Innovation
Technovarion,
14( 1) (1994) 7-16
A conceptual technological management
Mushin Lee and Kiyong Om
framework innovation
of
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Department Management and Policy, 373-l Kusong-dong, Yusong-gu, Taejon 305-701, Korea
of South
Abstract
J. T. Chiang argues that studies in technological innovation management are not mature enough in terms of (I) the conceptual categories, (2) the interrelationships and (3) the taxonomy of relevant systems. We claim that we can solve these problems by adopting one of the general frameworks already discussed by the students of general organizational changes. Specifically, using the model of D. Hellriegel, J. W. Slocum, Jr. and R. W. Woodman, (1) we have five well-defined categories of concept related to technological innovation management; (2) the interrelationships among the categories should not be different from general organizational changes; and (3) the taxonomy of the relevant systems can be defined as discussed in this paper. The five categories are defined, and the major discussions related to each category are pointed out to show their relevance to the contents of each category. The application outcome seems to be satisfactory in the sense that the result provides a balanced and integrative framework of technological innovation management. The framework systematically includes all the related topics known in the literature. This framework can be used not only as a general reference for management scholars and practitioners, but also as a solid basis for developing the course syllabus in technological innovation management.
1.
Why not Hellriegel’s
framework?
Ford [I] defines an R&D strategy as a strategy to acquire technology through research and development activities, and a technological innovation strategy as a strategy to select. acquire and exploit technology. Thus he sees R&D as an activity whose scope is narrower than technological
14( 1) (1994) 7-16
A conceptual technological management
Mushin Lee and Kiyong Om
framework innovation
of
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Department Management and Policy, 373-l Kusong-dong, Yusong-gu, Taejon 305-701, Korea
of South
Abstract
J. T. Chiang argues that studies in technological innovation management are not mature enough in terms of (I) the conceptual categories, (2) the interrelationships and (3) the taxonomy of relevant systems. We claim that we can solve these problems by adopting one of the general frameworks already discussed by the students of general organizational changes. Specifically, using the model of D. Hellriegel, J. W. Slocum, Jr. and R. W. Woodman, (1) we have five well-defined categories of concept related to technological innovation management; (2) the interrelationships among the categories should not be different from general organizational changes; and (3) the taxonomy of the relevant systems can be defined as discussed in this paper. The five categories are defined, and the major discussions related to each category are pointed out to show their relevance to the contents of each category. The application outcome seems to be satisfactory in the sense that the result provides a balanced and integrative framework of technological innovation management. The framework systematically includes all the related topics known in the literature. This framework can be used not only as a general reference for management scholars and practitioners, but also as a solid basis for developing the course syllabus in technological innovation management.
1.
Why not Hellriegel’s
framework?
Ford [I] defines an R&D strategy as a strategy to acquire technology through research and development activities, and a technological innovation strategy as a strategy to select. acquire and exploit technology. Thus he sees R&D as an activity whose scope is narrower than technological
References: 1 D. Ford, Develop your technology Range Planning, 21(5) (1988) 85. 2 J.T. Chiang, Management of national technology program in a newly industrialized country - Taiwan. Technovation, lO(8) (1990) 531. 3 K. Pavitt, What we know about the strategic management of technology. California Management Review, 32(3) (1990) 17. J.R. Galbraith, Designing the innovating organization. Organizational Dynamics, lO(3) (1982) 5. T.J. Peters and R.H. Waterman, In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-run Companies 9 A.H. Van de Ven, Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5) (1986) 590. pp. l-23. 13 0. Granstrand and S. Sjolander, Managing innovation in multi-technology corporations. Research Policy, 19(l) (1990) 35. 14 M. Horwitch, The emergence of value-creation networks in corporate strategy. In: C.H. Uyehara (ed. ) , US-Japan Science and Technology Exchange: Patterns Westview Press, of interdependence. Boulder, CO., 1988, pp. 188-218. 31 M. Tushman and D. Nadler, Organizing for innovation. California Management Review, 28(3) (1986) 74 Management, 13(3) (1983) 169. 37 M.D. Dunnette and J.P. Campbell, 38 39 Hnrvard Business Review, 58(4) (1980) 6. 26 H.I. Ansoff and J.M. Stewart, Strategies for a technology-based business. Harvard Business Review, 45(6) (1967) 71. 27 K. Brockhoff and A.K. Chakrabarti, R&D marketing 41 29 A.L. Frohman, Technology as a competitive weapon. Harvard Business Review, 60(l) (1982) 97.. 30 B. Twiss (ed.), Managing Technological Innovation. Longman. London, 1980. 44 B.W. Tuckman, Developmental sequences in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63 (1965) 384. 45 R. Katz, The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27( 1) (1982) 81.