14( 1) (1994) 7-16
A conceptual technological management
Mushin Lee and Kiyong Om
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Department Management and Policy, 373-l Kusong-dong, Yusong-gu, Taejon 305-701, Korea
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.
Why not Hellriegel’s
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 innovation. Following Ford’s definition, technological innovation, as used in this paper, means all the direct
and indirect activities taken to secure technology. Thus management of technological innovation includes not only technology selection, technology acquirement and technology exploitation, but also financial and administrative systems, people, structure and strategy to perform technological innovation well. The specific content of the management of technological innovation is to be explored along our discussions. As Chiang  points out, we lack a usable
Vol. 14 No. 1
M. Lee and K. Om
conceptual framework of technological innovation management. Chiang  and Pavitt  both admit that the study of technological innovation management is still too primitive to be called an established branch of science. Apparently, to devise an agreed framework for technological innovation management is essential for the growth of technological innovation management studies. Without the framework, we lack a common ground to discuss the matter, and hence we may emphasize some topics unnecessarily, ignore very important topics unwittingly, and may even be unable to agree on what to teach in courses on technological innovation management. Regarding general organizational changes, we find established frameworks such as that of Hellriegel er al. . If the purpose of technological innovation is to realize technology and/or product changes, or some kinds of organizational changes , then a validly established change model should apply to, and provide a framework for, technological innovation management. We believe that Hellriegel’s model, when applied specifically to technological innovation management, can give us a suitable conceptual framework of technological innovation management. This paper is written to show that this really is the case. Hellriegel’s model is picked because it is...
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)
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)
Management, 13(3) (1983) 169. 37 M.D. Dunnette and J.P. Campbell,
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
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.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document