IAMOT and Education: Defining a Technology and Innovation Management (TIM) Body-of-Knowledge (BoK) for graduate education (TIM BoK)

ARTICLE IN PRESS Technovation 30 (2010) 389–400

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technovation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/technovation

IAMOT and Education: Defining a Technology and Innovation Management (TIM) Body-of-Knowledge (BoK) for graduate education (TIM BoK)$ Mario Yanez n, Tarek M. Khalil, Steven T. Walsh University of Miami, School of Business, CIS Department, 421 Jenkins, Coral Gables, FL 33124, USA

a r t i c l e in fo

Keywords: Innovation management Technology management Technology entrepreneurship Creative enterprise Undergraduate and graduate education IAMOT Certification Accreditation

abstract Whether it is called Management of Technology and Innovation (MOTI), Management of Technology (MOT), Engineering Technology Management (ETM) or Technology and Innovation Management (TIM), the TIM field is rapidly growing and diverse. This diversity is built upon disparate university locations of TIM programs; TIM’s emerging nature, its wide appeal as well as unique researcher and practitioner viewpoints. This has created a plethora of education materials, benchmark programs and pedagogical thought. Yet the field is growing so rapidly that no single source has yet been established which clearly identifies which topics and educational materials represents its basic Body of Knowledge (BoK). If this is so, then there is cause for concern. We review TIM pedagogy studies, TIM research, and the economic realities that initiated and continue to demand TIM education for managers. We leverage the five-year body of knowledge development activities of the International Association for the Management of Technology (IAMOT) education committee. We then develop a TIM BoK topic list and survey stakeholders that include: academics, industrial professionals and government policy makers. We found that there is a need for and convergence on a comprehensive TIM BoK source. The result is a TIM BoK source document that can be utilized to improve and monitor TIM educational programs around the world. & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Technology and Innovation Management (TIM) graduate educational degree granting programs are now more than 25 years old. The concepts developed in TIM undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate programs have proved so useful that they have transcended their own degree granting programs. Now nearly all management, engineering and many liberal arts schools have at least one course that covers management of technology and innovation topics in the programs they offer. Further, TIM topics are now often included in more traditional courses. Today TIM degree programs are called by a plethora of names including; Management of Technology and Innovation (MOTI), Management of Technology (MOT), Engineering Technology Management (ETM) and Technology and Innovation Management (TIM). Almost all provide courses in: technology management, technology strategy, technology-based entrepreneurship and technologybased social entrepreneurship (hereafter named technology

$ This paper is part of the ongoing efforts by IAMOT to assist in the development of standards for TIM programs. n Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Yanez).

0166-4972/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2010.03.007

entrepreneurship), technology innovation, creative enterprise management, technology forecasting and many others. We have chosen to hereafter in this paper use the TIM designation. Universities that provide programs in TIM grew from an initial program, to approximately 150 programs by 2002 (Kocoaglu et al., 2003) and the number is still increasing. TIM degrees are so popular that universities from around the world provide them, but from a variety of different ‘‘homes’’ or schools. Universities currently bestow these degrees through dedicated Management of Technology and Innovation Centers, Engineering Schools, Schools of Science, Liberal Arts Schools and Management or Business Schools. Further, differing schools at the same university have come together to jointly offer joint TIM programs. Finally, in at least at one university there are two different schools which offer masters degrees that are some variant of TIM. TIM programs are now established in North America, South America, Africa, Australia, Europe and Asia with leading scholars in the field calling these six continents with exceptionally differing cultures and economic needs their home. The rapid growth in TIM graduate programs, its global appeal and the disparate university home for the education programs has combined to generate dissimilarities in curricula development. There is what at best could be stated consensus by agglomeration without constraint in TIM education.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 390

M. Yanez et al. / Technovation 30 (2010) 389–400

But how do we propose to generate the list of topics that should be included in a Technology Innovation and Technology Management Body of Knowledge (TIM BoK)? First, we consider the TIM research field by era in order to generate the rationale behind the interest in TIM and illustrate how this research supports the potential TIM BoK template topics. Next, two studies that focus on TIM pedagogy are considered. We found that TIM research and pedagogy have mirrored the needs generated by the improved human condition. The Human condition improved at an unprecedented rate during the 19th and 20th centuries (Mansfield, 1968, Berman and Khalil, 1991, Schumpeter, 1909, 1934, 1939, 1942). Further, the transformation of the human condition was based not only on the rate of technological change but its magnitude. Technology and innovation has been the explosive force behind economic development and firm-based competitive advantage. Finally, managing this explosive change requires specialized education that has become known as TIM. Many see the importance of technology change and innovation in business and the economy as a recent phenomenon, yet if you read some of the earliest management scholars we see references to its importance to firms and the economy in managerial literature as old as the field itself (Smith, 1776, Ricardo, 1817). But whether recent or not the continued dominance of technology change and its resultant innovations as agents of industry and societal change that foster the initiation, continuation, expanse and finally transformation of the industrial revolution into the knowledge base economy of today. Managing a wide variety of TIM elements relatively better through technology change has contributed to government- and firm-based success as demonstrated by the ‘‘Whiz kids’’ technology use in logistics for an army and in production for the US in WWII and at Ford after the war (Byrne, 1993). The United States was perhaps the first country to understand the value of managing technology after WWII. The US was in a ‘‘technology race’’ with the Soviet Union as WWII ended (Byrne, 1993). This took the form of the race to space and other less savory elements of the ‘‘cold war.’’ The United States (US) dominated the immediate post-WWII economy and dominated technology and innovation management research. Yet all was not going as well as it seemed for US-based technology firms. The speed of technological change, the success of the Marshal plan (Behrman, 2008) in Europe and the MacArthur versions of those doctrines in Asia (Manchester, 1978) created a world of countries more focused on economic interdependence than economic independence. The success of these programs and other country led programs initiated post-WWII stability based on a more interconnected and interdependent worldwide economy. As envisioned the almost total US global economic dominance started to wane. US-based firm’s loss market share in several industrial sectors during the 1970s and 1980s (Wheelwright and Hayes, 1985). This became a concern to government, industry and educators in the United States. The success of the global interdependence policies led to a rapid pace of technological change from many regions in the world and consequently, a shift in the balance of economic power to favor more countries all around the world. Management educational practices and specifically technology and innovation management processes evolved to meet the needs of previous worldwide economic paradigms simply did not keep pace with new demands. The advent of new TIM education programs was academic world’s response to enable highly effective future corporate and entrepreneurial professionals. Seminal work that helped define processes such as authors focusing on the diffusion of technology (Bright, 1964, Rogers, 1995), the management of innovation (Rosenbloom, 1978,

Marquis, 1969), technologies effect on organization design (Woodward, 1965), technology strategy (Ansoff and Stewart, 1967), and technology policy (Arrow, 1962, Fusfeld, 1978) helped to define and initiate the field of TIM. TIM was born as an interdisciplinary field of knowledge integrating science, engineering, entrepreneurial, intrapreneurial, and management knowledge practices. The field continued to evolve. The National Research (NRC) Council’s task force on Management of Technology (NRC, 1987, Khalil, 1993) highlighted the multi-disciplinary nature of the field. They tasked the TIM field to link the above disciplines to produce among other things greater interdisciplinary education materials. They defined an educational charter to ‘‘plan, develop and implement technological capabilities to shape and accomplish the strategic and operational objectives of an organization.’’ This early field convergence effort focused on capturing the value of technology and innovation in strategic; tactical; operational; and entrepreneurial, SME, and large firm organizational terms. The TIM field is based on the anti-thesis of Keynesian equilibrium economics. TIM embraces the Austrian or Schumpeterian view of economics where change and in particular technological change causes disequilibrium-based opportunities. Most TIM professionals, then as now, provide that the essence of business opportunity is change. Further, the largest change agent in businesses is technology and its promise of economically important innovations. This is true whether you are in established or emerging economies, the firm is a large, small or medium enterprise (SME) or an entrepreneurial effort. Moreover, TIM research and pedagogy through focusing on technology in the service sector (Tien and Berg, 2003) seeks to radically improve management theory. Today we embrace the knowledge economy which is service intensive. Yet, we bring tools to those embraces which are largely based on information generated from physical products and specifically systems integrated or assembled products, theories that may not be useful in today’s economy (Linton and Walsh, 2008a, 2008b). The emergence and embrace of the transformation of the industrial revolution into today’s knowledge economy has different needs. Many of traditional management theories do not meet the challenges of the 20th and 21st century’s knowledge based economy (Linton and Walsh, 2004). TIM’s response was to initiate improvements in nearly every aspect of managerial practice. This included efforts to incorporate technology into the strategic process of a firm (Friar and Horwitch, 1985), technology and innovations role in project management (Shenhar and Dvir, 2007; Project Management Institute, 2000), greater emphasis on operations and total quality management (Garvin, 1982, Deming, 1982) technology development (Shrivastava and Souder, 1987), R&D management (Mitchell and Hamilton, 1988, Souder and Rubenstein, 1976), technology forecasting (Porter et al., 1980, Ayres, 1969, Martino, 1983, Jantsch, 1969, Jones and Twiss, 1978), the impact of science and technology on society (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971, Linstone et al., 2001), and many others. Yet rigid institutional boundaries between not only programs but between university schools or ‘‘homes’’ especially engineering and business schools need to be softened (Badawy, 1995, Khalil and Garcia-Arreola, 1997). Nowhere was the need for crosspollinating the technologist and managers more evident than in technology-based entrepreneurial efforts (Kirchhoff, 1994). ‘‘High tech’’ or perhaps more correctly stated ‘‘technology intensive’’ entrepreneurial efforts role in the economy was just being fully appreciated (Birch, 1987, Kirchhoff et al., 2002) and many others initiated research that demonstrated the enormous value that these firms provided society. They demonstrated entrepreneurs were responsible for the majority of job and wealth creation in the United States and postulated the same occurred around the world.

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Yanez et al. / Technovation 30 (2010) 389–400

Technology change and technology entrepreneurship is now directly linked to economic policy and has taken even a larger role in the economics of most countries today based on this research. Yet economic development and competitive advantage is not as simple having the best technology, idea, innovation or product as shown by many (Kondratieff, 1937, Mansfield, 1968). Rather the pursuit of competitive advantage requires you to manage technology change and innovations exceptionally as well. For example, two firms Eclipse (Linton et al., 2009) an entrepreneurial firm focused on a systems integration opportunity and corning optical switches an intrapreneurial systems integration opportunity both broke an elemental law of Management of Technology Innovation in their respective pursuits of competitive advantage. Both firms possessed exceptional technology and innovations, but neither their founders nor the large firm management have experience in managing in the generic technological arena where their opportunity resided. As a result they both applied materialsbased management and innovation practice to a fabrication and assembly-based opportunity. Both, regardless of exceptional new product development experience and exceptional resources, lost hundreds of millions of dollars with the result of the failure of Eclipse and the loss of the vast majority of the stock price at Corning. TIM pedagogy seeks to prevent these spectacular failures and replace them with equally spectacular success by meeting the reality of a changing world and asking managers to recognize the value added by technology change and to prepare them to manage it. Technology, innovation, and TIM are the wellspring of firm and regional economic success. Next, the results of our literature review in distinct eras that evolved from our research are considered. The review suggests potential topics required by an educational program. Other benefits provided are: demonstrating the increasing acceptance of the value of the field and its embrace by government, industry, and academia; the increasing historical interest of the field in the progression of its pedagogy; and the process allows an understanding of new knowledge generated by TIM researchers that educators have tried to include in their curricula. This literature review forms the basis for our survey generation process—the topics identified as elements required by TIM pedagogy. Agreement on the common elements of a TIM program by surveying community stakeholders are sought through a two-step web-based survey to test the validity of these topics and the relative value of each topic. Finally, we report our findings and discuss pathways for future pedagogy development.

2. Literature review Technology and Innovation Management (TIM) educational programs are rapidly growing and in many ways well established. Curricula and core knowledge materials should be well past its ‘‘Era of Ferment’’ (Tushman and Anderson, 1991) phase. Yet it is a field born of research that defined the managerial importance of technology and innovation and it is research into its many facets that continues to redefine the field. Adler (1989) was first to define the topic covered by TIM research. He developed a model for TIM investigation supported by an extensive literature review of the TIM field categorized by the topics in the field. Kocoaglu et al. (2003) and Aje (2005) furthered the idea of segmenting the TIM by identifying pedagogical topics necessary for TIM managerial education. Yet, as with many very successful technologybased startups, this field has fallen victim to our own success. The embrace of TIM seminal literature by other fields, the extensive research output in the field, the multiplicity of school typology granting degrees, regional differences in emphasis, the applied or

391

clinical nature of our field, and the explosion in business opportunities around the world on the basis of technology change have extended interest in the field and have limited our ability to coalesce educational material. This lack of consensus stems more specifically from at least four sources that this literature review seeks to shed light upon. First, the disparate university homes of TIM programs. Second, the new interest in TIM-initiated topics by traditional programs especially in management and engineering schools. Third, the industrial communities embrace of TIM concepts. Finally, the problems TIM educators encounter trying to include the large amount of new knowledge created by TIM researchers over the last 25 years. The literature review initiated by focusing on the TIM research eras that have helped to define and shape the field. The literature review is separated into three sections namely the Halcyon days of discovery, the field’s initial maturity, and more recent works.

2.1. TIM—the Halcyon days TIM pedagogy and research, in many ways, is a field based on terms whose general use and misuse initially defined the need for TIM programs. Specifically, the use and more often misuse by managers and researchers who were and often are still not trained in the meaning, understanding, and differentiation of terms basic to effective policy and search for competitive advantage in a knowledge economy. Terms such as technology, technology change, invention, product, and innovation are frequently misused outside of the TIM field. Many scholars state that even today most managers are uncomfortable with the importance of technology in business (Burgelman et al., 2009). Counter-intuitively, early TIM researcher found that even managers with a technological background often did not understand technology in business terms (Kelly and Kranzberg, 1978). Finally and surprisingly even researchers investigating TIM issues regardless of background often misused associated terminology (Marquis, 1969). Early TIM educators found that regardless of their background all managers are tasked to understand and differentiate between basic terms such as innovation, product, and technology terms in managerial rather than technical terms (Linton and Walsh, 2003). Unfortunately, managers, technologists, and academics well into the 21st century continue to use terms like technology and products as synonyms (Moore, 2002) and in so doing lose opportunities for managerial insight. Is it any wonder that managers often find managing technology and innovation a daunting task when many educators and authors often overlook or misuse the basic definitions. The TIM field defined and differentiated these words to allow for meaningful managerial discourse. While it is true that you cannot manage what you cannot measure, it is also true that you cannot measure what you cannot define and understand. We provide here some of the work that has, over the years, defined and advanced the understanding of the basic terms which are fundamental to the field. Many interested in the field of TIM have defined technology (Tassopoulos and Papachroni, 1998, Jolly, 2000, Parise and Henderson, 2001, McGee and Thomas, 2007, Feng and Li, 2007, Rosenbloom, 1978, Solow, 1957; Linton and Walsh, 2000). This is not to forget what the 20th century owes to Solow (1956) though not the founder of the TIM field, he recognized and established the strategic importance of technology. For this work he won a Nobel prize—detailing the role of technology in combination with labor and capital as a multiplier for GDP growth. A layman’s definition of TIM based on the definition of various researcher is ‘‘all the knowledge, processes, tools, methods, and systems employed in

ARTICLE IN PRESS 392

M. Yanez et al. / Technovation 30 (2010) 389–400

the creation of physical or service based products’’ or more colloquially ‘‘how you make stuff.’’ The confusion between the business meaning of the words ‘‘technology’’ and ‘‘product’’ was and still is a conundrum. Perhaps the difference was best portrayed by SEST Euro consult (1984). They depicted technology as the trunk and roots of a tree ‘‘how you make stuff’’ and the leaves and flowers the resultant physical or service products ‘‘the stuff that is made.’’ Furthermore, people adopt (buy) physical products and service products and they do not, for the most part, adopt technologies (Linton and Walsh, 2008a, 2008b). The confusion between technology change and innovation also created a fertile ground for early TIM research. Marquis (1969) when developing his seminal model on firm innovation process posited the following query. ‘‘When I meet a person and discuss the term innovation. I first try to understand if they know the difference between invention and innovation.’’ Invention is directly related to technology change whereas innovation is directly related to product or process use. The process of innovation often occurs as a result of technology change but is not technology change. Innovation might take the form of a combination of existing knowledge or the development and patenting of an entirely new concept. The process of innovation, on the other hand, is focused on taking a technology change, patent or invention and commercializing it. The miscommunication generated by the misuse of these and other terms, greatly interfered with a managers role of transforming resources into value forming the basis for early TIM research and education. Research into the role of technology in strategy and its integration into the strategic process was initiated by Ansoff and Stewart (1967) and expanded by Quinn (1985). The daunting task of managing emerging and disruptive technologies was investigated by Schumpeter (1934), Foster (1986), and many others. This era saw the emergence of researchers investigating technology and innovation management theory. Further R&D management research addressed not only project selection and other operational issues, but knowledge-related concerns as ‘‘ROI is not Enough’’ (Mechlin and Berg, 1980). The marketing of technology-intensive products and services was shown to be different than practice centered on commodity products (Montgomery and Urban, 1969, Mowery and Rosenberg, 1982). Technology transfer practices and technology forecasting and planning research intensified during this era (Kaplan, 1975, Linstone, 2007). Technology’s role in organizational design, Personnel/HR Management was indentified (Woodward, 1965). Technologies role in New Product Development Management research was focused on patent development (Shrivastava and Souder, 1987). Technology entrepreneurship research was highlighted (Schumpeter, 1934, Birch, 1979, Kirchhoff, 1994). The generation of a TIM core educational material and courses were being demanded by industry and universities struggled to meet this need. Any thought of unified set of core topics at this point or a unified TIM BoK was far removed.

2.2. Technology and Innovation Management (TIM) matures As the interest in TIM grew so did the journal outlets and the number of professional associations dedicated to the research and pedagogy of the field. Today there is a plethora of TIM journals. Ten (10) specialty journals obtained ISI citation listing. These include: IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Technological Analysis and Strategic Management (TASM), Research Policy, Technological Forecasting and Social Change (TFSC), and Technovation. Many of these journals have achieved impact factors greater than

one. These journals frequently act as a bridge between TIM and a traditional discipline. For example, the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM) acts as an interface between TIM and marketing, while Technovation provides an interface between TIM and entrepreneurship. Some of the journals are considered on both the ISI science citation index and social science citation index, due to their interdisciplinary position between the social and natural sciences. A number of associations and conferences emerged that focused on TIM. They include: the International Association of Management of Technology (IAMOT), IEEE Engineering Management Society (IEEE EMS), the Academy of Management Technology and Innovation Management Division (TIM), The Portland International Conference on Management of Technology (PICMET), and the American Society of Engineering Management (ASEM). Many of these associations have education committees reviewing graduate and or undergraduate educational needs. Finally, nearly all highly respected TIM journals and these professional organizations agree that there is a need for constant improvement in education, and most emphasize a need for some sort of central educational resource. The need for an educational resource has become obvious yet the composition of the field has changed and grown. Now many educators suggest a more encompassing view of TIM topics. Innovation, technology entrepreneurship, technology intrapreneurship, and technology management are now explicitly included in Miller’s (1998) segmentation of TIM. Miller (1998), taking an engineering perspective towards TIM, suggests the term Knowledge Infrastructure Engineering (KIE). This pedagogy research effort was aimed at creating a curricula designed to enable a workforce with the ability to take advantage of opportunities presented by the technological innovation process and embrace commercial development needs, technology inclusion processes and technology entrepreneurship. This era ended with the contention that it is hard to improve education in the field where there is not a commonly shared body of knowledge. This era was dominated by segments of the TIM initiating search for educational materials in their subsets of the TIM field. Yet still no central resource existed for the entire community (Khalil and Bayraktar, 1998a).

2.3. The educational need intensifies The third era in TIM research and pedagogy aligns with the start of the new millennia. It has a much greater emphasis on education than the previous eras and produced two studies on TIM pedagogy (Kocoaglu et al., 2003; Aje, 2005) essential to this work. This era was initiated by a TIM firm-based education needs workshop. It was held in 1998 by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) 9 years after the first NRC workshop (Khalil, 1998b). The report restated that universities should based pedagogy on more universally accepted definitions, better progressive course structure and a more unified educational framework. The target was the development of a TIM program that had continuity no matter the school it was housed or the background of students that embraced it. A real effort from government, industry and academics bring a consensus on the field pedagogically. This group restated what the industry, university researchers and government officials had initiated in prior decades. First, that the field had progressed and refined and now included recognized elements such as technology entrepreneurship, innovation management, and creative enterprise. Second, that TIM programs should have a strong clinical or practice-oriented element. Third, that the triple helix (Etzkowitz et al., 2000) or industry,

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Yanez et al. / Technovation 30 (2010) 389–400

academic and government interaction became a highlighted element in TIM programs. Fourth, it was suggested that universities modify their professorial evaluation and reward structure to better embrace industry needs thereby attracting tenured professors from related fields. Fifth, industry and government sponsorship are essential in developing more and better educational programs. Finally, that a more standardized TIM curriculum is required. A decade had passed and indeed the field had moved toward educational programs of merit. Yet all industry educational needs were yet to be met and where some educational institutional rigidity had been removed more action was still required. TIM researchers and teachers had increasingly embraced educational needs of large industry, small- and medium-based enterprises (SME), technology-based entrepreneurs, and technology policy makers for economic development and government research requirements. Badawy (1995, 1996, 1998) in his seminal book ‘‘Developing Managerial Skills in Engineers and Scientists: Succeeding as a Technical Manager,’’ and following journal articles develops topics that a manager of technology needs to understand. Others (Bush, 1998) focused on excellence in TIM university programs. This work delineated the need to create specific criteria for instruction in TIM. He outlined the following approaches to attain excellence: 1. Direct education of nascent or practicing technology-oriented managers and employees. 2. Indirect education of nascent or practicing managers about the importance and insertion of management of technology and innovation practice into firm strategy and operation. 3. For non-technology affected managers a brief education concerning the importance of incorporating management of technology and innovation within organizational structures. 4. Through this interaction to continually upgrade and identify techniques that will be optimally effective in the context which they practice. This early effort became the basis for discussants at workshops and management of technology and innovation conferences. The discussants at these events were industry professionals, government policy makers, and academic researchers. Drejer (1999) presented on Aalborg University’s Master’s program on Management of Technology and Innovation ‘‘with an explicit focus on the program as yeducational innovation’’. This program emphasized a process that would enable their existing students to develop and implement new technologies. Morel et al. (1999) incorporated changes in paradigms, concepts, and theories underlying the innovation process and provided a basis for TIM. Nambisan and Wilemon (2002, 2003) conducted a worldwide survey of management of technology and innovation programs and found that they still originate from different academic schools (business, engineering, and public policy). The survey was a snapshot of the educational programs and identified common frameworks, which has helped to unify the diversity of interests and themes while benchmarking their effectiveness. Other researchers reviewed how education was absorbed in different industry settings. They used a bifurcation of industries along technological operation lines (Linton and Walsh, 2003). Yet industry and government still needed more. Another NSF workshop convened to examine the drivers of technological changes in the 21st Century provided educational initiatives. Four new directives emerged (Khalil, 2000a, 2000b, 2001): 1. Management of technology and innovation creates a need for not only lifetime education but ‘‘just in time’’ education.

393

2. The ever changing nature of the field will at least create topical change and an environment where the field’s teachers must be committed to continually learning and teaching new processes. 3. A framework and a book-of-knowledge of the Management of Technology Innovation will provide a basis of educational needs divergence and help establish minimum standards for curriculum and accreditation. 4. The bifurcation of nascent TIM students by their backgrounds. The separation below allows for tailoring curricula to students need. The bifurcation is: a. Student with no or limited technology training b. Students with no or limited business or policy training

The number of TIM efforts that embraced graduate educational aspects blossomed (Gaynor, 1986; Gehani, 1998; Haddad, 2002; Betz, 2001; Pretorius, 2004, Watts and Porter, 1997, Mallick and Chaudhury, 2000; Linton, 2004; Hosni, 2004; Katzy and Dissel, 2005). Also, the need to integrate management and science education at the undergraduate level were advocated (Linton, 2002). Management of technology and innovation associations set up major educational taskforces. One such taskforce was initiated by IAMOT and included a group of professionals tasked to find common educational ground in TIM. The effort led to the formulation of a Credo for the TIM community (Van Wyk, 2004), it is summarized as follows: 1. Technology and innovation is a large and growing part of every manager’s daily experience and needs its own field of pedagogy now called TIM 2. Academic programs should offer three components including: (a) An accepted range of management specialties (b) Knowledge of technology and innovation and related management procedures (c) Topics covering the contextual setting of management of technology and innovation 3. The Credo identifies the basic concepts to be included in a core theory 4. Establishes that TIM programs should address technology and innovation at the operational, strategic, and policy level 5. Points to the need for the profession to work towards (a) A community of practitioners (b) A body of knowledge (c) A clearer positioning of the field in the mind of the public

It seemed to TIM educators and industry alike that the more traditional disciplines offered a taste of TIM had created the need for more TIM-focused education. Current traditional management coursework simply did not assist managerial or entrepreneurial professionals in their effort to embrace technology-based innovation. Again these authors suggest a benchmarking of educational offerings in management of technology and innovation. Two seminal studies on TIM pedagogy emerged. Kocoaglu et al. (2003) surveyed existing TIM programs at academic institutions around the world. The survey went to 266 university programs of which 148 responded. More recently, an analysis catalog and syllabi content for the 148 participating universities was conducted (Aje, 2005). The ongoing IAMOT educational committee reviewed all these efforts and added to it. They proposed a virtuous cycle consisting of research, teaching and service for the lifetime advancement of pedagogy in this field (A Timeline for Strategic Action, IAMOT, 2004). Here they defined service in a manner that supports the

ARTICLE IN PRESS 394

M. Yanez et al. / Technovation 30 (2010) 389–400

clinical nature of TIM education. They stressed service as a form of outreach to the business community. This group initiated action on the educational need. In its report, the committee suggested that a more quantitative method be embraced to identify exceptional TIM researchers and programs. The result was the first program and researcher recognition of excellence. This effort developed a methodology for collecting data about schools’ educational and research programs. A way the field could identify the best, and obtain from them their best thought on educational material. The committee’s final task included identifying and developing materials and certification manuals for teachers, students, mentors, and academic administrators. Similarly, researchers continued to advance the field and bring that knowledge back to the classroom. Technovation, for example, has published well over 300 articles, which develop some aspect of technology entrepreneurship since the year 2000. These efforts include a wide variety of technology entrepreneurship issues. For example Ratinjo and Henriques (2010) and Harbi et al. (2009) both discuss technology entrepreneurship in emerging economies with more of a social entrepreneurial bent, Hoye and Pries (2009) discussed policy implication of technology transfer activities in universities to industrial entrepreneurs, Oh et al. (2009) discussed regional innovation and SME’s, and Murovec and Prodan (2009) developed the concept of industrial R&D, large firm, and entrepreneurial absorptive capacity. Technology policy and areas of the knowledge economy like the service sector continued to be heavily researched (Aaboen, 2009). Emerging technology regional importance was emphasized by (Fukugawa, 2009). More basic TIM concepts like managing technologies, R&D management, technology assessment, technology innovation, and the strategic management of technology are still highly researched Van Wyk (2010), Daghfous and Barkhi (2009), Musso (2009), Fenwick and ¨ Hayes (2001), and Todtling et al. (2009) to name just a few. Marketing, accounting issues in technology, regional issues, and pivotal technologies like information systems and its management are being investigated intensely, examples include Redoli et al. (2008) and Arranz and Fdez. de Arroyabe (2008). Research efforts on product development, human resources, project management, manufacturing, road mapping and technology forecasting, abound and are often interactive on many other knowledge domains like emerging technology (Kohler et al. 2009), the service sector (Jolly and Dimanche, 2009), emerging regions and human capital, (Von Zedtwitz, 2008), and emerging technol-

ogy road mapping and technology forecasting (Walsh et al., 2005; Walsh, 2004). Educational topics in TIM are constantly being refreshed by research.

3. Generating a TIM BoK survey template We developed a pedagogical template through our literature review. The criteria we used to develop our segmentation scheme is as follows: (1) Pedagogy was focused enough to emphasize the unique features of technology and innovation, (2) Broad enough to encompass the entire scope of the TIM field, (3) Flexible enough to allow for the needs of creative enterprises, (4) Based on the expansion of previous TIM pedagogical studies. We started with two pedagogy studies Kocoaglu et al. (2003) and Aje (2005). Each paper presented the same 19 most popular courses in the field. A literature review was then developed in accordance with the three eras discussed to assess parallels and divergences Finally, we leveraged high profile TIM educational meetings. We found that Kocoaglu et al.’s (2003) and Aje’s (2005) was supported not only by research in all three of the TIM eras, but by Adler’s (1989) seminal work as well as topics brought forth in TIM educational workshops. The result is a template that we will test as a potential TIM BoK core to TIM education at the master’s level. We provide it in Table 1 below.

4. Methodology Having provided an extensive literature review and scrutinized seminal works on the research in TIM as well as works that reviewed TIM pedagogy and support for the pedagogy efforts of Kocoaglu et al. (2003) and Aje (2005), the resultant template is provided in Table 1. We sought to answer three questions concerning TIM education utilizing surveys based on this template. (1) Did a body of knowledge for TIM education make sense for the stakeholders in the field? (2) Do we have the right topics and, if not, what was missing? (3) Are there any differences in the relative perceived value of some groups of these topics to an educational program?

Table 1 List of ‘‘most commonly found’’ topics. Topics

Adler (1989)

Kocoaglu et al. (2003)

Aje (2005)

Work shops

Era’s 1, 2, 3

1. Accounting and Finance 2. Program/Project Management 3. Manufacturing Management 4. Information Technology 5. Strategic Management 6. Quality Management 7. Creativity and Innovation Management 8. Technology Management and Acquisition 9. Product Development 10. Change Management 11. Entrepreneurship 12. Personnel/HR Management 13. Problem Solving and Decision Making 14. Supply Chain Management 15. R&D Management 16. Emerging Technologies 17. Technology Marketing 18. Technology Planning and Forecasting 19. Technology Transfer

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

1, 2, 3 1,2,3 1,2 2,3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Yanez et al. / Technovation 30 (2010) 389–400

Two questionnaires were administered through a web-based survey. The Fowler (2002) survey methodology was followed to design the survey instrument. An annual conference that brings together entrepreneurs, management of technology and innovation researchers, industry experts from around the world—IAMOT (the International Association of Management of Technology) was utilized as one response group. Members of the Management of Innovation and New Technology (MINT) Network were used as the second response group. The resultant expert response provided in the first survey was utilized to define the value of the general concept of a TIM BoK as well as refining and improving our template. We used the second survey to provide our final information. Our overall response rate for both surveys was typical of many web-based survey instruments. We developed a response rate from survey 1 of 13.69%. The response rate for survey number 2 was slightly better at 16.41%. These rates were well within the range of expected and acceptable web-based survey response rates (Manfreda et al., 2008). 4.1. Survey 1—generation, distribution, and response A request was sent via electronic mail asking the target audience to visit the survey website and provide their input to the TIM Bodyof-Knowledge initiative on-line survey. The primary objective of the survey was to obtain the TIM stakeholders’ input on:

 The validity of a template for TIM graduate programs as a framework for development of a TIM Body-of-Knowledge.

 The relative importance of the five template categories



(knowledge areas), which incorporate topics and courses which we named (knowledge disciplines) as a potential basis for a TIM graduate education accreditation/certification process. The need for additional knowledge areas and disciplines in a TIM BoK framework.

There were a total of 106 responses to the survey; 80 responses were from the IAMOT group, and 26 responses from the MINT group. The respondents were told that one of the possible uses for a TIM BoK that was to result from this process was the certification of existing TIM. They were further told that we would be using the terms knowledge discipline (KD) and knowledge area (KA) to refer to knowledge and a categorization scheme that was potentially important in the TIM educational process. We operationalized identified important courses and topics from previous pedagogy research efforts as knowledge disciplines (KD). We sought to further the pedagogical process by placing these KD’s into five template categories which we named knowledge areas (KA). We provided the respondents with a description of our knowledge area (KA) categories in the survey. The definitions of the KAs presented to the respondents are shown below:

 Technology-Centered Knowledge: Topics such as theory of





technology, detailed knowledge of pivotal and emerging technologies, and specialty fields such as electrical, mechanical, information, manufacturing or biotechnology. Technology-Related Knowledge: Management procedures associated with technology-intensive organizations such as technology forecasting, R&D management, innovation management, new product management, project management, intellectual property management, integration of technology, and business strategy. Knowledge of Corporate Functions: Classic business functions such as marketing, finance, operations, MIS, human resources, management, and business strategy.

395

 Knowledge of Supporting Disciplines: Examples of courses include



national policy frameworks, general systems theory, risk analysis and environmental management, ethics, economics, human behavior, quantitative methods, accounting, and law. Special Requirements/Assignments: Examples here include capstone courses and projects, internships, and business study missions.

4.2. First survey data analysis The respondents were to read the above descriptions and then were asked to enter their degree of agreement or disagreement with five statements regarding the Template. The five statements, and the responses to discrete categories including Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree (a 5-point Likert scale) are shown in Tables 2 (IAMOT) and 3 (MINT). Please note for this analysis, we collapsed the response rate the ‘‘Agree’’ and ‘‘Strongly Agree’’ into an ‘‘Agrees’’ category, and the ‘‘Neutral’’, ‘‘Disagree’’, and ‘‘Strongly Disagree’’ into a ‘‘Does Not Agree’’ category. Here we use descriptive statistics rather than other measures since the results are so forthcoming. The concept of a template for graduate education (TIM BoK) was overwhelmingly supported as was the concept that it should be flexible. The next three statements concerning the Template’s scope, range of topics, and examples of individual courses (statements c–e) were also positive but here our qualitative responses played a more important role in redeveloping our template. Those survey participants responding with a ‘‘Disagree’’ or ‘‘Strongly Disagree’’ were asked to explain why. The comments they entered to the last question of the survey drove the inclusion of new knowledge

Table 2 Summary of IAMOT stakeholders’ responses. Statement

Agrees (%)

Does not agrees (%)

The notion of a template for graduate programs in TIM is a valid one The idea of a flexible template is an acceptable concept The suggested template adequately reflects the scope of TIM The categories (knowledge groups) is a viable representation of the range of topics included in a TIM program The examples of individual courses or requirements are a fair representation of those that should be included in each knowledge group

90

10

90

10

75

25

74

26

75

25

Statement

Agrees (%)

Does not agrees (%)

The notion of a template for graduate programs in TIM is a valid one The idea of a flexible template is an acceptable concept The suggested template adequately reflects the scope of TIM The categories (knowledge groups) is a viable representation of the range of topics included in a TIM program The examples of individual courses or requirements are a fair representation of those that should be included in each knowledge group

73

27

77

23

65

35

92

8

72

28

Table 3 Summary of MINT stakeholders’ responses.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 396

M. Yanez et al. / Technovation 30 (2010) 389–400

Table 4 Survey 1, AHP analysis results.

Table 5 Modified knowledge area template used in survey 2 (S2).

Template knowledge area

Relative importance to TIM education (%)

Technology-Related Knowledge Knowledge of Corporate Functions Technology-Centered Knowledge Knowledge of Supporting Disciplines Special Requirements/Assignments

25.05 21.35 20.80 17.16 15.63

disciplines for the second survey. These comments, in conjunction with the results of the next phase of the study (review of existing TIM curricula), were used to incorporate modifications to the Template used in Survey 2 (S2). Participants were also asked to indicate the relative importance of our knowledge area classification to TIM graduate education. Here we used a more statistically intensive technique to better convey the value of the data obtained. We used the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1996, 1988) to develop the relative weight (importance) of the course topics which we named knowledge disciplines. Results are summarized in Table 4. This process uses stakeholders’ inputs to the 10 paired comparisons to provide each knowledge disciplines relative importance of the knowledge areas. The results of the survey number 1 especially the qualitative comments suggesting mapping the knowledge disciplines more closely to knowledge areas (KA). In summary: 1. Four of the previous pedagogy survey indicated ‘‘most commonly found’’ topics were not included in our knowledge areas. They were: (a) Technology entrepreneurship, technology management and acquisition, technology transfer, and quality management. 2. The following TIM knowledge disciplines were not among the ‘‘most commonly found’’ topics; however, they were found to be important (a) Intellectual Property Management, National Policy Frameworks, Capstone Courses and Projects, and Law. 3. The following TIM knowledge disciplines were not included in our list or previously pedagogy surveys but were found to be important: (a) General systems theory, risk analysis, environmental management, ethics, economics, internships and business study missions, theory of technology, and integration of technology and business management. 4. We integrated the important topics to our template and thereby modified both our knowledge areas (KA) and knowledge disciplines (KD). This became our Modified Template (Preliminary TIM BoK Framework) used in Survey 2 (S2). We provide it in Table 5 below.

4.3. Second survey distribution and analysis Having derived a ‘‘modified Template’’ (Table 5), the topics, or knowledge disciplines were then presented to TIM stakeholders through a second web-based survey instrument (S2) designed to obtain input on: 1) The relative importance of the (modified) knowledge groups 2) Additional suggestions on the processes and outcomes so far achieved 3) The TIM background of the participant stakeholders

Management of technology-centered knowledge -Innovation management -R&D management -Technology forecasting and planning -Fundamentals of technology management -Theory of technology -Technology acquisition and exploitation -Technology transfer -Entrepreneurship -Product development management -Intellectual property management -Strategic TIM -Integration of technology and business strategy -Knowledge management -Project/program management Knowledge of corporate functions -Business and strategic management -Marketing -Finance -Operations/supply chain management -MIS/Information technology -Personnel/human resources management -Accounting Knowledge of supporting disciplines -National/public policy frameworks -General systems theory -Risk analysis -Environmental management -Ethics -Economics -Change management -Research methods and statistics -Problem solving and decision making -Business law Special requirements/assignments -Capstone courses and projects -Internships and business study missions -Master’s thesis Technology-centered knowledge -Pivotal and emerging technologies -Technology and engineering specialty fields

A request was again sent via electronic mail to the IAMOT constituency asking the target audience to visit the survey website and provide their input to the TIM Body-of-Knowledge initiative on-line survey. There were a total of 129 responses (113 from the IAMOT group and 16 journal editors). The survey instrument explained the initiative to identify a TIM Body-ofKnowledge; noted the work done since the first survey (S1) to incorporate the original stakeholder responses, and the original TIM pedagogy studies. The first set of questions inquired into the TIM background of the survey participants. Survey participants came from around the world with 66% being academics 27% being industrial, 4% government, and 3% other. The second set of questions was aimed at establishing the relative level of importance of individual knowledge disciplines (KD) within each one of the knowledge areas (KA). The third set of questions was aimed at establishing the relative level of importance to TIM education of each of the knowledge areas. The aggregated results in the form of geometric means for all responses to a specific pair of disciplines were obtained. They were then inputted into knowledge area matrices each containing a unique set of knowledge disciplines. Each matrix was utilized to compute the overall geometric mean and the ‘‘relative importance to TIM education’’ of each knowledge discipline within the specific knowledge area. The same process was followed to

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Yanez et al. / Technovation 30 (2010) 389–400

Table 6 Relative importance of knowledge areas to TIM education. Knowledge area

Management of Technology-Centered Knowledge Knowledge of Corporate Functions Technology-Centered Knowledge Special Requirements/Assignments Knowledge of Supporting Disciplines

Relative importance to TIM education (%) 24.51 21.06 18.64 18.00 17.78

Table 7 Relative importance of knowledge areas to TIM education (S2). 24.51%—Management of Technology-Centered Knowledge Relative knowledge disciplines importance (%) to this knowledge area 8.87—Strategic MOT 8.04—Innovation Management 7.99—Integration of Tech./Bus Strategy 7.55—Research & Development Mgmt 7.60—Fundamentals of Tech. Mgmt. 7.18—Tech. Acquisition/Exploitation 7.46—Product Development Mgmt. 7.21—Knowledge Management 7.21—Entrepreneurship 6.78—Technology Transfer 6.62—Project/Program Management 6.59—Tech. Forecasting and Planning 5.41—Intellectual Property Mgmt. 5.50—Theory of Technology 21.06%—Knowledge of Corporate Functions Relative knowledge disciplines importance (%) to this knowledge area 18.76—Business and Strategic Mgmt. 15.87—Marketing 15.25—Operations/Supply Chain Mgmt. 12.72—Finance 13.78—MIS/Information Technology 13.89—Personnel/HR Management 9.74—Accounting 18.00%—Special Requirements/Assignments Relative knowledge disciplines importance (%) to this knowledge area 33.95—Capstone Courses and Projects 34.14—Internships and Business Study Missions 31.91—Master’s Thesis 17.78%—Knowledge of Supporting Disciplines Relative knowledge disciplines importance (%) to this knowledge area 12.20—National/Public Policy Frameworks 10.97—Research Methods and Statistics 10.64—General Systems Theory 10.54—Business Law 10.46—Economics 10.45—Problem Solving and Decision Making 9.80—Change Management 9.15—Risk Analysis 8.72—Environmental Management 7.07—Ethics 18.64%—Technology-Centered Knowledge Relative knowledge disciplines importance (%) to this knowledge area 53.63—Pivotal and Emerging Technologies 42.37—Technology and Engineering Specialty Fields

compute the ‘‘relative importance to TIM education’’ of the five knowledge areas’ (KA). Table 6 below provides the survey participant responses of their perceptions of the relative importance to TIM education of each of the knowledge areas. The survey shows consistency between the results of S1 and S2 in the participants’ opinions. The

397

results also show balance among the knowledge areas (KA) reflecting the interdisciplinary nature of the TIM field. Table 7 shows the TIM Body-of-Knowledge Framework with the stakeholders’ developed ‘‘levels of importance to TIM education’’ for the knowledge areas and for the knowledge disciplines. This question set also provided the opportunity for participants to suggest the addition or removal of knowledge disciplines to specific knowledge areas. No removals were suggested; however, the recommended additions (not already found on the TIM BoK Framework) have been incorporated for further evaluation together with comments and suggestions offered by participants in response to the last survey question. Stakeholder’s TIM knowledge discipline priorities were then ranked. This was operationalized by converting the priorities to a common importance denominator. Table 8 shows the result of developing a ‘‘discipline weight’’ (DW) and a ‘‘normalized discipline weight’’ (NDW) factor based on the level of importance to TIM education previously identified by TIM stakeholders for knowledge areas and knowledge disciplines in the TIM BoK Framework. In the survey, the relative importance of knowledge disciplines in a percentile (KD%) was developed in relation to the other disciplines within the knowledge area (KA). Given that there were different numbers of disciplines within each knowledge area (KD/A), the percent weights obtained were affected by how many knowledge disciplines (KD) were in the specific knowledge area (KA). Also, each knowledge area (KA) had a different importance weight (KA%) developed through the survey; so, in order to be able to compare the importance of all

Table 8 Knowldge disciplines importance to TIM education. Knowledge discipline DNW

Discipline normalized weight (relative importance %)

Strategic TIM Innovation Management Integration of Tech./Bus Strategy Fundamentals of Tech. Mgmt. Research & Development Mgmt. Product Development Mgmt. Knowledge Management Technology Entrepreneurship Tech. Acquisition/Exploitation Technology Transfer Project/Program Management Tech. Forecasting and Planning Theory of Technology Intellectual Property Mgmt. Business and Strategic Mgmt. Marketing Operations/Supply Chain Mgmt. Personnel/HR Management MIS/Information Technology Finance Accounting Pivotal and Emerging Technologies Tech. and Engineering Specialty Fields Internships and Business Study Missions Capstone Courses and Projects Master’s Thesis National/Public Policy Frameworks Research Methods and Statistics General Systems Theory Business Law Economics Problem Solving and Decision Making Change Management Risk Analysis Environmental Management Ethics

4.01 3.63 3.61 3.43 3.41 3.37 3.26 3.26 3.24 3.06 2.99 2.98 2.48 2.44 3.64 3.08 2.96 2.70 2.67 2.47 1.89 2.83 2.08 2.43 2.41 2.27 2.86 2.57 2.49 2.47 2.45 2.45 2.29 2.14 2.04 1.65

ARTICLE IN PRESS 398

M. Yanez et al. / Technovation 30 (2010) 389–400

disciplines on the same basis, we first multiplied the knowledge discipline weight (KD%) by the knowledge area weight (KA%), and then by the ratio of the number of Knowledge Disciplines within the specific knowledge area (KD/A) to total number of knowledge disciplines (NKD) in the framework, and divided the result by 100 to obtain the discipline weight (KDW). Then, we converted (normalized) all discipline weights to a fraction of 100. We then developed a knowledge discipline importance using ‘‘knowledge discipline normalized weight’’ factor analysis.

5. Discussion By linking TIM pedagogy and TIM research through consideration of the pedagogy of the field and by utilizing direct stakeholder survey techniques, an important contribution has been made. The surveys allowed us to further the excellent pedagogy research that had come before us. We did this by providing knowledge areas (KA) and knowledge disciplines (KD) into the pedagogy discussion thus providing a more flexible TIM BoK process. This process complements much of the course-based research that necessarily proceeded it. Specifically using this technique we found that: 1. Six (6) out of the top 19 TIM-BoK Framework disciplines were not among the 19 most commonly found courses in the previous pedagogy studies. These include:  Strategic TIM  Integration of Technology and Business Strategy  Fundamentals of Technology Management  Knowledge Management  National/Public Policy Frameworks  Pivotal and Emerging Technologies 2. Our analysis of knowledge disciplines provided relatively different importance factors for 9 of the remaining 13 TIM BOK occupied different positions of importance in the ranking of 19 than in previous pedagogy studies. They are:  Business and Strategic Management (#2 TIM BoK-#5 previous pedagogy studies)  Innovation Management (#3 TIM BoK-#7 previous pedagogy studies)  R&D Management (#6 TIM BoK-#15 previous pedagogy studies)  Marketing (#11 TIM BoK-#17 previous pedagogy studies)  Technology Transfer (#12 TIM BoK-#19 previous pedagogy studies)  Project/Program Management (#13 TIM BoK-#2 previous pedagogy studies)  Technology Forecasting and Planning (#14 TIM BoK-#18 previous pedagogy studies)  Personnel/HR Management (#18 TIM BoK-#12 previous pedagogy studies)  MIS/Information Technology (#19 TIM BoK-#4 previous pedagogy studies) 3. Only four (4) of the disciplines occupied a similar ranking in both our study and previous pedagogy studies:  Technology Acquisition and Exploitation  Product Development Management  Technology Entrepreneurship  Operations/Supply Chain Management There appears to be a strong need for a standardized methodology and set of processes to assist in the formulation 4. and evaluation of TIM graduate level programs so that they more closely deliver on the disciplines considered of higher importance by the TIM stakeholders.

6. Conclusions TIM stakeholders’ opinions have been obtained in two separate surveys. The input from these surveys and our research has generated a template for TIM graduate programs into a more comprehensive TIM Body-of-Knowledge Framework. The new framework establishes the knowledge areas deemed necessary for TIM education and the disciplines included in each knowledge group ranked by order of importance. The TIM BoK Framework presented here can be used as a basis for designing new graduate curricula in TIM as well as for the evaluation and possible certification/accreditation of existing TIM programs. The results further point out some important differences between TIM stakeholders’ perceived level of importance to TIM graduate education. These differences are a strong reflection that the TIM community considers TIM to be of critical importance from the strategic point of view.

References Aaboen, L., 2009. Explaining incubators using firm analogy. Technovation 29 (10), 657–670. Adler, P.S., 1989. Technology strategy: a guide to the literatures. Research in Technology Innovation, Management and Policy 4 (1989), 25–121. Aje, J., 2005. MOT: the elephant is at a cross-road. In: 14th Annual Conference of the International Association for the Management of Technology, Vienna, Austria. Ansoff, H.I., Stewart, J.M., 1967. Strategies for a Technology Based Business. Harvard Business Review. Arranz, N, Fdez. de Arroyabe, J., 2008. The choice of partners in R&D cooperation: an empirical analysis of Spanish firms. Technovation 28 (1-2), 88–100. Arrow, K.J., 1962. Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invvention in the Rate and of Inventive Activity. Princeton University Press for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Princeton, NJ. Ayres, R.U., 1969. Technology Forecasting and Long Range Planning. Mc-Graw-Hill, New York. Badawy, M.K., 1998. Technology management education-alternative models. California Management Review 40 (4), 94–114. Badawy, M.K., 1996. A new paradigm for understanding management technology: a research agenda for ‘‘technocologists’’. International Journal of Technology Management 12 (5/6), 717–732. Badawy, M.K., 1995. Developing Managerial Skills in Engineers and Scientists: Succeeding as a Technical Manager (Industrial Engineering). John Wiley and sons 447. Behrman, G., 2008. The Most Noble Adventure: The Marshall Plan and How America Helped Rebuild Europe. Free Press, pp. 464. Berman, E.M., Khalil, T.M., 1991. Technological Competitiveness in the Global Economy—A Survey. International Journal of Technology Management. Betz, F., 2001. Executive Strategy: Strategic Management & Information Technology. John Wiley & Sons, NY. Birch, D.L., 1979. The job generation process. Unpublished report prepared by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Program on Neighborhood and Regional Change for the Economic Development Administration, US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. Birch, D.L., 1987. Job Creation in America: How Our Smallest Companies Put the Most People to Work. Free Press; Collier Macmillan, New York, London. Bright, J.R., 1964. Research, Development and Technological Innovation. Harvard Business, Cambridge. Burgelman, R.A., Christensen, C.M., Wheelwright, S.C., 2009. Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation Fifth edition McGraw-Hill, Irwin 2009. Bush Jr. J.B., 1998. MOT and Education: A Practitioner’s Viewpoint. Position papers of the 1998 Workshop on the Management of Technology. Byrne, J.A., 1993. The Whiz Kids: The Founding Fathers of American Business—and the Legacy they Left Us. Doubleday Business Press, pp. 581. Deming, W.E., 1982. Improvement of quality and productivity through action by management. In: Tushman, M.L., Moore, W. (Eds.), Readings in the Management of Innovation second ed. Ballinger, pp. 454–465. Daghfous, A., Barkhi, R., 2009. The strategic management of information technology in UAE hotels: an exploratory study of TQM, SCM, and CRM implementations. Technovation 29 (9), 588–595. Drejer, A., 1999. A Danish master in management of technology. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Management of Technology, Cairo, Egypt, vol. 024. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., Terra, B., 2000. The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy 29 (2), 313–330. Feng, J., Li, X., 2007. Enterprise technology management maturity model and application. Management of Engineering and Technology.

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Yanez et al. / Technovation 30 (2010) 389–400

Foster, R.N., 1986. Timing technological transitions. In: Tushman, M.L., Moore, W. (Eds.), Readings in the Management of Innovation second ed. Ballinger, pp. 215–228. Fenwick, P., Cordey-Hayes, M., 2001. Technology change and management strategy in the benefits agency. Technovation 21 (3), 167–174. Fowler, F.J., 2002. Survey research methods. In: Gaynor, G.H. (Ed.), Handbook of Technology Managing. McGraw-Hill, New York 1986. Friar, J., Horwitch, M., 1985. The emergence of technology strategy—a new deminsion of strategic management. Technology in Society 7, 143–178. Fukugawa, N., 2009. Determinants of licensing activities of local public technology centers in Japan. Technovation 29 (12), 885–892. Fusfeld, A.R., 1978. How to put technology into corporate planning. Technology Review. Garvin, D.A., 1982. Competing on eight dimensions of quality. Harvard Business Review, 101–108. Gaynor, G.H. (Ed.), 1986. Handbook of Technology Managing. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Gehani, R.R., 1998. Management of Technology and Operations. John Wiley and Sons, NY. Harbi, S., Amamou, M., Anderson, A., 2009. Establishing high-tech industry: the Tunisian ICT experience. Technovation 29 (6-7), 465–480. Haddad, C.J., 2002. Managing Technological Change.. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Hosni, Y., 2004. Management of technology: contemporary educational programs. In: Conference proceeding paper presented at the 13th Annual Conference of the International Association for the Management of Technology, Washington, DC, p. 1279. Hoye, K., Pries, F., 2009. Repeat commercializers, the ‘habitual entrepreneurs’ of university–industry technology transfer. Technovation 29 (10), 682–689. Iamot, 2004. /http://www.iamot.org/S. Jolly, D., 2000. Three generic resource-based strategies. International Journal of Technology Management 19, 7–8. Jolly, D., Dimanche, F., 2009. Investing in technology for tourism activities: perspectives and challenges. Technovation 29 (9), 576–579. Jantsch, E., 1969. Technology Forecasting in Perspective. OCED, Paris. Jones, H., Twiss, B.C., 1978. Forecasting Technology for Decision. Macmillian, London. Kaplan, R.S., 1975. Tax Policies for R&D aned Technology Innovation: Tax Policies of US and Foreign Nations in Support of R&D and Innovation. National Technical Information Service, Washington, DC. Katzy, B., Dissel, M., 2005. A toolset for building the virtual enterprise. CeTIM Working Paper No. 0401, pp. 2–22. Kelly, P., Kranzberg, M., 1978. Technology Innovation: A Critical Review of Current Knowledge. San Francisco Press, San Fransico. Khalil, T.M., 1993. Management of Technology Education for the Twenty First Century, Productivity & Quality Management Frontiers IV. Institute of Industrial Engineers, Norcross, GA. Khalil, T.M., Garcia-Arreola, J., 1997. A framework for educational programs in management of technology. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on MOT, Gothenburg, Sweden. Khalil, T.M., Bayraktar, B., 1998a. Challenges and opportunities for research in the management of technology. UM/NSF Report, University of Miami. Khalil, T.M., 1998b. Management of technology: future directions and needs for the new century. UM/NSF Report, University of Miami. Khalil, T.M., 2000a. Management of technology: drivers of technological changes in the twenty first century. NSF/UM Report Grant no. SES-0001271. Khalil, T.M., 2000b. Management of Technology: The Key to Competitiveness and Wealth Creation. McGraw-Hill, New York. Khalil, T.M., 2001. Future Direction Needs in the Management of Technology. In: Khalil, T.M., Lefebvre, L.A., Mason, R.M. (Eds.), Management of Technology: The Key to Prosperity in the Third Millennium. Elsevier Science Ltd., UK, pp. 3–22. ¨ Kohler, T., Matzler, K., Fuller, J., 2009. Avatar-based innovation: using virtual worlds for real-world innovation. Technovation 29 (6-7), 395–407. Kirchhoff, B.A., 1994. Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capitalism: The Economics of Business Firm Formation and Growth. Praeger, Westport, CT. Kirchhoff, B., Newbert, S., Walsh, S., 2002. Differentiating market strategies for disruptive technologies. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 49 (4), 341–351. Kocoaglu, D.F., Sarihan, H.I., Sudrajat, I., Hernandez, I.P., 2003. Educational trends in engineering and technology management, Technology Management for Reshaping the World. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ 153–159. Kondratief, N.D., 1937. Long Waves in Economic Life. Lloyds Bank Review. Linstone, H.A., Coates, V., Farooque, M., Klavans, R., Lapod, K., Pistorious, C., Porter, A., 2001. On the future of technological forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 67 (1), 1–17. Linstone, H., 2007. Science and technology: questions of control. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74 (2), 230–237. Linton, J., Walsh, S., 2000. Infrastructure for emerging markets based on discontinuous innovations. Engineering Management Journal 12 (2), 23–31. Linton, J.A., 2002. Implementation research: state of the art and future directions. Technovation 22 (2), 65–79. Linton, J.D., Walsh, S., 2003. From bench to business. Nature of Materials 2 (5), 287–289. Linton, J.D., 2004. Perspective: ranking business schools on the management of technology. Journal of Product Innovation Management 21 (6), 416–430.

399

Linton, J.D., Walsh, S., 2004. Integrating innovation and learning curve theory: an enabler for moving Nanotechnologies and other emerging process technologies into production. R&D Management 34 (5), 513–522. Linton, J.D., Walsh, S., 2008a. Acceleration and extension of opportunity recognition for nanotechnologies and other emerging technologies. International Small Business Journal 26, 83–99. Linton, J.D., Walsh, S., 2008b. A theory of innovation for process-based innovations such as nanotechnology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75 (5), 583–594. Linton, J.D., et al., 2009. The strategy-technology firm fit audit: a guide to opportunity assessment and selection. Picmet, Portland, July. Mallick, D.N., Chaudhury, A., 2000. Technology management education in MBA programs: a comparative study of knowledge and skill requirements. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 17 (2), 153–173. Manchester, W., 1978. American Caesar: Douglas, MacArthur 1880–1964. Little, Brown and Company, pp. 793. Manfreda, K.L., Bosnjak, M., Berzelack, J., Hass, I., Vohover, V., 2008. Web surveys versus other survey modes. International Journal of Marketing Research 50 (1), 79–96. Mansfield, E., 1968. The Economics of Technological Change.. W.W. Norton, New York. Marquis, D.M., 1969. The anatomy of succesful innovations. Managing Advancing technology 1, 38–48. Martino, J.P., 1983. Technology Forecvasting for Decision Making. New Holland, New York. McGee, J., Thomas, H., 2007. Technology and strategy management progress and future directions. R&D Management 19 (3), 5. Mechlin, F., Berg, D., 1980. Evaluating research: ROI is not enough. Harvard Business Review, 93–99. Miller, W.L., 1998. New broadened disciplines for MOT. Position papers of the 1998 Workshop on The Management of Technology. Mitchell, G., Hamilton, W., 1988. Managing R&D as a Strategic Option. Research and Technology Management 3, 15–22. Moore, G., 2002. Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling Disruptive products to Mainstream Customers, second ed. HarperCollins, Publishing Inc., pp. 213. Montgomery, D., Urban, G.L., 1969. Management Science in Marketing. PrentenceHall, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ. Morel, L., Tani, M., Guidat C., 1999. Management of Innovation (M.O.I): current educational challenges through the emergence of new paradigms. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Management of Technology, Cairo, Egypt, vol. 023. Mowery, D.C., Rosenberg, N., 1982. The Influence of market demand: a critical review of some recent emperical studies, in Rosenberg, Inside the Black Box Technology and Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Murovec, N., Prodan, I., 2009. Absorptive capacity, its determinants, and influence on innovation output: cross-cultural validation of the structural model. Technovation 29 (12), 859–872. Musso, C., 2009. New learning from old plastics: the effects of value-chaincomplexity on adoption time. Technovation 29 (4), 299–312. Nambisan, S., Wilemon, D., 2002. Graduate management of technology education: a global survey, critical issues and emerging trends. International Journal of Technology Management 24 (1), 106–120. Nambisan, S., Wilemon, D., 2003. A global study of graduate management of technology programs. Technovation 23 (12), 949–962. National Research Council Task Force on the Management of Technology (NRC), 1987. Management of Technology: The Hidden Competitive Advantage. Report no. CETS-Cross-6, National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Oh, K.-Y., Cruickshank, D., Anderson, A., 2009. The adoption of e-trade innovations by Korean small and medium sized firms. Technovation 29 (2), 110–121. Parise, S., Henderson, J.C., 2001. Knowledge resource exchange in strategic alliances. IBM Systems Journal 40, 4. Porter, A.L., et al., 1980. A Guide for Technology Assesment and Impact Analysis. New Holland, New York. Pretorius, M.W., 2004. Trends in the development of technology management programmes: a case study. In: Proceeding of the 13th Annual Conference of the International Association for the Management of Technology, Washington, DC, p. 708. Project Management Institute, 2000. The Project Management Body-of-Knowledge Guide 2000, /http://www.pmi.orgS. Quinn, J.B., 1985. Innovation and corporate strategy. Technology in Society 7, 263–279. Ratinjo, T., Henriques, E., 2010. The role of science parks and business incubators in converging countries: evidence from Portugal. Technovation 30 (4), 278–290. Redoli, J., Mompo´, R., Garcı´a-Dı´ez, J., Lo´pez-Coronado, M., 2008. A model for the assessment and development of Internet-based information and communication services in small and medium enterprises. Technovation 28 (7), 424–435. Ricardo, D., 1817. Principals of Political Economy and Taxation. J. Murray, London. Rogers, E.M., Shoemaker, E.F., 1971. Communication of Innovations: A Cross Cultural Approach. Free Press, New York. Rogers, E., 1995. Diffusion of Innovations 5th edition Free Press, New York. Rosenbloom, R.S., 1978. Technological innovation in firms and industries: an assessment of the state of the art. In: Kelly, P. (Ed.), Technological Innovation: A Critical Review of Current Knowledge. San Francisco Press. Saaty, T., 1988. Multicriteria Decision Making. University of Pittsburg Press. Saaty, T., 1996. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. RWS Publications.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 400

M. Yanez et al. / Technovation 30 (2010) 389–400

SEST-Euroconsult, 1984. Le Bonzai de l’industrie japonais. Elements de reflexion sur l’integretion de technologie dans la function strategique des enterprises japonais. French Ministry of Research and Technology. Schumpeter, J.A., 1909. On the concept of social value. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 23 (2), 213–232. Schumpeter, J.A., 1934. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ. Schumpeter, J.A., 1939. Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process. McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., New York. Schumpeter, J.A., 1942. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy 3rd ed. Harper & Row, New York. Shenhar, A., Dvir, D., 2007. Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation. Harvard Business School publishing, Cambridge, MA, pp. 267. Shrivastava, P., Souder, W.E., 1987. The strategic management of technological innovations: a review and a model. Journal of Management Studies 24 (1), 25–41. Smith, A., 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature and Cause of Wealth of Nations. Solow, R., 1957. Technical change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economics and Statistics 39, 312–330. Souder, W.E., Rubenstein, A.H., 1976. Some Designs for Policy Experiments and Government Incentives for R&D/Innovation Process. IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, 129–139. Tassopoulos, A., Papachroni, M., 1998. Penetration models of new technologies in Greek small and medium-sized enterprises. International Journal of Technology Management 15 (6-7).

Tien, J., Berg, D., 2003. A Case for Service Systems Engineering, vol. 12. Systems Engineering Society of China, co-published with Springer-Verlag GmbH. ¨ Todtling, F., Lehner, P., Kaufmann, A., 2009. Do different types of innovation rely on specific kinds of knowledge interactions? Technovation 29 (1) 59–71. Tushman, M., Anderson, P., 1991. Managing Through Cycles of Technological Change. Research—Technology Management. Van Wyk, R.J., 2004. A template for graduate programs in management of technology. Report to the Education Committee, IAMOT, /http://www.iamot.orgS. Van Wyk, R.J., 2010. Technology assessment for portfolio managers. Technovation 30 (4), 223–228. Von Zedtwitz, M.V., 2008. How technology-based university research drives innovation in Europe and China: leveraging the power of proximity. Journal of Technology Management in China 3 (1) 12-46 Online publication date: 1 Feb. 2008. Walsh, S., Boylan, R., McDermott, C., Paulson, A., 2005. The semiconductor silicon industry roadmap: epochs driven by the dynamics between disruptive technologies and core competencies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 72 (2), 213–236. Walsh, S., 2004. Roadmapping a disruptive technology: a case study the emerging microsystems and top-down nanosystems industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 71 (1), 161–185. Watts, R.J., Porter, A.L., 1997. Innovation forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 56, 25–47. Wheelwright, S.C., Hayes, R.H., 1985. Competing through manufacturing. Harvard Business Review 1, 99–109. Woodward, J., 1965. Industrial Organization:Theory & Practise. Oxford University Press, London.