TECHNOLOGIEMANAGEMENT – ARTIKELEN
INCLUDED ARTICLES ARE:
MANAGERIAL INCENTIVES FOR PROCESS INNOVATION, OVERVEST & VELDMAN
DEVELOP YOUR TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY, FORD
ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF FIRMS’ PROCESS INNOVATION CAPABILITY: A LITERATURE
REVIEW AND A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK, FRISHAMMAR ET AL.
STRATEGIC DIMENSIONS OF MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT, TSANG
DEVELOPING STRATEGIC CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT CAPABILITY, BESSANT & FRANCIS
WHAT’S NEXT? AFTER STAGE-GATE, COOPER
AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK FOR PROJECT PORTFOLIO SELECTION, ARCHER & GHASEMZADEH
1
, THE MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY: A PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
PERSPECTIVE, GAIMON
Technology is the embodiment and deployment of technical and scientific knowledge and discoveries that lead
to the creation of goods and services. Beyond driving changes in product and service attributes, technology
innovation has dramatically affected production processes, delivery channels, and the structure of extended
supply chains. New technologies have caused fundamental transformations in traditional intra- and inter-firm
business practices.
The management of technology (MOT) is an integrated application of engineering, science, and management
capabilities to the management of the life cycle of new technologies. MOT addresses how to develop, adapt
and exploit technological capabilities to create new or improved products or services to accomplish the
strategic goals of an organization. The ultimate test of the success of MOT efforts is the extent to which an
innovation embodied in a newly developed product or service diffuses to the marketplace.
The technology S-curve characterizes how innovation affects technology performance over time during the
phases of introduction, improvement, and maturity.
The presence of an open source developer and network effects drive the commercial firm to improve its
product features and launch early thereby encouraging innovation.
Two potential benefits from an investment in process improvement exist. First, the firm earns cash flows if the
investment is successful. Second, the firm realizes an increase in knowledge that impacts the value of options
to invest in future process improvements.
There are two mechanisms that ultimately lower the requirement for human resources while sustaining the
level of output. First, the firm can automate processes, deploy capital resources as a substitute for labour.
Second, the firm can invest in technologies that enhance the productivity of labour and thereby improve
labour’s efficiency.
MANAGERIAL INCENTIVES FOR PROCESS INNOVATION, OVERVEST & VELDMAN
Process innovation itself does not have a strategic effect because the innovation stage occurs simultaneously
with the production stage. The strategic effect in our model comes from the managerial renumeration, which is
determined prior to the innovation and production stage.
In this paper it is assumed that firms decide simultaneously and non-cooperatively on the level of process
innovation and the level of output. First, owners decide non-cooperatively and simultaneously whether they
hire a manager and offer him an incentive contract. Second, the decision makers of the firms innovate and
supply their output to the market. Finally, profits are realized and managers are paid according to their
contract.
The market consists of n≥ 2 firms, who each face a linear inverse demand function: p = a – bQ, where Q
represents the quantity of the homogeneous good produced by the firm. The market price of the good is
denoted by p, a and b are parameters. The marginal cost of production c for each firm is taken to be constant in
production and is given by c – x, where c < a is a positive constant and x denotes the level of process
innovation. We assume that process innovation reduces a firm’s marginal cost of production. Clearly, x must be
non-negative, because a firm’s marginal cost cannot increase as a result of its R&D investments. The total cost
of undertaking R&D is (1/2)yx², where y > (1/2) is a parameter measuring the cost of innovations.
Both innovation and output decrease as the number of firms n increases, with owner-led firms.
2
INCLUDED ARTICLES ARE:
MANAGERIAL INCENTIVES FOR PROCESS INNOVATION, OVERVEST & VELDMAN
DEVELOP YOUR TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY, FORD
ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF FIRMS’ PROCESS INNOVATION CAPABILITY: A LITERATURE
REVIEW AND A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK, FRISHAMMAR ET AL.
STRATEGIC DIMENSIONS OF MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT, TSANG
DEVELOPING STRATEGIC CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT CAPABILITY, BESSANT & FRANCIS
WHAT’S NEXT? AFTER STAGE-GATE, COOPER
AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK FOR PROJECT PORTFOLIO SELECTION, ARCHER & GHASEMZADEH
1
, THE MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY: A PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
PERSPECTIVE, GAIMON
Technology is the embodiment and deployment of technical and scientific knowledge and discoveries that lead
to the creation of goods and services. Beyond driving changes in product and service attributes, technology
innovation has dramatically affected production processes, delivery channels, and the structure of extended
supply chains. New technologies have caused fundamental transformations in traditional intra- and inter-firm
business practices.
The management of technology (MOT) is an integrated application of engineering, science, and management
capabilities to the management of the life cycle of new technologies. MOT addresses how to develop, adapt
and exploit technological capabilities to create new or improved products or services to accomplish the
strategic goals of an organization. The ultimate test of the success of MOT efforts is the extent to which an
innovation embodied in a newly developed product or service diffuses to the marketplace.
The technology S-curve characterizes how innovation affects technology performance over time during the
phases of introduction, improvement, and maturity.
The presence of an open source developer and network effects drive the commercial firm to improve its
product features and launch early thereby encouraging innovation.
Two potential benefits from an investment in process improvement exist. First, the firm earns cash flows if the
investment is successful. Second, the firm realizes an increase in knowledge that impacts the value of options
to invest in future process improvements.
There are two mechanisms that ultimately lower the requirement for human resources while sustaining the
level of output. First, the firm can automate processes, deploy capital resources as a substitute for labour.
Second, the firm can invest in technologies that enhance the productivity of labour and thereby improve
labour’s efficiency.
MANAGERIAL INCENTIVES FOR PROCESS INNOVATION, OVERVEST & VELDMAN
Process innovation itself does not have a strategic effect because the innovation stage occurs simultaneously
with the production stage. The strategic effect in our model comes from the managerial renumeration, which is
determined prior to the innovation and production stage.
In this paper it is assumed that firms decide simultaneously and non-cooperatively on the level of process
innovation and the level of output. First, owners decide non-cooperatively and simultaneously whether they
hire a manager and offer him an incentive contract. Second, the decision makers of the firms innovate and
supply their output to the market. Finally, profits are realized and managers are paid according to their
contract.
The market consists of n≥ 2 firms, who each face a linear inverse demand function: p = a – bQ, where Q
represents the quantity of the homogeneous good produced by the firm. The market price of the good is
denoted by p, a and b are parameters. The marginal cost of production c for each firm is taken to be constant in
production and is given by c – x, where c < a is a positive constant and x denotes the level of process
innovation. We assume that process innovation reduces a firm’s marginal cost of production. Clearly, x must be
non-negative, because a firm’s marginal cost cannot increase as a result of its R&D investments. The total cost
of undertaking R&D is (1/2)yx², where y > (1/2) is a parameter measuring the cost of innovations.
Both innovation and output decrease as the number of firms n increases, with owner-led firms.
2
