of individual entrepreneurial development system to meet the enormous challenges of recent times. Fanaticism and commitment, capability to accept chaos, low early cost, no detailed control, incentives and low risks, sustenance for long time horizons, and flexible financial support have been included in the list of advantages for individual entrepreneurial systems while top man problem, time scale conflict, heavy expenditures, and detailed control too soon, have been seen as problem of large institutions in supporting technology development projects.

5.2

Innovation management

Abernathy and Chakravarthy [59] have developed a policy framework for technological innovation. The framework is based on two important dimensions of government intervention which are technology creation action and market modification action. The developed framework has been tested for applicability using known examples. In a classic empirical study innovation cost and time of 200 American and Japanese firms dealing with internal and external technologies, Mansfield [60] has indicated that it the type of industry which matters in realizing innovations in shortest period of time and spending minimum of resources. Japanese have advantage in some industries (particularly machinery) while Americans have advantage in some other industries (particularly chemicals). He found Japanese to be very quick and effective users and innovative on external technologies (technologies not developed within the firm) while Americans were found to be more creative in internal technologies. Japanese firms were found to have more allocation of funds for innovation and less for setting up market for the innovated products. In comparison to American firms, Japanese are spending roughly 25% less time and 50% less money on innovation on external technologies than that of on internal technologies. An organization which is not innovative can survive in long run with great difficulty or it will be a dead weight in the neck of the market which the customers are not likely to tolerate for very long. Every organization wishing to hold its customer base and expand the existing one must innovate and try to offer need-based solutions to the customers in a variety of ways. Needless to say the solutions entering the market should have a required amount of technological innovation and should also be economical in the long run. In a typical competitive business scenario one should try to innovate more than its competitors. For realizing innovations in technology and the final products requires creating climate for innovation. Humble and Jones [61] have suggested that the strategic point in creating the climate for innovation is to plan to phase-out existing products and services. Easing on the winning products or services can prove to be dangerous. Obsolescence needs to be planned otherwise it is forced on the organization either by competition or by market

554


forces which many at times becomes a very expensive proposition. The authors have also suggested a systematic method for promoting climate for innovation by designed interactions and preparing a summary of best ideas for innovations. This approach can prove to be very effective because people at all levels in the organization are involved in screening the ideas, so they obviously have commitment to convert these ideas into innovative products. Their argument about the incremental innovation also seems quite plausible, since radical innovations or technological breakthroughs can be realized once in a while, but incremental innovation in the existing products can go on almost on a regular basis. Also their argument of changing 1000 products even by a fraction of a percent can have cumulative impact. Incremental innovation should be a habit and not an exception and whole organization should be involved. In managing radical breakthroughs a different approach is required. Such innovations are not expected from busy managers, there has to be a separate division with required facilities, and creative and qualified people having flair for innovations. The authors have suggested different approaches for doing the same. Many times it is not possible to realize radical innovations within the existing firm’s set up. In such cases contract research, consultants, and universities can be funded for specific research projects or a long term contract may be signed with any of the above or with any combination of the above organizations. Subramanian [62] has discussed the approach of Japanese firms in managing technology in general and managing innovations in particular. According to the author, to meet the emerging technological challenges, innovative Japanese companies are trying out a ‘Total Technology Management’ approach by covering technological creativity, organizational dynamics and team building. These firms have assigned middle management the key role in this context . Craig [63] has outlined the requirement of attitude change and removal of corporate cultural barriers to successful new product development process. Ali et al [64] have suggested a novel approach for selecting projects for pioneering on an incremental basis. The authors basically have emphasized the organizations capabilities and its experience of taking up such projects and have recommended Game Theory approach to choose a project. They have also identified certain factors for quantification which can be used for strategy development. The study is based on the organizations which have had two options i.e., of pioneering, and incremental innovations. While concluding, the authors say “There is a consensus among researchers working ~n the R&D resource allocation problem that a firm’s new product portfolio should be balanced between lab -based, technically ambitious projects and market driven projects that flow from customer analysis. The latter tend to minor modifications of existing products which have a higher probability of completion but low profit potential.” Zahra et al [65] have suggested that how technological pioneering can help a company in having edge over its competitors. They have also highlighted the various elements which are involved in the pioneering process. According to them technological pioneering is “developing and commercializing an emerging technology in pursuit of growth and profits.” In an important observation, the authors have also identified technological pioneering and market leadership as two different activities and success in one not necessarily ensures the success for another. Technological pioneering may not be a worthwhile proposition under all circumstances, there is an element of risk associated with it. Coordinated efforts of marketing, production, R&D, and other functional areas


555

have been emphasized in commercializing the technology. Resolving issues related to various activities while commercializing new technologies promote organizational learning. Bringing in the dark side of technology pioneering the authors have raised a valid point for promoting awareness about the new technology, because when a new technology is commercialized there is a very little knowledge available among the users. The pioneering organization has to invest very heavily by way of advertising and conducting awareness promotion programmes in order to popularize the same. When is technological pioneering profitable? In answering this question it has been mentioned that in slow technology diffusion industry where the cost of imitation is high, customer needs are changing very fast, and market development effort is phenomenal, heavy investment in technology pioneering may not be recommended. A process for converting the technological pioneering into market leadership has been proposed as follows: (1) acquire market leadership position; (2) overcome incumbent inertia; (3) manage the duality of technological pioneering; (4) speed up technological development and commercialization; and (5) link pioneering activities to competitive strategy. Smith and Reinertsen [66] appreciate the pressure on manufacturers in the times of shrinking product and process technology life cycles and suggest 10 different approaches to overcome this problem. They have advocated the judicious blending of these approaches to suit the needs of a particular organization. The approaches recommended are “Be flexible about process, let economics be your guide, watch out for complexity, manage the invention pipeline, be aware of phased development, fundamental limitations, responsibility belongs to people, avoid the ‘thinking stage’ trap, staff teams adequately, staff with generalists, let the team manage the team, manage both technical and market risk, and develop a reserve.” According to the authors, the R&D manager becomes the main actor to put in effort for cutting down the development time and may be he is in the strongest position to do the same. Beckett [67] has discussed why technological changes are taking place and what are the implications of such changes on the market place and the work patterns of the people. Three most dramatic changes, which he has focused on are technology, globalization of market, and changing patterns of work. The author considers profit as the vital ingredient in technological changes. Availability of funds for making use of funds is quite necessary. “It is the combination of rapid technological change, greatly speeded up diffusion of information and profit levels, sufficiently high for business to take advantage of the opportunities thus made available, which I believe will provide the fundamental dynamics for change in the world in next few years.” Globalization of markets is taking place basically because of changing technology. Some of the latest technologies allow economies of scale of such a magnitude that no amount of effort in product design, process innovation, and diligence on the shop floor can enable the small volume manufacturers to compete with them. The quality delivered by these

556


technologies is also far more superior and consistent. In the three changes that are discussed there are two common aspects. Firstly, they are not dictated by the government but are market-led. Secondly, they mean greater flexibility and diversity. The author has emphasized on high profitability for enabling a firm to become more adaptive to technological change and quickness in adapting the new technology is the key to faster growth. Innovations have been looked upon as objects of considerable academic interest for a variety of reasons [68]. Innovation has been seen as a piece of information which is subsequently converted into a product. For this purpose the human beings are not considered only as information processors but also information creators. A technologically innovative firm is a negative entropy system which continuously creates new orders and structures (new products and processes) in order to survive and grow. The authors discuss two case studies of firms dealing in two different products. Information has been considered as the key to creation process. Out of syntactic and semantic types of information the later is considered to be more holistic and capable of evolving and transforming the technological solutions. Information (semantic) helps creating new technologies, new processes, new products, and this information should be diffused throughout the firm for setting an environment for further innovations. If the firm can benefit from such innovations which has been referred to as ‘ripple’, then it can secure greater economic advantage. Zimmerman [69] has mentioned that the firms seeking turnaround successfully between 1902 and 1987 have introduced greater numbers of small incremental innovations to differentiate the successful products from the unsuccessful ones. In his comprehensive study of 15 such firms (a large number of automobile firms were included) seven could not manage a turnaround because they introduced significant and abrupt innovations only and did not support them with continuous incremental innovations. The relationship between incremental innovation and production has been perceived as a ‘ladder’ [70]. Because usable things come as a culminati on of cumulative scientific research; the ideas tested in the laboratories move step-by-step towards increasing practicality, and by keeping the practicality alive incremental innovations are realized. Concepts of technology trajectory [71] and technology corridor have been brought out [72]. A technological trajectory is a path which shows continuity in the technological innovations for a particular industry or product while technology corridor is the gap between upper and lower limits of the performance characteristics of a particular technology. Laying down a strategic plan for technological innovations, a firm needs to go through the several phases [73]. The phases can be different manifestations of product conception based on scientific and technological data, manufacturing process design, stating the financial plan, the manufacturing properties, design based on control size of the market (Flexible Manufacturing Systems), and forecasting of new products. Takeuchi and Nonaka [74] have discussed the ‘rugby approach’ of new product development. According to them the new product development process used to move like relay race, with one group of functional specialists handing over to another in the classical manner. Under the rugby approach, the new products emerge as a result of constant interaction of hand picked, multidisciplinary group whose members work together right from beginning till end like a rugby team. The authors have also indicated that companies able to bring in new products faster show six characteristics which are built-in instability,


557

self-organizing project teams, overlapping development phases, multi-learning, subtle control, and organizational transfer of learning. A product that arrives a few months late in the market easily lose several months of payback. Exploiting a technological innovation is also a very challenging job and needs a carefully crafted strategy for building the organization’s future. If an innovation is not appropriately commercialized and taken benefit of, then the pioneering organization may leave more money on table for its competitors and they can grow so strong that the firm realizing innovation may have to take a back seat [75]. Nonaka [76] is of the opinion that when a firm is operating in a high degree of uncertainty, markets are shifting, technologies are proliferated, competitors are multiplying, and products are becoming obsolete at a faster rate, then consistent creation of knowledge, wide dissemination in the organization, and quick embodiment decides the success. The firms taking up these activities are called as ‘knowledge -creating’ companies and involve themselves in the sole business of continuous innovation. Who profits most from a technological innovation is a question to be pondered upon. Imitators can often outperform innovators if they are better positioned with respect to critical complementary resources as well as the underlying infrastructure [77]. Successful technological innovation requires a special combination of managerial and entrepreneurial skills [78]. Lynn et al [79] have concluded that incremental products line extensions and improvements are essential for maintaining leadership which is established by discontinuous (radical) innovations. The authors have evolved a probe and learn process for marketing discontinuous innovations effectively.

6 6.1

Technology management and organizational issues High-tech organizations

The nature and structure of a high technology firm is reflected directly from the environment the firm is operating in and the characteristics of the technology in which it is dealing [80]. The shrinking technology life cycles are putting pressures on firms for quick commercialization of innovations. This presses the organization from two opposite sides. It asks a firm to use high technology as tools and produce high technology as their products. Certain characteristics of the technology itself have strong bearing on organization of hi-tech firms. The interdependence of individuals in research and development has been very well appreciated. The authors have discussed the various environmental factors and their effects on the organizational restructuring with special reference to organization as learning systems, the use of flexible and temporary designs, integration, permeable boundaries, differentiation, and ongoing resolution of competing tensions. Effective high technology organizations are able to deal with many conflicting demands using the appropriate measure(s) proposed. Avishai and Taylor [81] have quoted George M.C. Fisher, CEO of Motorola, Inc., saying that it is easier for a technocrat to learn finance, HRD, and legal principles than for a finance expert to learn about Reduced Instruction Set Computer (RISC) architecture, Direct Random Access Memory (DRAM) technology, and Cellular Telecommunication Systems (CTS) without deep immersion in the respective stream of technology. Nevis et

558


al [82] have emphasized that organizations dealing in hi-tech products must visualize themselves as learning systems if they wish to remain ahead of competitors in global business. To relate creativity with technological innovations and to develop a comprehensive understanding of the creative behaviour and performance, a multi-perspective model has been presented [83]. The model deals with individual, technical, and organizational perspectives, which focuses respectively on distinctive individual characteristics associated with technical creativ ity, the required technical resources, and organization culture as a supporter or suppressor of creativity. A technology base, i.e., technological know-how and organizational leverage for effectively deploying that know-how, is essential for accomplishing the operational and strategic goals [84]. Four components of technology base suggested are technological assets, organizational assets, external assets, and projects to deploy the first three components. The strengths in these components will determine the firms capability to take up a new business project and the strategy for entry into the market with new technology. Management of technology as seen by Asian managers and scientific and educational professionals involves new approaches to developing and managing the human resources [85]. In an executive development seminar held in 1989 in Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, the Asian professionals responded different than their European and North American counterparts in the understanding of the very topic which was management of technology and its related aspects. The Asian group chose the main theme as team development and profit sharing while European and other chose the main theme as development of an organization structure to handle the issues of coordination, conflicts and collective decision-making along with human resource development. Duck [86] has described the need to take people into confidence while introducing any kind of change including the technological changes. The author has emphasized the change paradoxes and mentioned that trust is hardest to develop and achieve when you need it most during the change process. Roberts and Fusefield [87] have divided the research activities in six overlapping phases which are preproject, project possibilities, project initiation, project execution, project outcome evaluation, and project transfer. They have identified the needed roles in these phases of activities as idea generating, entreprenuering or championing, project leading, gatekeeping, and sponsoring or coaching.

6.2

Technology management and R&D management

Mathis [88] has discussed the role of technology managers and has outlined how it differs from that of the R&D managers. An R&D manager uses the firm’s internal resources to develop technol ogies that a firm needs to achieve its corporate objectives while the technology manager sees to it that the firm has the technology available to it and uses it effectively in all spheres of application. The technology manager forecasts, plans, acquires, develops, and assesses the technology which the firm is using and even takes decisions related to phasing out the same. With the help of a case study of a chemicals manufacturing firm he has attempted generalization of the experience of changing the attitude of the people in acquiring technology. Need for change has to be perceived at the apex level of management. The understanding of the need for change in the attitude has to be supplemented with technological forecasting and strategic planning to expedite the


559

change. According to the author, the CEO’s interest in technology management is of paramount importance in bringing a change in the attitude towards the management of technology function. Jun’ichi [89] has emphasized the need for creative research for Japan to sustain its global leadership in hi-tech products. After World War II when Japan needed to establish herself in the world market, started manufacturing inexpensive high-quality goods which helped her in spreading the benefits of modern science and technology around the world. According to the author most of these products were based on the researches conducted in then technologically advanced countries. Japanese manufacturers responded to the oil crisis of the 1970s very intelligently by automating production to reduce labour cost and offsetting higher fuel bills. The other alternative could be to reduce the head counts which could lead to higher unemployment and deindustrialization of Japan. The author has also discussed the number of technological breakthroughs realized and commercialized in Japan. The wide gap in the two, shows Japan’s weakness in creative research and to overcome this, the author has strongly pleaded the candidature of Japanese universities as a breeding ground for basic researches and inspired researchers. Takemochi [90] has observed that the USA and Japan are the only countries where R&D budgets are increasing rapidly. The USA with its mammoth technology storage and Japan and other newly industrialized countries of Asia (NICs) with R&P (Research & Production) strength, are in a position to mend a relationship which will facilitate growth of technological stock in the Pacific basin. Schmitt [91] has outlined the key strategic choices in managing centrally funded R&D which are generic versus targeted and market-driven versus technology driven. Gold [92] has discussed in detail the input and output sides of most efforts to appraise the effectiveness of R&D programmes. The article identifies six major types of contributions which R&D programmes could provide. The author also discusses the bearing of these contributions of R&D performance alone, R&D contribution to over-all performance of the firm, and the R&D performance of a firm in comparison to its competitors. Generally the analyses of R&D performance focuses on contributions made in enhancing capabilities and quality of existing products and processes, development of products and processes yielding major commercial advantages over competition, and advances in the knowledge to cope up with the future challenges. The author has emphasized that R&D should generate three additional kinds of improvements which are reducing or minimizing increase in cost of producing existing products, reducing lags behind competitors’ innovation in products and processes, and adapting designs and processes to shifts in supply and prices input. The top management has been held responsible and a broad framework has been provided for performance evaluation of R&D programmes. Sushil [93] has presented a concept of ‘wastivity’ which can be made use of in evaluating the R&D performance particularly in minimizing the waste.

6.3

Stratocracy

Bahrami and Evans [94] have described an organizational innovation pioneered by high-technology firms in California’s ‘Silicon Valley’. The authors have termed this innovation as STRATOCRACY and have suggested that it provides the organizational capability to focus on short-lived opportunities, and the fle xibility to manoeuvre in capricious settings. According to authors, Stratocracy is an organizational regime of the

560


high-technology arena where strategic ends change constantly and organizational means have to be marshalled cohesively. In the high-technology arena, the distinction between short-term operational activities become blurred, and the time lag between the decision and action is typically short. Stratocracy helps technology firms to maintain a sense of focus and cohesion, while retaining the sufficient flexibility to cope up with new imperatives. They have defined stratocracy in organizational context as the ‘rule of doers’. Adler and Ferdows [95] have emphasized the new position in organization structure of large firms to cater to the increasing importance of technology to competitiveness. The combined effects of technological diversifications and synergy requirements puts enormous pressure on coordination mechanism. The firms that are facing these types of coordination problems might be expected to lag their more effectively integrated competitors in the capability to develop and deploy new technologies. A CTO may contribute to the facilitating process developing and deploying new product and process technologies. The CTOs are likely to become a more common position in top management teams.

6.4

Technology management in service industries

After having invested $180 billion in hardware and software for service industries like finance, insurance, wholesale, retail, and business service companies in the USA, the effectiveness of labour and capital utilization is marginally improved [96]. The investment in technology alone is not responsible for improved corporate performance, but what is required is the employee skills and capability to exploit the same to the best advantage of the corporate business. Coupling technology with other operational procedures will be imperative for realizing maximum return on investment for the future service industry leaders. Husain and Sushil [97] have brought out learning issues in the case of service sector firms. Brainware or humanware parts being more dominant in soft technologies, management of technology in service industries. The absorbtion of soft technologies needs good understanding of the local work culture.

7 7.1

Adoption and implementation of new technologies Technology adoption

McCardle [98] has suggested a model for systematic information gathering and thereby reducing the uncertainty in adoption decision. He has also suggested a model to quantify the uncertainty and indicated when to stop information gathering and make a decision for adoption of a new technology. Mamer and McCardle [99] have proposed a model for making decision regarding adoption of new technology whose economic value can be gauged directly with certainty. The uncertainty can be decreased in this model by sequentially gathering information, updating his prior beliefs, ideas, and opinions in a Bayesian manner. The model accounts for the competition by way of either substitute or complementary products but does not account for uncertainty regarding the competitors’ actions. With regard to the marketing of new technologies, Kalish and Lilien [100] have suggested a model to decide the entry


561

timing so that it is not before the market’s early birds are mature enough to accept it and not late enough for the technology developing firm to reap the benefits. As far as the adoption of new technologies by subordinates in an organization is concerned, Leonard-Barton and Dfschamps [101] observed that managers do influence the adoption process, such influence is not equally dominating under all circumstances. Goodman and Griffith [102] have proposed a multid imensional structure of implementation system. The suggested system has five processes namely, socialization, commitment, reward allocation, feedback and redesign, and diffusion, which are conceptually interrelated to each other at least theoretically. Mansfield [103] has reported results of a survey of 175 firms to analyze the diffusion rate of Flexible Manufacturing Technology (FMT) in Japan, the USA and Western Europe. He has concluded that the Japanese firms have a clear lead over the USA and West European firms for a very simple reason that they were already using related innovations like industrial robots and other automation systems which paved the way for early adoption of the new technologies. The US firms were found to be late respondents to related technologies hence were falling behind in adopting the new ones. The firms which are able to adopt a particular type of manufacturing technology, becomes quite comfortable in adopting the next level of innovations. While discussing the acceptance of new technologies by industrialized world, Kuhlmann [104] has identified the few factors related to adoption of new technologies. Technological progress cannot be stopped, the new technological developments have and will attract criticism, the introduction of ‘ intelligent’ technologies may be helpful to mitigate the effects like job losses, environmental pollution, and high rate of accidents. The communication regarding the advantages of new technology by opinion leaders can prove to be helpful. Comprehensive quantitative norms may be established for the acceptable risk level. 7.2

Technology maturation and technology substitution

Steele [105] has outlined dual risks for the pioneering users of the new technology. The new technology adopted may not be successful every time. The conventional technology may also fail in the changed requirements of the users. With new technology, the pioneering users may look silly for having adopted unproven things. But once the technology establishes its credibility one can find several supporters seeking new uses. He has divided the discussion on maturation of technology into two parts, maturation of industries and maturation of technologies. The study of industries has indicated that at the initial stage it is characterized by a large variety of product features and an equally large number of products from different suppliers. And gradually emerges a dominant configuration and a set of product features. Then comes the age of product and process innovations. Initially the innovation is directed towards the proliferation of products and features which determines the dominant and useful configuration. In the second stage the innovations are directed to stabilize the industry and contribute to the widespread acceptance of the dominant configuration taking care the needs of a large cross section of the users. As the industry move towards the late maturity part of the industry life cycle, the product differentiation becomes more and more difficult. Breadth of the product line, strength of distribution, quality of service, and customers perception of the firm’s technology determines the success of an individual organization.

562


The emergence of new technology is under the senses of wonder, doubts, and anxieties regarding its capabilities and there is always a scope for tremendous improvement. During the early years, the progress is rapid and nearly all energies are concentrated on improving the raw physical capabilities. As the technology is applied, rapid growth is arrested, because now the innovations are constrained to be compatible with the older versions of the same technology. Materials, processes, and components tend to stabilize. Yet unrecovered investments in the then new technology forces the adoption of the advances that make use of the same facilities. “Every technology has a theoretical upper limit of performance imposed by nature.” As the technology reaches closer to the natural limits the processes become more sophisticated, expensive and specialized. Thus, importance of manufacturing increases and raises the effectiveness of the technology management function. He has extended the work on technology life cycle by applying the microeconomic analysis of marginal cost and marginal utility to show that after a particular limit a firm wanting to sustain the competitive advantage with its existing technology must invest heavily in R&D. If a new technology hits the market which has the capability to replace the old one, the competing firm will have economic advantage for the reason that the investment required to create an increment of improvement will be less. The inflection point in the technology life cycle S-curve is very difficult to predict. That makes it difficult to understand whether or not a technology has reached to the maturity stage. Beyond a certain point the pace of innovation diminishes. When a new technology starts supplanting an existing one, discontinuity is confronted and we are brought down to a much lower level on the technology S-curve. But the new technology, if it succeeds, has the potential to go higher than the state-of-the-art which might have been reached closer to its natural limits. Hence, this discontinuity is worth facing. Fisher and Pry [106] have analyzed the pattern of technology substitution and found that it also follows the shape of the classical ‘S curve’. Analyzing a wide range of examples they have concluded that the time scale varies widely for different technologies but the characteristics of the S curve always hold. It shows that once 10-15% substitution has occurred then the process carries on in a self sustaining manner. Cooper and Schendel [107] have addressed two broad questions which are “What was the nature of substitution of the new technology for the old”, and “wha t response strategies were used to counter substitution threats?”. The authors have found the model suggested by Fisher and Pry quite useful and effective. 7.3

Technology change and chaos

Like physical systems, chaos and self organization is applicable to the managerial systems [108]. The process of chaos and self organization systems emerging out of the same gives tremendous insight to the managers in a different way of understanding the response to changes introduced from the time to time by the management. The important observations made on the recent discoveries about the complex behaviour of dynamic systems concludes that chaos is a fundamental property of every nonlinear system (including human systems). It is a type of instability where it becomes difficult to predict the longterm future, the instability created has some influence limits and order emerges as a spontaneous self organization. In conventional wisdom, to be cost effective and being able to explore the economies of scale were the crucial factors for corporate success.


563

But in the age of shrinking technology and product life cycles the parameters of market leadership and corporate success have been refined. A company which absorbs the technological chaos is not or is hardly capable of becoming a leader but a firm which can cause such chaos has a very high possibility of reaching to the apex and staying there for a long time [109]. In an exclusive interview the CEO/CTO of the Silicon Graphics Inc indicated that long term product planning could be dangerous and it should be done on a short term basis to remain innovative, competitive, and industry leader. lansiti [110] has discussed the product development process in an extremely turbulent environment created by confluence of the computer, telecommunication, and media industries. The turbulent environment in an industry calls for extreme flexibility and responsiveness, particularly in the development of new technologies and introduction of new products. The author has suggested a flexible model for effective product development and emphasized need for a flexible product development process as a critical source of advantage in environments where technological evolution and competitive requirements are highly unpredictable. Collins and Porras [111] are of the opinion that sitting and waiting for a great idea is a bad idea. Also do not accept the false view that a charismatic visionary leader can only make a company successful. Once essentials are learned, get down to the hard work of making your company into a visionary one, and create chaos for others and manage chaos created by others to survive in business. 7.4

Technology push and market pull

The two classic forces which act simultaneously or one at a time on a technology based business are technology push and market pull [112]. The market pull is created by the customer needs which a business endeavour to satisfy, while technology push is created by development of advanced technology for which the demand may have to be created. The ‘Greenhouse’ environment needs to be provided for creating a dominating technology push and board’s role has been seen as a very vital factor in the successfully creating effective technology push. Urakawa [113] has concluded that the market dialogue approach is effective for assessing the hidden demand for an non-existing and/or for a new product. Blios [114] talks of integration of marketing strategy with management of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (AMT). It has been emphasized that marketing strategies should be reexamined when an investment is made in manufacturing technology, and technology strategy should be re-examined before making massive investments or organizational changes in marketing set up. Alden [115] has discussed the performance of US firms’ products in the Japanese market. He has given an example of bevel gears manufacturing machines which a US firm manufactures and until 1986 had 90% of the market share in Japan. Hamel and Prahalad [116] talk of expeditionary marketing using corporate imagination in realizing technological innovations which will keep a firm ahead of competitors and take it towards the development of core competencies. The market pull companies ask customers what they want, while technology push is knowing what customers need before customers know it themselves. The potential of tomorrow’s opportunities lies in technological innovations and they need to be managed as competently as today’s businesses.

564


7.5

Technology management and other management aspects

The choice of acquiring new manufacturing technology has been dominated by a single reason, that is the need to respond to the competition, in the past. This obviously required that the choice of new technology be based on complete manufacturing strategy of the firm instead of a superficial defence [117]. With the development on the technology management front, it is quite possible to plan and acquire technology which helps in meeting the competitive challenges and realizing the economies of scope and scale simultaneously by being flexible. Both the economies together have been referred to as ‘economies of integration’. Fryxell [118] has examined the business-level process R&D and return on investment (ROI) under strategic orientation of product differentiation and cost leadership using a longitudinal covariance structure modelling. A high level of stability in process R&D allocations has been noticed. Increases in business-level process R&D intensity have shown quick and positive results in the years following the current one in all three strategic samples chosen for the study. Change in the basic conception of managerial responsibilities is required for improving international competitiveness of technology based firms [119]. The emphasis on narrow specialization of managers within each major functional area delivered results only in restricted domain. Effective integration of specialized functions at successively higher corporate levels, as has demonstrated by Japanese in the last two decades, is a ‘worth following’ strategy to improve competitiveness in the global market. Making technological contribution to the competitiveness visible requires reaching beyond R&D and engineering criteria and needs to take internal and external environmental factors into consideration. Hayes and Abernathy [120] have concluded that companies cannot become more innovative by spending more on R&D or by doing more basic research. Critical decisions like imitative versus innovative product design, backward integration, and process development directly affects several functional areas of management, and major conflicts can only be resolved at senior executive levels. According to the authors, the key to long term success or even survival in business is: to invest, to innovate, to lead, and to create values where none existed. If technology is given implicit or peripheral consideration and fails to deal with technology as an integral factor of strategy formulation, Price [3] fears three forms which this failure can take. These forms are an inadequate understanding of necessary and sufficient technologies, a focus on product technologies and neglect of process technologies, and an inability to properly analyze the barriers for converting technology push into market pull. Womack and Jones [121] discuss the implementation of the concept of ‘lean’ organization. The authors have identified a five point programme to root out waste and pursue perfection in all operations. Define value from the perspective of the customer, identify the entire value stream and eliminate waste, make remaining value creating steps flow, design and provide what customer wants only on demand, and pursue perfection are the five steps which lean organizations have taken.


565

8 Technology management: implications for developing countries 8.1

Technology leapfrogging

Sharif [122] has mentioned that “Technology comes with mixed blessings. It considerably enhances human muscular and mental capabilities, and conditions our living surroundings to make it more and more comfortable.” According to him there is no unique path to development, and empirical research has shown that neither population nor the natural resources endowment can guarantee a country’s economic success or failure. The role of technology has been the most crucial in the overall growth and development of a country. “The countries of the Asian region are thus paying the increasing attention to the application of technology for development.” Differentiating in technology substitution and leapfrogging, he suggests that substitution is successive, and follows the step-by-step replacement of old technologies with the new ones without having skipped any of the intermediate steps i.e. following the S-curve pattern of technology substitution, while leapfrogging refers to a situation where a country or a unit which has started late in the game can still become a technology leader by carefully skipping the intermediate steps. He has quoted examples of Japan in automobile industry, Republic of Korea in iron and steel industry, and Indonesia in fibre-optics and satellite technology in communication industry. In the research agenda which has been recommended for developing countries to take up, the author has placed emphasis on technology climate determinants which include level of socioeconomic development, status of physical infrastructure and support services, and expenditure for research and development in select areas of specialization. These studies are time consuming and ask for massive resources. Without losing time the developing countries should take an indication of GDP/GNP growth and quickly decide the areas of leapfrogging depending upon the four inter-related components of technology, and then plan formulation and implementation strategies. According to him it is a worthwhile exercise to work out a leapfrogging strategy in select areas for a given country. Transfer of technology from developed countries to developing countries is a mutual necessity [123]. Unfortunately the perception is not held widely across the globe. The low-income population of the world can become the technology leaders and donors of technology only if their income and purchasing power rise. This is likely to happen only with the real increase of productivity of the facilities and quality of their produce. Dependence on natural resources cannot be taken too far; this has been proved by countries like Japan and Korea. The interest of the developed countries, of course, lies in expanding markets for their products. Management of technology in a dual world (meaning the developed and developing countries) has to be seen in the context of macro and micro terms [124]. The approaches of micro and macro technology management need to be analyzed in the light of general management theories based on time specific, space specific, and sector specific principles. The case of China has been discussed for development of macro and micro technologies. It has also been concluded that the development and effective management of micro technology is very crucial for long term success while the success based on sound macro technology can prove to be very short lived.

566

Z Husain and Sushil

Thiagarajan [125] has raised a very valid question that “can technological innovation bring about a change in the attitude of people in developing countries?” Trying to seek an answer to this perpetual question, the author has discussed various reasons for slow and sluggish growth of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship in developing countries. Apart from colonial rule and dependence on natural resources, he has held the absence of strong thrust towards universal education as an important factor for lack of development. The article also covers some of the measures undertaken in India for blending the technological innovations and entrepreneurship development. A study of 33 Taiwanese firms was conducted for assessing the innovativeness and innovation strategies of the developing countries in general and Taiwan in particular [126]. The authors have concluded that in order to have an innovation culture, there has to be a base of trained manpower and a strong market for the product locally. As regards the innovation strategy, it was suggested that innovations should be realized in growth stages of technology life cycles where the profits are at a peak, while the developing countries are making product and process technology innovations only in the maturity stages.

8.2

Technology and global competitiveness

Technology is considered to be a major competitive factor for the countries at macro level and for individual firms at micro level. Chakrabarti [127] presents a discussion on the researches based on conceptual issues and measurement of technology indicators. The twenty-first century is going to be totally dominated by technology and technological competitiveness [128]. The entire world will agree to the fact that the atmosphere for creative application of technology is critical to the economic growth, national security, and social stability. Husain and Sushil [129] have indicated the need for trained manpower in developed and underdeveloped countries for effective acquisitiona and subsequent absorption of foreign technologies. Hamel and Prahalad [75] have suggested five ways in which management can ‘leverage’ its resources. One of the ways is by accumulating resources which have been further divided into two i.e., extracting and borrowing. By ext racting the authors mean that a company must be capable of learning from its own and others experiences and it should be able to do it faster and more efficient than its competitors. Borrowing is the another way to leverage resources. It has so happened in the past that USA has developed technologies and Japan has created markets for those technologies faster than the former. The authors indicate that “Technology is stateless. It crosses borders in the form of scientific papers, foreign sponsorship of university research, international licensing, cross-border equity stakes in hi-tech start-ups, and international academic conferences. Tapping into the global market for technology is a potentially important source of resource leverage.” Ohmae [130] has indicated about the role of technology for managing in a borderless world. He has discussed how technology has dismantled the political boundaries of the world for a business, and information and awareness regarding the products and solutions flow across the countries without any real-time lag. He has described the characteristics of universal products. The point which the author has emphasized is that to go global, a firm has to be strong in technology and market locally. Technology and markets are made global by customer needs. According to him, globalization is required because customer needs have been globalized and fixed cost of meeting such needs have soared high.


567

Hamel and Prahalad [131] have differentiated between global business, global competition, and global companies. The global competitors must have the capability to think and act differently. They may slice the company in one way for distribution of investments, in another for technology, and in manufacturing in still other way. Sharif [132] has elucidated the role of technology in its different facets. Mainly the technology was considered to be the means of converting input into marketable output. When competition grows, it demands a technology-based framework which helps in improving productivity of all the activities a firm is involved in. Hence technology plays a crucial role in improving the productivity and thereby competitiveness of a country in general and a firm in particular. Shank and Govindarajan [133] have suggested a framework for analyzing the investment in manufacturing technologies and their value addition and product differentiation. They have also critically evaluated the existing frameworks of cost analysis on investment in technology. The authors believe that strategic cost management is a powerful way of analyzing the investment opportunities in technology which in turn decide a firm’s competitiveness in the long run. Husain and Sushil [97] have discussed the technology management practices of Indian manufacturing and service firms. The authors have concluded that in absence of a clear-cut technology strategy, a firm operates in a higher degree of uncertainty and dependence on technology providers does not reduce over time.

9 9.1

Technology management and the automobile industry Secret behind Japanese success

Drucker [134], while discussing the reasons behind Japan’s success in the global market, has revealed that the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) Government of Japan was of the opinion that the expansion of the automobile industry would have adverse effects on her development and balance of payment situation. MITI had indicated that expansion of automobile industry means more demand for scarce petroleum and iron ores. But eventually Japanese have been able to prevail in the overseas markets because they could bring out the required technology with appropriate national priorities and leadership styles. When the yen started climbing up, the Japanese automobile manufacturers were forced to hike the dollar prices and Americans had a wonderful chance for recovering the market share which they had lost to their Japanese counterparts [135]. The USA lost this opportunity by following the suite and exposing its corporate attitude. This price revision by US firms was uncalled for. Koshiro [136] has outlined the personnel planning, technological changes, and outsourcing strategies of Japanese firms particularly after 1970’s oil crisis. The author has presented three variations of ‘lifetime employment’ model being practised by large Japanese automobile manufacturing firms. The variations of this model are the stationary model, the growth model, and the stagnation model. Kamath and Liker [137] have analyzed the vendor-customer relationship being maintained by leading Japanese automobile manufacturing firms in context to product development. The Japanese automakers assign vendors different roles and give even first

568


tier suppliers varying level of responsibility as far as product development is concerned. Only a select few enjoy the full-blown partnership. The authors have provided guidelines for customers and suppliers.

9.2

Automobile industry and manufacturing practices

Lutz [138] has discussed the various problems which North American and European auto industry is facing in recent times. The author has discussed the downsizing of cars and volume of manufacturing in a plant. To his mind Japanese started taking advantage of economies of scale and manufactured a very large number of vehicles and less number of models and were able to sell because of low price. After the oil crisis of seventies, people preferred fuel efficient cars and Japanese found themselves in an advantageous position. North American and European manufacturers took a little more time to switch over to new requirements of the consumers and got beaten up initially. Levy [139] has described the restructuring of European automobile industry in the face of dual crisis in 1980s. Firstly, the oil crisis sent shock waves through world economies and caused turmoil of varying duration and intensity. Secondly, the stiff competition which was offered by Japanese firms, both from inside as well as outside Europe. Cole [140] has suggested an almost religious approach to reducing waste and increasing productivity and profitability. The author has outlined the need for use of computers in designing new products and assiting other manufacturing related operations, and R&D for new material, process and product development. Snowdon [141] describes the important parameters Austin Rover considered before entering into a joint venture with Honda Motors of Japan. The important ones include the type of company, its philosophy and outlook; the nature of its products and engineering skills; and the size and strength of the company. The joint venture prospered and both companies were prepared to adopt the principles of each other. The most important fact reported is, simultaneously Austin Rover has also developed its independent competitive strengths. The author has indicated that the dual strategy of building strength by taking help and competing with Japanese firms will set the agenda for future strategic alliances at international level. Ward et al [142] have reported the Toyota’s approach called as ‘set -based concurrent engineering’, for developing new models. The process looks very cumbersome but it delivers better cars faster. Toyota engineers delay decisions and pass partial information while exploring numerous prototypes. They gradually narrow down their choice of final solutions which come out in the forms of new models. Joshi [143] highlights the problems faced on the indigenization front by firms in developing countries which have b orrowed technology from abroad. The author has identified several categories of vendors as regards the quality and technology. He has grouped them as ignorant vendors, confused vendors, disinterested vendors, proud vendors, monopolistic vendors, and competent vendors. Joshi [144] outlines the importance of product designers of the firms acquiring technologies and their role in technology adoption and implementation. Dyer [145] describes how Chrysler made a turnaround and created an American ‘keiretsu’ by radically changing the relationship with vendors. Instead of asking them to win a deal for supplying components for two years, they started involving the suppliers in product development and process improvement and giving them an opportunity to share the benefits of successful ventures for the the entire life of the model. Now Chrysler does


569

not dictate the prices of the components, but the two sides sit together to find ways of lowering costs of making cars and sharing the savings. The author has highlighted an important difference in keiretsu which Chrysler has created that the firm does not have an equity holding in vendor companies hence dropping a supplier on account of non-performance should not be difficult, while the same is difficult for Japanese counterparts of Chrysler.

10

Conclusion

There is a large amount of literature available on the issues related to Management of Technology in the context of the developed countries. The various prominent authors in the area have tried to capture the different problems faced by technology based firms, and have thrown light on the various aspects of the technology management function. In fact, it has become very difficult to find a firm which is not using any technology and is therefore not faced with the task of managing it. It is very surprising to learn from the literature that nothing much has been written about the Management of Technology in developing countries in general and India in particular. After the liberalization of Indian economy and globalization of trade, commerce, and industry, being initiated in 1991, there has been a mad rush for technology acquisition from developed countries. Indian management researchers have started penning down the things but only in a very limited domain. There has been some stray cases available of technology transfer in the literature which does not reflect fully the motives behind acquisition of technology from abroad, and the subsequent experiences. An attempt needs to be made for analyzing both successful and unsuccessful cases of technology development, technology transfer, and subsequent indigenization. Management of indigenous technology and the process of continuous innovations, technology planning, technology strategy, integration of technology strategy with business strategy, and flexibility in technology strategy need to be emphasized and long term benefits of effective management of technology have to be conveyed to the corporate world of the country. We need to bring in more transparency in managing the technology by adopting a professional approach.

References 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ford, D. (1988) ‘Develop your technology strategy’, Long Range Planning, 21(5). Noon, H. and Radford, R.W. (1990) Management of Manufacturing Technologies, McGraw Hill Book Company, New York. Price, R.M. (1996) ‘Technology and strategic advantage’, California Management Review, 38(3), pp.38-56. Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1994) ‘Competing for the future’, Harvard Business Review, Jul-Aug., pp.122—128. Pavitt, K. (1990) ‘What we know about the strategic management of technology’, California Management Review, Fall, pp.l7—26. Frohman, A.L. (1985) ‘Putting technology into strategic planning’, California Management Review, XXVII(2), pp.48—59. Pappas, C. (1984) ‘Strategic management of technology’, Journal of Product Innovation, (I), pp.30—35.

570


8 Wilson, I. (1986) ‘The strategic management of technology: corporate fad or strateg ic necessity?’ Long Range Planning, 19(2), pp.21-22. 9 Sethi, N.K. and Hickey, K.D. (1985) ‘Can technology be managed strategically?’ Long Range Planning, 18(4), pp.89—99. 10 Clark, K.B. (1989) ‘What strategy can do for technology (Five rules of tech nology leadership)’, Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec., pp.94—98. 11 Krishnamoorthy, S. (1995) ‘Joint ventures as a technology strategy, Indian management’, Harvard Business Review, Mar., pp.57—64. 12 Erickson, T.J., Magee, J.F., Roussel, P.A., and Saad, K.N. (1990) ‘Managing technology as a business strategy, Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp.73—78. 13 Lamming, Richard (1990) ‘Strategic options for automotive suppliers in the global market’, International Journal of Technology Management, 5(6), pp.649—684. 14 Jones, B.O. (1987) ‘Preparing for the future: science and technology in Australia’, International Journal of technology Management, 2(1), pp.5-24. 15 Porter, M.E. (1987) ‘From competitive advantage to corporate strategy’, Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp.43—59. 16 Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1989) ‘Strategic intent’, Harvard Business Review, May-Jun., pp.63—76. 17 Burgelman, R.A. and Grove, A.S. (1996) ‘Strategic dissonance’, California Management Review, 38(2), pp.08-28. 18 Roberts, E.B. (1989) ‘The personality and motivations of technological entrepreneurs’, Journal of Engine.e ring and Technology Management, 6, pp.5-23. 19 Green, S.G. (1995) ‘Top management support of R&D projects: a strategic leadership perspective’, IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, 42(3), pp.223-232. 20 Goidhar, J.D. and Jelinek, M. (1983) ‘Plan for economies of scope’, Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec. pp.141-148. Jelinek, M. and Goidhar, J.D. (1983) ‘The interface between strate gy and manufacturing technology’, Columbia Journal of World Business. 21 Gerwin, D. (1993) ‘Manufacturing flexibility’, Management Science, 39(4), pp.395—410. 22 Langowitz, N.S. (1992) ‘Managing a major technological change’, Long Range Planning, 25(3), pp.79—85. 23 Werther, (Jr.), W.B., Berman, F. Vasconiellos, F. (1994) ‘The future of technology management’, Organizational Dynamics, Winter, pp.20—32. 24 Makridakis, S. (1989) ‘Management in the 21st century’, Long Range Planning, 22(2), pp.37 — 53. 25 Nobuhiko, S. (1988) ‘The tigetrs trigger a consumer revolution’, Japan Echo, XV(3), pp.15— 16. 26 Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990) ‘The core competence of the corporation’, Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp.79—91. 27 Masanori, M. (1986) ‘Japanese technology: potential and pitfalls’, Japan Echo, 13 (Special issue), pp.9—15. 28 Gunsteren, L.A.V. (1987) ‘Planning for technology as a corporate resource: a strategic classification’, Long Range Planning, 20(2), pp.51—60. 29 Petrom, G. (1985) ‘Who should plan technological innovation?’, Long Range Planning, 18(5), pp.108—115. 30 Koerner, E. (1989) ‘Technology planning at General Motors’, Long Range Planning, 22(2), pp.9—19. 31 Swamidass, P.M. (1987) ‘Planning for manufacturing techn ology’, Long Range Planning, 20(5), pp.125-133.


571

32 Staley, J.L. (1990) ‘Getting more from investments in technology through technology asset planning’, International Journal of Technology Management, 5(6), pp.627—638. 33 ROller, L.H. and Tombak, M.M. (1993) ‘Competition and investment in flexible technologies’, Management Science, 39(1), pp.107—1 14. 34 Levary, R.R. and Han, D. (1995) ‘Choosing a technological forecasting method’, Industrial Management, Jan-Feb., pp.14—18. 35 Whaley, R. and Burrows, B. (1987) ‘How will technology impact your business?’ Long Range Planning, 20(5), pp.109—117. 36 Quinn, J.J. (1985) ‘How companies keep abreast of technological change’, Long Range Planning, 18(2), pp.69—76. 37 Masakazu, Y. (1986) ‘Survival tactics for a non -western power’, Japan Echo, 13(3), pp.56 —63. 38 Ashton, W.B., Kinzey and Gunn Jr. (1991) ‘A structured approach for monitoring science and technology developments’, International Journal of Technology Management, 6(1/2) pp.91— 111. 39 Madu, C.N. (1989) ‘Transferring technology to developing countries - critical factors for success’, Long Range planning, 22(4), pp.115—124. 40 Gibson, D.V. and Smilor, R.W. (1991) ‘Key variable in techno logy tansfer: a field study based empirical analysis’, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 8, pp.287-312. 41 Banerjee, P.K. (1990) ‘Technology transfer, the Third World and the code of conduct’, Social Action, 40 (Jan-Mar), pp.71—83. 42 Roobertson, N.C. (1992) ‘Technology acquisition for corporate growth’, Research & Technology Management, June, pp.26-30. 43 Schwarz, Karl (1982) ‘HP -Grenoble: case study in technology transfer’, California Management Review, XXIV(3), pp.43—50. 44 Dearing, J.W. (1993) ‘Rethinking technology transfer’, International Journal of Technology Management, 8 6/7/8, pp.478—485. 45 Georgantzas, N.C. and Madu, C.N. (1990) ‘Cognitive processes in technology management and transfer’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 38(1), pp.81-95. 46 Lee, G. (1993) ‘Closing the performance gap through technology transfer: linking theory to practice’, International Journal of Technology Management, 8(1/2/3), pp.236-243. 47 Macdonald, S. (1993) ‘Nothing is either good or bad: indus trial espionage and technology transfer’, International Journal of Technology Management, 8(1/2), pp.95—l05. 48 Spann, M.S., Adams and Souder (1995) ‘Measures of technology transfer effectiveness: key dimensions and differences in their use by sponsors, developers and adopters’, IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management’, 42(1), pp.19-29. 49 Kroonenberg, H.H.V. (1989), ‘Getting a quicker pay -off from R&D’, Long Range Planning, 22(5), pp.51-58. 50 Sasaki, T. (1993) ‘What Japanese have learned from strategic alliances’, Long Range Planning, 26(6), pp.41-53. 51 Hagedroom, J. (1995) ‘A note on international market leaders and networks of strategic technology partnering’, Strategic Management Journal, 16(3), pp.241—250. 52 Barney, J.B. (1986) ‘Strategic factor markets: expectations, luck, and business strategy’, Management Science, 329100, pp.1231—1241. 53 Ohmae, K. (1989b) ‘The global logic of strategic alliances’, Harvard Business Review, MarApr., pp. 143—154. 54 Bowersox, D.J. (1990) ‘The strategic benefits o f logistics alliances’, Harvard Business Review, Jul-Aug., pp.036—043. 55 Masanori, M. (1983) ‘Japan can make it in high -tech’, Japan Echo, 10 (Special issue), pp.76 — 80.

572

Z Husain and Sushil

56 Van de Ven, A.H. (1986) ‘Central problems in th e managhement of innovation’, Management Science, 32(5), pp.590—607. 57 Roberts, E. (1989) ‘Managing invention and innovation’, Research/Technology Management, 21(1). 58 Quinn, J.B. (1979) ‘Technological innovation, entrepreneurship and strategy’, Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp.19—30. 59 Abernathy, W.J. and Chakravarthy, B.S., (1979), ‘Government intervention and innovation in industry: a policy framework’, Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp.318. 60 Mansfield, E. (1988) ‘The speed and cost of industrial innovation in Japan and the USA: external vs internal technology’, Management Science, 34(10), pp.1157—1168. 61 Humble, J. and Jones, G. (1989) ‘Creating a climate for innovation’, Long Range Planning, 22(4), pp.46-51. 62 Subramanian, S.K. (1990) ‘Managing technology - the Japanese approach’, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 6, pp.221—236. 63 Craig, T. (1995) ‘Achieving innovation through bureaucracy: lessons from the Japanese brewing industries’, California Management Review, 38(1), pp.8—35. 64 Ali, A., Kalwani and Kovenock (1993) ‘Selecting product development projects: pioneering vs incremental strategies’, Management Science, 39(3), pp.225-273. 65 Zahra, S.A., Nash, and Bickford (1994) ‘Creating a competitive advantage from te chnological pioneering’, Engineering Management Review (IEEE), Spring, pp.76-85. 66 Smith, P.G. and Reinertsen, D.G. (1992) ‘Shortening the product development cycle’, Research & Technology Management, June, pp.44-49. 67 Beckett, Sir. T. (1986) ‘The dynami cs of change’, International Journal of Technology Management, (193/4), pp.309—318. 68 Nonaka, I. and Kenney, M. (1995) ‘Towards a new theory of innovation management’, Engineering Management Review, Summer, pp.2—9. Nonaka, 1. and Martin (1991) ‘Towards a new theory of innovation management: a case study comparing Canon, Inc. and Apple Computers’, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 8, pp.67—83. 69 Zimmerman, F. (1989) ‘Managing a successful turnaround’, Long Range Planning, 22(3), pp.105—124. 70 Gomory, R.E. (1989) ‘From the ladder of science to the product development cycle’, Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec., pp.99—105. 71 Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1983) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Harvard University Press, MA, USA. 72 Georghiou, L., Gibbons and Metcalfe (1986) ‘Staying the distance - technological development and competition’, International Journal of Technology Management, 1(3/4), pp.425—438. 73 Orizaola, E.M.A. (1991) ‘Guideliens for the design of an innovative strategy’, International Journal of Technology Management, 6(1/2), pp.113—122. 74 Takeuchi, H. and Nonaka, I. (1986) ‘The new product development game’, Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb., pp.137—146. 75 Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1993) ‘Strategy as stretch and leve rage, Harvard Business Review, Mar-Apr. 76 Nonaka, I. (1991) ‘The knowledge creating company, Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec., pp.96-104. 77 Teece, D. (1987) ‘Profiting from technological innovations: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing, and public policy, in the competitive challenge; strategies for industrial innovations and renewal’, International Journal of Technology Management, 2(1/2).


573

78 Maidique, M.A. (1980) ‘ Entrepreneurs champions and technology innovations’, Sloan Management Review, iWinter, pp.59—76. 79 Lynn, G.S., Morone, J.G. and Paulson, A.s. (1996) ‘Marketing and discontinuous innovation: the probe and learn process ‘California Management Review’, Sprin g, 38(3), pp.8—37. 80 Mohrman, S.A., Glinow, M. and Ann Von (1990) ‘High technology organizations: context, organization and people’, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 6, pp.261— 280. 81 Avishai, B. and Taylor, W. (1989) ‘Customers d rive a technology-driven company: an interview with George Fisher’, Harvard Business Review, Nov.-Dec., pp.107—114. 82 Nevis, E.C., DiBella and Gould (1995) ‘Understanding organizations as learning systems’, Sloan Management Review, Winter, pp.73—85. 83 Udwadia, F.E. (1990) ‘Creativity and innovation in organizations - two models and managerial implications’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 38, pp.65—80. 84 Adler, P.S. and Shenbar, A. (1990) ‘Adapting your technological base: the organizational challenge’ Sloan Management Review, Fall, pp.25—36. 85 Swierczek, F.W. (1991) ‘The management of technology: human resource and organizational issues’, international Journal of Technology Management, 6(1/2) pp.1-14. 86 Duck, J.D. (1993) ‘Managing change: the art of balancing’, Harvard Business Review, NovDec., pp.109—118. 87 Roberts, E.B. and Fusefeild, A.R. (1981) ‘Staffing the innovative technology -based organization’, Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp.19—34. 88 Mathis, J.F. (1992) ‘Turning R&D manage rs into technology managers’, Research-Technology Management, Jan-Feb., pp.35—38. 89 Jun’ichi, N. (1987) ‘A call for creative research’, Japan Echo, 14(2), pp.42—44. 90 Takemochi, I. (1988) ‘R&D versus R&P’ Japan Echo, Feb., pp.72—73. 91 Schmitt, R.W. (1985) ‘Successful corporate R&D’, Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp.124—128. 92 Gold, B. (1989) ‘Some key problems in evaluating R&D performance’, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 6, pp.59—70. 93 Sushil, (1990) ‘Waste management: a systems perspective’, Industrial Management and Data Systems (Special issue), 90(5), pp.1—67. 94 Bahrami, H. and Evans, S. (1987) ‘Stratocracy in high -technology firms’, California Management Review, Fall, pp.51—66. 95 Adler, P.S. and Ferdows, K. (1990) ‘The Chief Technology Officer’, Cal~fornia Management Review, Spring, pp.55—62. 96 Hackett, G.P. (1990) ‘Investment in technology - the service sector sinkhole?’, Sloan Management Review, Winter, pp.97—103. 97 Husain, Z. and Sushil, (l996a) ‘Management of technolo gy: learning issues for seven Indian companies’, Technology Management: Strategies and Applications for Practitioners, forthcoming. 98 McCardle, K.F. (1985) ‘Information acquisition and the adoption of new technology’, Management Science, (31(11), pp.1372—1389. 99 Mamer, J.W. and McCardle, K.F. (1987) ‘Uncertainty, competition and the adoption of new technology’, Management Science, 33(2), pp.161—176. 100 Kalish, S. and Lilien, G.L. (1986) ‘A market entry timing model for new technologies’, Management Science, 33(2), pp.194-205. 101 Leonard-Barton and Dfschamps (1988) ‘Managerial influence in the implementation of new technology’, Management Science, 34(10), pp.1252—I 265. 102 Goodman, P.S. and Griffith, T.L., (1991), ‘A process approach to the implementatio n of new technology’, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 8, pp.261-285.

574


103 Mansfield, F. (1993) ‘The diffusion of flexible manufacturing systems in Japan, Europe and the United States’, iManagement Science, 39(2), pp.142-153. 104 Kuhlmann, A. (1987) ‘Problems associated with the acceptance of new technologies in industrialized societies’, International Journal of Technology Management, 2(2), pp.209 —217. 105 Steele, L.W. (1990) ‘Technology maturation and technolog y substitution’, Long Range Planning (Excepts: Managing Technology), pp.11—24. 106 Fisher, J. and Pry, R. (1971) ‘A simple substitution model of technology change’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, pp.75—88. 107 Cooper, A.C. and Schendel, D. (1984) ‘Strategic responses to technological threats’, Business Horizon, February, pp.61—69. 108 Stacy, R. (1993b) ‘Strategy as order emerging from chaos’, Long Range Planning, 26(1), pp.10—17. 109 Prokesch, S.E. (1993) ‘Mastering chaos at the high -tech frontier: an interview with Silicon Graphics’ Ed McCracken’, Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec., pp.135—144. 110 Iansisti, M. (1995) ‘Technology development and integration: an empirical study of the interaction between applied science and product development’, IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, 42(3), pp.259—269. lansisti, M. (1995) ‘Shooting the rapids: managing product development in turbulent environments’, California Management Review, 38(1), pp.37-58. 111 Collins, J.C. and Porras, J.L. (1995) ‘Building a visionary company’, California Management Review, 37(2), pp.080-100. 112 Willder, S. (1985) ‘Directing Technological development - The role of the Board’, Long Range Planning, 18(4), pp.44—49. ll3 Urakawa, T. (1993) ‘How Bridgestone creates new b usiness through new research’, Long Range Planning, 26, pp.17-23. 114 Blois, K. (1986) ‘Advanced manufacturing technologies - their implications for marketing strategy’, International Journal of Technology Management, 1(3/4), pp.397—409. 115 Alden, V.R. (1987) ‘Who says you can’t crack Japanese markets?’ Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb., pp.052—056. 116 Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1991) ‘Corporate imagination and expeditionary marketing, Harvard Business Review, Jul-Aug., pp.81—92. 117 Noori, H. (1990) ‘ Economies of integration: a new manufacturing focus’, International Journal of Technology Management, 5(5), pp.577—587. 118 Fryxell, G.E. (1990) ‘Business level process R&D: patterns and returns under different generic strategic orientation’, International Journal of Technology Management, 5(1), pp.41—63. 119 Gold, B. (1992) ‘Senior management’s critical role in strengthening technological competitiveness’, international Journal of Technology Management, 7(1/2/3), pp.5-15. 120 Hayes, R.H. and Abernathy, W.J. (1980) ‘Managing our way to economic decline’, Harvard Business Review, Jul-Aug., pp.67—77. 121 Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996) ‘Beyond Toyota: how to root out waste and pursue perfection’, Harvard Business Review, Sept.-Oct., pp.140—158. 122 Sharif, M.N. (1989) ‘Technological leapfrogging: implications for developing countries’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 36(1), pp.201-208. 123 Habibie, B.J. (1990) ‘Sophisticated technologies: taking root in developign countries’, International Journal of Technology Management, 5(5), pp.489—497. 124 Huijiong, W. (1993) ‘Technology management in a dual world’, international Journal of Technology Management, 8(1/2), pp.108-120. 125 Thiagarajan, R. (1991) ‘Technology, innovation and the entrepreneur - an Indian experiment’, MDI Management Journal, pp.83—99.


575

126 Gerstenfeld, A. and Wortzel, L.H. (1977) ‘Strategies for innovation in developing countries’ Sloan Management Review, Fall, pp.57—68. 127 Chakrabarti, AK. (1989) ‘Technology indicators: conceptual issues and measurement problems’, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 6, pp.99—116. 128 Ramo, S. (1989) ‘National security and our technology edge’, Harvard Business Review, NovDec., pp.115—120. 129 Husain, Z. and Sushil (1996b) ‘Technological response of Indian industries to globalization and liberalization: Educational Imperative’, A Working Paper, Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. 130 Ohmae, K. (1989a) ‘Managing in a borderless world’, Harvard Business Review, May-Jun., pp.152—161. 131 Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1985) ‘Do you really have a global strategy?’, Harvard Business Review, Jul-Aug., pp.139—148. 132 Sharif, M.N. (1995) ‘ The evolution of technology management studies - technoeconomics to technometrics’, Technology Management: Strategies and Applications for Practitioners, 2, pp.113—148. 133 Shank, J.K. and Govindrajan, V. (1992) ‘Strategic cost analysis of technological in vestments’, Sloan Management Review, Fall, pp.39—51. 134 Drucker, P.F. (1981) ‘Behind Japan’s success (defining rules for managing in a pluralist society), Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb. pp.83—90. 135 Hajime, K. (1986) ‘Japanese know -how for American industry’, Japan Echo, 13(4), pp.61 —64. 136 Koshiro, K. (1987) ‘Personnel planning, technological changes and outsourcing in the Japanese automobile industry: Part 1’, International Journal of Technology Manageent, 2(2), pp.279— 297. 137 Kamath, R.R. and Liker, J.K. (1994) ‘A second look at Japanese product development’, Harvard Business Review, Nov.-Dec., pp.154—169. 138 Lutz, R.A. (1986) ‘The world car concept and the volume manufacturer’, International Journal of Technology Management 1(3/4), pp.377—384. 139 Levy, R.H. (1990) ‘The restructuring of the automotive industry: the experience of Renault’, International Journal of Technology Management, 1(3/4), pp.377—384. 140 Cole, G.S. (1987) ‘The survival of US manufacturing - the ultimate decision’, International Journal of Technology Management, 2(1), pp.075—087. 141 Snowdon, M. (1987) ‘Austin Rover: the joint venture with Honda’, International Journal of Technology Management, 2(1), pp.67—73. 142 Ward, A., Liker, J.K., Cristiano, Sobek II (1995) ‘The s econd Toyota paradox: how delaying decisions can make better cars faster’, Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp.43—61. 143 Joshi, P.V. (1988) ‘Automobile ancillaries: the agony and ecstacy of indigenization’, Purchase, June, pp.14-19. 144 Joshi, P.V. (1989) ‘Product designer’s predicament’, Purchase, 11th Annual Issue, Jan. pp.278—279. 145 Dyer, J.H. (1996) ‘How Chrysler created an American Keiretsu’, Harvard Business Revciew, July-Aug., pp.42—56.

576

Z Husain and Sushil

Bibliography Balakrishnan, S. and Wernerfelt, B. (1986) ‘Technical change, competition and vertical integration, Strategic Management Journal, 7(4), pp.347—359. Banbury, C.M. and Mitchel, W. (1995) ‘The effect of introducing important incremental innovations on market share and business survival’ Strategic Management Journal, 16 (Summer), pp.161—182. Betz, F. (1993) Strategic Management of Technology, McGraw Hill Book Co., Singapore. Bhide, A. (1988) ‘Why not leverage your company to the hilt?’ Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp.092—098. Buzzell, RD. (1983) ‘Is vertical integration profitable?’, Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb, pp.092—102. Choi, H.C. (1989) ‘Transition from imitation to creation’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 3691), pp.209—215. Creech, B. (1994) The Five Pillars of TQM, Truman Tally Books/Dutton, New York. Curley, K.F. and Pyburn, P.J. (1982) “Intellectual” Technologies: the key to improving white -collar productivity’, Sloan Management Review, Fall, pp.31—39. David, D.D. (ed.) (1986) Managing Technological Innovations, Jossy Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA, USA. De Geus, A.P.(1988) ‘Planning as learning’, Harvard Business Review, Mar-Apr, pp.70—74. Dixon, J.R., Arnold, P., Heineke, J., Kim, J.S., and Mulligan, P. (1994) ‘Business process reengineering: improving in new strategic directions’, California Management Review, Summer, pp.93—108. Duimering, R.P. and Safayeni, P. (1993) ‘Integrated manufacturing: redesign the organization before implementing flexible technology’, Sloan Management Review, Summer, pp.47—56. Ebadi, Y.M. and Utrterback, L.M. (1984) ‘The effects of communication on technological innovation’, Management Science, 30(5), pp.572—585. Ezzat, H.A., Howell and Kamal, (1989) ‘Transferring technology at General Motors’, Research-Technology Management, 32(2), pp.32—35. Ford, D. and Ryan, C. (1981) ‘Taking technology to market’, Harvard Business Review, Mar-Apr., pp.117—126. Galbraith, C.S. (1990) ‘Transferring core manufacturing technologies in high -technology firms’, Caly”ornia Management Review, Summer, pp.56-70. Garde, V.D. and Patel, R.R. (1985) ‘Technological forecasting for power generation - a case study using the Delphi Technique’, Long Range Planning, 18(4), pp.73—79. Garvin, D.A. (1993) ‘Building a learning organization’, Harvard Business Review, Jul-Aug., pp.78—91. Ghoshal, S. (1986) The Innovative Multinational: A Differentiated Network of Organization Roles, PhD Dissertation, Graduate School of Business, Harvard University. Gluck, F.W., Kaufman and Walleck (1980) ‘Strategic manageme nt for competitive advantage’, Harvard Business Review, Jul-Aug., pp.154-161. Gold, B. (1989) ‘Some key problems in evaluating R&D performance’, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 6, pp.59-70. Goold, M. and Campbell, A., (1987), ‘Many best w ays to make strategy’, Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec, pp.70-76. Greis, N.P. (1995) ‘Technology adoption, product design and process change: a case study in the machine tool industry’, IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, 42(3), pp.192 —202.


577

Guest, R.N. (1986) ‘Management imperatives for the year 2000’, California Management Review, XXVII(4), pp.62—70. Hamermesh, R.G. (1986) ‘Making planning strategic’, Harvard Business Review, Jul-Aug., pp.115—120. Henderson, B.D. (1989) ‘The origin of strategy’, Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec., pp.139—143. Hubbub, B.J. (1990) ‘Sophisticated technologies: taking root in developing’, International Journal of Technology Management, 5(5), pp.489—497. Hubner, H. (ed.) (1986) The Art and Science of Innovation Management - An International Perspective, Elsevier Science Publishing Co. Inc., NY, USA> Jefferson, E.G. (1987) ‘Managing technology: challenges in the public policy arena’, international Journal of Technology Management, 2(1), pp.25-33. Johnson, G. and Scholes, K. (1994) Exploring Corporate Strategy - Text and Cases, Prentice-Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, Third Ed. Johnson, S.B. (1984) ‘Comparing R&D strategies of Japanese and US firms’, Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp.25—34. Kantrow, A.M. (1980) ‘Keeping informed: the strategy -technology connection’, Harvard Business Review, July-Aug., pp.6-10. Kennedy, C. (1989) ‘The transformation of AT&T’, Long Range Planning, 22(3), pp.10-17. Kodama , F. (1992) ‘Technology fusion and the new R&D’, Harvard Business Review, Jul-Aug., pp.70—78. McDonald, D.W. and Leahey, H.S. (1985) ‘Licensing has a role in technology strategic planning’, Research Technology Management, 28(1), pp.35-40. Mechlin, G.F. and Berg, D. (1980) ‘Evaluating research - ROI is not eough’, Harvard Business Review, Sep-Oct., pp.93-99. Mintzberg, H. (1987) ‘Crafting strategy’, Harvard Business Review, Jul-Aug., pp.66-75. Mitroff, 1.1. (1994) ‘Crisis management and environmentalism: a n atural fit’, California Management Review, Winter, pp.101—113. Nueuo, P. and Oosterveld, J. (1988) ‘Managing technology alliances’, Long Range Planning, 21(3). Pearson, A.E. (1989) ‘Six basics for general managers’, Harvard Business Review, Jul-Aug., pp.94—107. Powel, T.C. (1995) ‘TQM as competitive advantage: a review and empirical study’, Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), pp.15—37. Quinn, J.B. (1985) ‘Strategic change: ‘Logical incrementalism”, Sloan Management Review, Summer, pp.45—60., Ramo, S. (1980) ‘SMR forum: America’s technology slip - a new political issue’, Sloan Management Review, Summer, pp.77—85. Rosenbloom, R.S. and Kantrow, A.M. (1982) ‘The nurturing of corporate research’ Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb., pp.115—123. Senge, P.M. (1990) ‘ The leader’s new work: building learning organization’, Sloan Management Review, Fall, pp.7—23. Shichihei, Y. (1982) ‘Why are the Japanese receptive to technology?’ Japan Echo, 9(2), pp.36 —43. Sanchez, R. (1995) ‘Strategic flexibility in product competitio n’, Strategic Management Journal, 16(Summer), pp.135—159. Schonberger, R. (1994) ‘Human resource management - lessons from a decade of total quality management and reengineering’, California Management Review, Summer, pp.109—123. Sonnebom, M. and Wilemon, D. (1991) ‘Sustaining innovativeness in emerging high -technology companies’, Long Range Planning, pp.5—14. Stacy, R. (1993a) Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics, PitmanPublishing, London WC2E 9AN.

578


Steele, L. (1983) ‘Managers’ misconceptions about technology’, Harvard Business Review, NovDec., pp.133-140. Subramanian, S.K. and Subramanian, Y. (1991) ‘Managing technology fusion through synergy circles in Japan’, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 8, pp.313—337. Sushil, (1994) ‘Flexible systems methodology’, Systems Research, 7(6), Teng, J.T.C., Grover and Fiedler (1994) ‘Business process reengineering: charting a strategic path for the information age’, California Management Review, Spring, pp.9—31. Thomas, T. (1979) ‘Management of research and development’, Malaysian Management Review, 14(1), pp.57—68. Turney, P.B.B. and Anderson, B. (1989) ‘Accounting for continuous improvement’, Sloan Management Review, Winter, pp.37—47. Upton, D.M. (1994) ‘The manage ment of manufacturing flexibility’, California Management Review, Winter, pp.72—89. Utterback, J.C. and Brown, J.W. (1972) ‘Monitoring for technological opportunities’, Business Horizon, October, pp.5-15. Venkatesan, R. (1992) ‘Sourcing: to make or not to make’, Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec., pp.98—107. Wasserman, P.D. (1989) Neutral Computing Theory and Practice, Van Reinhold, New York. Werner, J. (1992) ‘Technology transfer in consortia’ Research-Technology Management, MayJune, pp.38—43. William, E.S. (1989) ‘Improving productivity through technology push’, Research Technology Management, 32(2), pp.19-24. Yashiro, H. and Nobuyoshi, N. (1983) ‘The declining power of innovation’, Japan Echo, 10 (Special issue), pp.69—75. Yoshikazu, K. (1989) ‘Privatizat ion in global perspective’, Japan Echo, XVI(l), pp.2937. Zairi, M. (1993) ‘Competitive manufacturing combining total quality with advanced technology’, Long Range Planning, 26(3), pp.123-133.