نقشه راه برای فشار فن آوری و مشارکت: مشارکت برای محیط های نوآوری آزاد
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|3539||2011||16 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 13355 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Technovation, Volume 31, Issue 7, July 2011, Pages 320–335
There are several tools in the literature that support innovation in organizations. Some of the most cited are the so-called technology roadmapping methods, also known as TRM. However, these methods are designed primarily for organizations that adopt the market pull strategy of technology–product integration. Organizations that adopt the technology push integration strategy are neglected in the literature. Furthermore, with the advent of open innovation, it is possible to note the need to consider the adoption of partnerships in the innovation process. Thus, this study proposes a method of technology roadmapping, identified as method for technology push (MTP), applicable to organizations that adopt the technology push integration strategy, such as SMEs and independent research centers in an open-innovation environment. The method was developed through action-research and was assessed from two analytical standpoints: externally, via a specific literature review on its theoretical contributions, and internally, through the analysis of potential users' perceptions on the feasibility of applying MTP. The results indicate both the unique character of the method and its perceived implementation feasibility. Future research is suggested in order to validate the method in different types of organizations
The technology roadmapping (TRM) is a method that helps organizations plan their technologies by describing the path to be followed in order to integrate a given technology into products and services. These, in turn, reach the market and meet the strategic objectives of the organization (Kostoff and Schaller, 2001 and Phaal et al., 2004). It is possible to find many proposals for TRM in the literature, e.g., Albright and Kappel (2003), Daim and Oliver (2008), Holmes and Ferrill (2005), Lee et al. (2009a), and, especially, the method proposed by Phaal et al. (2001). These methods, empirically attested by scientific research, assist in the planning of new products and technologies. When organizations plan their technologies, they may combine two technology–product integration strategies: technology push and market pull (Dodgson, 2000, Porter, 1985 and Schumpeter, 1982). These integration strategies have a direct impact on innovation management, as seen in the innovation model presented by Brem and Voigt (2009). However, their use is largely linked to the organization characteristics (Pearson, 1990). In the case of business organizations that sell products directly to consumers, the market pull integration strategy predominates because their aim is to improve existing product lines according to consumer market trends. Conversely, technology push predominates at some research centers and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) because their focus is on their core competence. In these organizations, such as independent research centers, government-run research centers, and technology-based enterprises (TBEs) devoted to developing new technologies, the predominant integration strategy is technology push. These organizations possess rare and exclusive competencies and employ them to create and transfer innovations to traditional enterprises in the form of consulting services, licensing, and generation of spin-offs (Kostoff and Schaller, 2001, Lee et al., 2007, Mohan and Rao, 2005 and Spithoven et al., 2011). Kappel (2001) and Rinne (2004) mention the importance of taking integration strategies into account when performing TRM. However, the roadmapping methods found in the literature were created to suit the context of large corporations, which combine R&D and product development structures, i.e., organizations that mainly adopt the market pull strategy and closed innovation to define technologies to be developed based on specific market needs. These methods are applied to planning which involves the R&D, marketing, and production sectors at the same organization, which is not possible in the case of organizations that focus on the technology push strategy, such as the aforementioned research centers and SMEs. The possible solution for these SMEs is the use of external sources for technology mapping effort and making use of the open innovation approach to absorb market and technology information. Therefore, open innovation theory emerged from the same source. According to Spithoven et al. (2011), this new paradigm was “…originated from case studies in large R&D intensive companies such as Xerox” (Spithoven et al., 2011, p. 133). The concepts and tools following the big corporations point-of-view, as TRM, and there is a lack of methods and guidelines that describe how these methods could be used by SMEs (Di Benedetto, 2010 and Spithoven et al., 2011). Gassmann et al. (2010, p. 219), in an editorial about open innovation, adequately introduce the issue by affirming that “SMEs are the largest number of companies in an economy, but they are under researched in the open innovation literature.” The authors assert that “the operational functioning of open innovation depends on firms´ ability to manage decentralized innovation processes and often includes participants who are not even on the company’s payroll.” The pioneer research about open innovation and SME´s, developed by Van de Vrande et al. (2009), identified open innovations practices on Neetherlands SME´s and, more importantly, demonstrated that they are increasing. The most important motive to pursue these practices was the market-related ones according to total of 605 respondents from SMEs. The Van de Vrande et al. (2009) research is strong evidence that open innovation is an important way to SMEs that have access to market information and necessary technologies to combine with your own core competence technology, in order to create value for customers. The practical application of the open innovation approach on SMEs starts with technology planning. Using the concept of open innovation is possible to think about a method such as TRM, specifically designed for SMEs and technology push environments. A method which information about associated technologies and market, required during mapping process, would be obtained through a network of partners. This would provide mechanisms to deal with the market information gap, identified by Van de Vrande et al. (2009), and to absorb complementary technologies, that SMEs needs to combine with their own core technology to introduce them into products. The TRM method, in this case, helps to expand the absorptive capacity of SME´s, bringing benefit from open innovation paradigm, a problem identified by Spithoven et al. (2011). In addition, the TRM will serve as the support tool to the “external networking” open innovation mechanism, as identified by Van de Vrande et al. (2009), and an instrument for the co-innovation process, according to Kohler et al. (2009) acceptation. Huizingh (2011) reinforced it by suggesting that less resources to build and maintain collaborative networks at the SME case. Finally, the TRM could facilitate information exchange and increase the commitment of the SME partners on open innovation, a major problem according to co-innovation case study conducted by Müller-Seitz and Reger (2010). The challenge is to establish a link between open innovation framework and TRM methods, able to adapt TRM, enabling TRM compliance to SMEs or research centers in an open innovation environment. This relation is a research problem identified as important by authors who are leading open innovation area of knowledge as Lichtenthaler (2010), Huizingh (2011) and Badawy (2011), justifying this paper. The goal of this research is to contribute to the subject by proposing a technology roadmapping method directed mainly to SMEs and research centers that adopt the technology push integration strategy and consider partnership planning in the context of open innovation. The research question is what adjustments are needed in technology roadmapping to adapt it to the specific case of technology push strategy and open innovation? The response was performed using an action research, which was carried out at the technology planning of an organization with the characteristics mentioned. The result of the action was synthesized in an improved method identified as method for technology push (MTP), that is a roadmapping method for technology push innovation strategy and open innovation environments. The changes in the script of TRM, included in this method, and the discussions about it are the contributions to the research problem.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
As stated by Birkinshaw et al. (2008), a management innovation is not made in a short period of time. It is necessary to identify the problem with the existent theory and methods, to examine cases in depth to understand all aspects of the problem, propose solutions, to spread the change to a range of organizations and only then, after several years of implementation, it is possible way to prove the external validity of the procedure. The method of TRM is already well studied in literature and can be considered mature and well validated. The article identifies a particular problem in the method, describes an opportunity to fix it, based on partnership and literature describes the development and implementation of a new practice to solve the problem. Two limitations are identified at this method. First, the practice has been validated only in terms of internal organization where the research took place. Second, the validation involved two aspects: the verification of the differential against existing theory and verification of internal change agents. She did not evaluate the proposal from the perspective of the impact on organizational performance. Thus, the main limitation of this research is the fact that this cycle is not complete. It is necessary to apply the method in other organizations and conduct assessments of the impact of practice on performance and innovation time and resources invested in planning (TRM). Although the feasibility of applying MTP, as perceived by its users, has been shown, we suggest that future research be conducted with the full implementation of the method at different organizations in different industrial sectors. This will be fundamental to complete the external validation of the method and to obtain data that can demonstrate its potential benefits, as described in this article. The research group will continue with these efforts. The merit of the work in this case is that the description of the proposed practice can serve as a beginning for these applications. It is suggested that other researchers to test and develop the practice tests and evaluations for the continuity of the solution identified. The research group of which the authors belong is already conducting two applications of the method. One for a new software technology for the testing of fruit at a distance and another for a research program on micro-harvests (planting of fruit in small, controlled environments such as homes) in the same organization studied. The next step the group will take the roadmap for other organizations, technology-based companies and other research institutes. This study also has identified opportunities for advanced research or further queries that may broaden the scope of the method. The first opportunity would be to research the adaptation and use of the method in large companies with market pull characteristics, and worried about open innovation. Another is the use of the method is the construction of competitive market intelligence systems and virtual spaces supporting the implementation of MTP in business clusters, containing SME's which has a technology push strategy.