Management of technology: New frameworks

Technoworion.

7 (1988)

MI-351

Elsevier Science Publishers

341

Ltd.

Management

England-Printed

in the United

Kingdom

of technology:

new frameworks

Rias J. van Wyk Visiting Sloan

Scholar’*

School

Management

of Management,

Technology,

Cambridge,

of Technology Massachusetts MA 02139

Group, Institute

of

(U.S.A.)

ABSTRACT New approaches are being sought to improve management of technology (MOT) in the practical setting, and to give it more structure for academic purposes. This article suggests one possible avenue for improvement, namely the creation of a core theory of technology to serve as a mother science for MOT. The article proposes a number of frameworks that could contribute to such a core theory. It outlines a framework for analyzing individual artefacts, presents a system of classification of artefacts, suggests a standard framework of technological trends, searches for a chart of technological limits and explores a profile of social preferences with respect to technology. The practical application of each framework is briefly disclcrsed.

INTRODUCTION Management of technology (MOT) has become a high priority area and is seen as one of the most important factors in international competitiveness. In the U.S.A. a special Task Force has investigated and reported on MOT. It finds the field poorly understood and recommends a program of awareness creation as a first step [l]. This is probably an indicator of what will happen in most Western countries. According to the Task Force the primary industry needs in MOT are reflected in eight questions - How to integrate technology into the overall strategic objectives of the firm - How to get into and out of technologies faster and more efficiently - How to assess/evaluate technology more effectively

l

Home

Unit for the Study of Technological Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa.

address:

Stellenbosch,

0166-4072/xx/s03.50

@ 198X Elscvicr

Scicncc Puhlishcrs

Innovation

Ltd

(USTI),

University

of

342

Management

of technology:

new frameworks

- How best to accomplish technology transfer - How to reduce new product time - How to manage large, complex and interdisciplinary or interorganizational projects/systems - How to manage the organization’s internal use of technology - How to leverage the effectiveness of technical professionals. Some of these problems may be dealt with in terms of conventional management theory and are not peculiar to technology. Some may be handled in light of the postulates of neighboring disciplines, such as human relations, marketing, project management, operations research and finance. But some are unique to technology and require a special theoretical basis-a crisp and elegant core theory reflecting a deep understanding of technology as a knowable phenomenon in its own right. Apart from primary industry needs there are also the needs of those involved in teaching MOT. According to the Task Force, “although facets of MOT have existed as a focus of research and teaching at a few universities for a least 25 years, it is not a recognized discipline.” While extremely disconcerting, this is not surprising, especially in the light of the Task Force’s observation that “the field is not formally codified” [2]. Again the need for a core theory of technology as a basis for MOT becomes apparent. This articlc offers a number of contributions to such a core theory. Six thcmcs arc discussed - A definition of technology - A framework for analyzing individual artefacts - A system of classification of technologies - A description of patterns of change occurring in technology - A review of limits in technology - A profile of social preferences as they impact on technology Each framework is in itself a useful tool for MOT. Together they provide a macro-view of technology. Though some of these frameworks have been explored in the literature before and several arc used in practice, they have never really permeated mainstream academic thought. The macro-view of technology remains virtually unexplored. With the new emphasis being given to MOT and the need for improved theoretical structures it is time to examine it afresh. DEFINITION

OF TECHNOLOGY

Technology has been defined in many ways. A review of the various approaches will not be attempted here and the reader is referred to Friedrich Rapp [3]. In this article the following definition is suggested: “technology is created capability: it is manifested in artefacts the purpose of which is to augment human skill.” This definition has the advantage of brevity but requires elucidation. Key concepts include - Created. Technology is not a free gift of nature: it does not come about by

Management

of technology:

new frameworks

343

itself. It is the product of deliberate action. If technology is to be employed as a resource it has to be cultivated, nurtured and supported. Cqabilify. This concept refers to a particular type of handiness, namely that of manipulating aspects of the physical world. Arrefucrs. This is the generic term for all devices, tools, instruments or machines. Artefacts are the repositories of capability. They are to the study of technology what organisms are to the study of biology. Augment. This concept is used to convey two meanings; on the one hand enhancing human ability such as adding instrumentation to human activity, and on the other hand replacing human ability, by substituting it with competent artefacts. No definition is perfect and the above formulation is no exception. It does, however, provide a good starting point and does permit an internally consistent analysis of various aspects of technology. A FRAMEWORK

FOR ANALYZING

INDIVIDUAL

ARTEFACTS

For the purposes of technological analysis, artefacts can be described with the aid of a framework of general technological features, i.e., without reference to the market role of the artefact or its unique consumer characteristics [4]. This framework covers the following features of an artcfact - The technological function it fulfills - Its level of pcrformancc - The physical principle it employs - The material it is composed of - Its size - Its structure A useful key exists for describing technological function [5]. It dcfincs function with reference to the major output that artefacts handle and how they handle it. Their major output is matter (M), energy (E) or information (I). This output is the result of processing, in which inputs are changed into new forms; transporting, in which inputs are geographically displaced without necessarily changing their form or structure; or storing, in which inputs arc kept without necessarily changing or moving them. Level of performance refers to the capability with which the artefact performs its function. Physical principle refers to the fundamental manner in which artefacts perform their function. Similar artefacts could employ different principles. Switchboards, for instance, in some cases employ an electromechanical principle and in others an electronic one. Similarly a given physical principle can be employed in different artefacts. According to Fusfeld, “a carburetor, for example, is an application of the generic technology of vaporizing a liquid and mixing it with a gas. The same technology applied in the paint industry might become an automatic paint sprayer or in the aerospace industry a jet backpack” [6].

344

Management

of technology:

new frameworks

Material of composition is another feature that helps describe artefacts. Here the technological analyst would distinguish between essential materials (i.e., those directly associated with the principle according to which the artefacts operates) and incidental materials (i.e., those that merely provide physical suppport and containment). The latter are far more readily improved upon than the former and their susceptibility to substitution is consequently greater [7). As far as structure is concerned, artefacts may be thought of as a configuration. frequently of a unique shape and consisting of a hierarchy of subsystems and components. The number and combination of subsystems determine their complexity. Finally there is the question of size, the obvious descriptor being physical dimensions. The above framework of features may be illustrated by referring to a given artefact, the compact disc (CD). The technological function is that of an information store. The level of performance is expressed as 6,000 megabytes. The physical principle is one of employing a digital code read by a light source (laser). The material used is a polymer. an incidental material. The size is expressed in a diameter measure of about 10cm. The structure of the artefact is a simple one, there is but one component filling a single function. For the technological manager the framework of features helps to get behind the more obvious consumer-related product characteristics and to uncover the array of technological fcaturcs that have to be understood and managed in their own right. WC now turn to another useful framework. namely a table of technological catcgorics. CLASSIFICATION

OF TECHNOLOGIES

Our purpose in classification is to create a simple overview of technologies, illustrating major groupings of artefacts and their relationship to each other. Such a general system of classification had not yet established itself in Western thought as late as the mid-nineteen seventies. According to Teichmann, “a cement-mixer and a machine for kneading dough have, as far as I know, a similar structure, but I have never known the two of them assigned to the same category of technical appliances” [S]. One approach to the problem is a classification of artefacts based on technological functions [9]. This system combines the three categories of major output with the three manners of handling referred to in the previous section. A nine-cell table is found which is illustrated in Table 1. There are, of course, other systems of classification. Any of the other technological features such as physical principle, material, size or structure could be employed. However to the knowledge of this author no satisfactory classification based on these features has as yet emerged. More research is required. In the meantime we must make do with the nine-cell table.

Management

TABLE

1. Table

of functional

new frameworks

34s

categories

Type of manipulator

output

Matter

of technology:

(M)

Energy (E) Information

(I)

Processor

Transporter

Store

Cement

Truck

Silo

kiln

Power plant

Copper

Computer

Optic

cable fiber

Battery Compact disk

For the technology manager this system offers a number of useful applications. In the field of technological scanning the table offers a useful checklist for reviewing various technologies and recording those that could be of interest to the corporation in question. In arranging the results of a technological scan the table provides a useful format. For example the recently much publicized advances in superconductivity would appear as a potential new artefact in the category of energy transportation. As the secondary effects of this technology cascade through the technological landscape, entries would appear in energy storage (i.c., superconducting magnets of immcnsc capabilities), information processing (i.e., high-performance micro-chips employing superconducting material), and possibly even matter-storage (i.e. containing material in powerful magnetic fields). For the purpose of technological auditing the table of functional categories likewise provides a useful checklist. It provides a framework for reviewing products and processes, noting existing performance levels and targeting new ones. The next framework to be presented looks at technological trends. A STANDARD

SET OF TECHNOLOGICAL

TRENDS

Within each technological category there are continuous improvements being effected to the capabilities of individual artefacts. How do these manifest themselves? Long-run technological change was studied in a variety of artefacts, and the unique changes in the artefact between two successive dates noted and briefly described. From these individual descriptions of change a set of generally occurring trends were derived. These are summarized in Table 2. This is a highly-summarized description of a rich and varied phenomenon. Six clear-cut and quantifiable trends seem to occur frequently - Increasing efficiency - Increasing capacity - Increasing compactness - Increasing accuracy - Increasing size range - Increasing complexity

346

Management

of technology:

TABLE 2. Technology

new frameworks

trends

Feature

Trend

Function Performance level

Normally unchanged Increasing efficiency Increasing capacity Increasing compactness Increasing accuracy Difficult to chart-no clear cut taxonomy-possibly similar to performance level above From natural to synthetic Extending size range-some growing some shrinking in size Increasing complexity

Principle

Material Size Structure

All of these trends are measurable. Unfortunately space constraints do not allow extensive elucidation. The reader is refcrrcd to source materials (9,101 and to related studies [ 11,121. These trends arc not exhaustive, other patterns of change may be distinguished as well. For instance the trend towards greater standardization and the emergence of dominant designs. Then there is also the trend towards greater robustness enabling artcfacts to opcratc in an increasing variety of cnvironmcnts. The standard set of trends represents a core rather than a complctc array, and has the advantage of being measurable in terms of acccptablc physical units. For the business manager this set of technological trends is a useful tool for at Icast two areas of activity, namely product prognoses and R&D planning. Business managers have to probe the future functional composition of their products and visualize the type of component capability that they will have available to install in their products. By using Table 2 managers improve their ability to foresee future configurations of their products and to plan for future inputs required. Second, the set of trends helps technology managers to target R&D more effectively. When formulating objectives for R&D to improve a particular product or process, the set of trends help to structure an appropriate set of targets. The next step is a framework of possible limits.

A CHART

OF TECHNOLOGICAL

LIMITS

Before 1985 no serious attempt seems to have been published for classifying technological limits. In that year a taxonomy was published using two frameworks from the core theory of technology [13]. The first framework is the nine-cell table

Management

TABLE

3. A chart of technological

of technology:

new frameworks

347

limits

Type of limit

Efficiency M handling

Processors

devices

Transporters

Capacity

Compactness

Accuracy

Size

Complexity

Stores E handling

Processors

devices

Transporters Stores

I handling

Processors

devices

Transporters Stores

discussed above. and the second the standard set of technological trends discussed subsequently. By combining the two classifications, one finds a S4-cell table relating each trend to each category of artifact. As each trend may have a limit, the table offers a taxonomy of limits. The suggcstcd taxonomy is prcscntcd in Table 3. The technology manager can USC this framework to rcvicw his knowlcdgc of ultimate technological limits and to keep track of new information on where thcsc limits lie. Knowledge of limits help his decisions in at Icast three arcas (1) The greater the diffcrcnce between present technological paramctcrs and those that arc ultimately achicvablc, the greater the unconqucrcd territory that the innovator can exploit (2) For the technological forecaster, knowledge of where a limit lies helps him improve his prognosis of the future behavior of a given technological trend. The further the limit, the stccpcr the graph that the forecaster will visualize It helps to define (3) The knowledge of limits helps the manager to target IUD. more accurately those arcas of pcrformancc that are achievable and those that are not

SOCIO-TECHNICAL

PREFERENCE

PROFILE

It is well known that a close interaction exists between technology and society. How can this be charted? De Vulpian recognizes four categories of interaction [I41 - Allergy, denoting the rejection by society of a particular technology. example is the rejection of nuclear technology by certain countries - Deviation, denoting the partial acceptance of a given technology, but

An not

34

Management

of technology:

new frameworks

without reaction and not without a significant restructuring of the said technology. An example would be the provisional acceptance of home computers followed by the more enthusiastic acceptance of computer games - Enforced penetration, denoting the implacement of a given technology by a powerful agency. Society is virtually forced by government decree or by force from outside to live with a given technology. An example is the incorporation of nuclear power in France - Synergy, denoting the enthusiastic acceptance of a given technology by society. An example of such an occurrence is the general acceptance of hi-fi equipment by households The interesting problem lies in finding which technologies will cause which reaction pattern. Some success has been achieved by following two approaches. The first is to identify a number of “value clusters” that provide the technological analyst with a convenient set of themes around which human values are expressed [15]. The second is to chart long-term social trends that could have an impact on technology [14]. De Vulpian refers to such an approach but does not describe it fully. In both cases the results are promising, and more research is recommended. Knowledge of social prefcrcnces help managers of technology to better predict the future thrust of technological advance, i.e., in scanning the future environment, and to bcttcr cvaluatc the chances of acceptance of given projects. CONCLUDING

COMMENT

With the growing realization that technology as an economic rcsourcc needs nurturing and management, much more emphasis will be placed on MOT in practice. Business schools will be called upon more and more to offer courses in MOT. MOT will become increasingly structured and based on sound theory. The riced for a core theory of technology has already made itself felt, and will become more and more articulutcd in the future. The frameworks presented in this paper should contribute towards a basic theory of technology and lead to better MOT. These frameworks need to be exposed to intense academic debate and need to be extended through a program of research. Much remains to be done to verify the notions expressed here, to expand on the existing body of knowledge and to integrate the proposed frameworks into every day management procedures. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This is a highly condensed version of a seminar presented at Lehigh University and at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology during the spring semester of 1987. The following colleagues either read through and commented on an earlier draft of the paper or commented during the seminar. Nicholas Ealabkins (Lehigh

Management

of technology:

new frameworks

349

Thomas J. Allen, Edward B. Roberts, Lester Thurow, James M. Utterback and Eric von Hippel (MIT). The final version also reflects valuable comments by reviewers of this journal. I thank these people sincerely without implying that they fully agree with my views. Financial assistance by the Human Sciences Research Council is gratefully acknowledged. University),

REFERENCES 1

Task

Force

The

Hidden

on the Management Competitive

of Technology,

Advantage.

1987.

National

Management

Academy

Press,

of Technology: Washington

DC,

1987, p. 27. 2

Task

Force

on the Management

The Hidden 3

F. Rapp,

4

R.J.

Competitive

Analytical

Van

Wyk.

Management 5

Philosophy

A standard

of Technology.

Management

Reidel,

for product

Inderscience.

Eine Systemteorie

1987.

of Technology:

1987, p. 21.

framework

of Technology.

G. Ropohl,

of Technology,

Advantage.

Geneva,

dcr Technik.

Dordrecht. protocols.

1981. pp, 33-36. In: T.

Khalil

(Ed.),

1988, pp. 93-99.

Carl Hanser

Verlag,

Munich

and Vienna,

1979, p. 78. 6

A. Fusfeld, Review,

7

N.A.

8

D.

How to put technology

Aha,

Innovation.

Waterman, Tcichman,

Contributions 9

R.J.

Van

Materials On

Wyk.

10

R.J.

Van Wyk,

Maitra,

(Eds.).

economic 11

Review.

planning.

Panoramic

Des.,

of technological

of Technology.

scanning

In: Editors

Cambridge,

for the 80s and 90s. Mat.

the classification

to a Philosophy

tion, 2(2) (1984)

into corporate

Technology

5 (1984)

sciences.

Rcidel.

of Technology

1983, p. 54. In:

Dordrccht.

and the technological

121. F.

Rapp,

(Ed.),

1974. p. 138.

cnvironmcnt.

Tcchnova-

lob-120. Technological

advance,

Technological

Change,

Perspcctivcs.

D. Sahal, Foundations

Routledge,

unravclling

London,

of tcchnometrics.

the strands.

Development

and the

In C. Tisdcll

and P.

Environment,

Socio-

1988, pp. 322-340.

Tcchnol.

Forecasting

Sot. Change,

27 (1985)

l-38. 12

ii.

Majer,

Technology

Sot. Change, 13 14

R.J.

Van

1 l(3)

(1985)

A.

De

d’Esomar 15

27 (1985)

Wyk.

the functional

approach,

Technol.

Forecasting

335-351. notion

of technological

limits,

an aid to forecasting,

Futures,

214-223.

Vulpian.

New

de Rome,

R.J. Van Wyk, Change,

The

measurement;

directions

Technological

15 (1979)

for innovation

Paris, COFREMCA, 281-296.

in products

and

services.

Congrcs

1984, p. 32.

change: a macro perspective,

Technol.

Forecasting

Sot.

Management

3.50

La gestion

On chcrrhc git (MOT)

de la technologie:

la crhiion

de but

ariiclt

ihion’c

Cci rdcle

d’rre proport

errtaiicllc.

un ryrUme

~II nombrt

de la itckrolopour ler kroirr

plur de rtrrcirre

II moycn porrible port l’amlliodior, de la iechologie

de rimcivna

so

moyta

der oljelr

claret

qri pournit

c’crf-

retwir de acience

fabn’qrC#;

brcf l’applicaiion

en

coniribstr

de8 objtis (II crdn

il rrggln

icchnologiqvcr,

i vnc il

pariicvlitrr;

icllc

prirtalc

cluriqre

de itndancer

ti il tzplorr

an profil

de

de la iechnologic.

1 I’igard

on czarnine

povrruicni

qsi

d’analyrtr

chcrcht mmIablcav de limiicr

il rocialtg

Enfin,

rr&n

erreniielle

il dicn’i

pour

tcchnologiqvtr; prifirrnccr

Won’e

de la gtriion

I’amilioraiion

ei de Iui dorrer

structures.

la MOT.

pow

Cti

prriiqse,

new frameworks

de nouvelles

faGoar d’inarprcr

de ro~~cller

drnr Ic coritrtc

de I’Clrdc rniotrriitin. I-dim

of technology:

praliqvt

Das Management

de chaqrt

rirucl~n.

der Technik:

Neue

Rahmenprogramme.

ABRISS El wcrdcn i&hen

ntvt

Konitzi

zs vcrltihtn. Einfihmng Dct

Ditmtr cintr

Ariiktl

Mragcn

Ariiktl

dcm

MOT

rchligi

tine

miglicht

mchr

Kcmihtoric,

Tcchnik

dtr

Slrsklrr

fir

(MOT)

im prak-

akadtmircht

Vtrbtsrtrvngmwcirt

vor,

die ab Mriicrwisrcnrchafi

tin

tinigt

Rahmtnprogrammc

Er zcichnci

die Umrisrt

5itlH

analyricrtn

rn~trrrcht

kann,

~cchnischtr

emida

Tkndr

Anwtndrng

Direccib

brmcando

en la pnpamcidn

vor,

die 2% tinct

Slrvkirr,

tintr

drnh

Zwtckt die

nimlich

dam MOT

fit

rolchen

oar, rrchl

jcdtr

planitamicnior

prdciica

Arrwcrirng

Rahmcaprogrpmmtr

de tecnologia:

nvevom

tine

W&uchtn

Artt-

dot, rchligl

cintn

~cchaimchcr

in bczrg

Ktmihtorit

die man tinzclnc

sttltf tin SymItm von Artcfak~cnklasaifizitrvng

Plrofil van gtrtllmc6aftlichtn

Die prak&chc

St

urn dar Managtmtnl

rnd

itchnologirchcn

kbnicn.

S~andardnahmtn

(MOT)

gcrrchl

roll.

ditntn

fakit

Anrilzt

xu vtrbtsrcm

Gnnztn

rnd

auf die Ttchaik.

wird kvrz crirfcri.

nuevas estructuras.

para

y paru csirvcirmn’a

mcjomr mdr,

la direcci6n a tftcios

de Ltcnolog:a

acadCmicor.

Emit

Management

art&do rrgiert ana podie de ~ccnolog& pc El art~c~lo iml. Srbrrya

prvponc sna

de clasificacida bsaca reaped0

rirva

an caadm

via

coma

de artcfacior, de I;mitca

modre

paru

de ertructrrar

pan

aralirar

~rgicrc

new frameworks

a rabcr,

pam Ia mejora,

cicncia

wna rcrk

crtrrchm

of technology:

la crracidn

g ezploru

la aplicacido

prdctica

ixsdioidraler,

cridndar rn pwjil

bnoemente

ceniml

de coda

de tcndcnciaa

eriructrra.

cer-

pnzeenfo IO rieiema

de prefercnciar

a la tccnolog:a.

Se comenta

ieonh

coniribair o dicha feo&

qae podn’an

una crtnctrm

de sna

la MOT.

artefacior

tccnoldgicor

351

iecnoldgicas, rocialcr

con