TEchNOLOGy TRaNSFER MODEL - Javna agencija

Recommendations

Info

5 Technology Management the (now only marginal) performance improvement of the current, obsolete technology T o or rather used for development of the new, promising substitution technology T n , which however requires a technology change and therefore a technology leap to the S-curve of T n . Sure, at a point in time t as seen in figure 5, an investment in the substitution technology T n would entail a performance decrease due to current predominance of T o , but with continuous investment in the new technology the viability limit and maximum potential of T o can be greatly exceeded in the long term, as the technological potential of T n turns out to be much higher than with T o in the big picture. Figure 5: S-curve concept and the shaping of a potential technology change (According to: Tiefel, 2007) 5.4.4 Continuous technological development vs. disruptive technological changes As figure 6 points out, continuous technological development typically evokes incremental innovations which lead to an up-shift on the respective S-curve. Once a technology change is intended, a leap in technology from T o to T n takes place. However, such a ‘disruptive’ change to T n is not in practice as easy as may be assumed and, furthermore, entails the following risks: • The current corporate technological basis is partly going to be devaluated, possibly even irrelevant for competition • There are no reliable instruments to predict the necessity of a change from one technological paradigm to another • Not the present capability but the potential capability of T n should be assessed for decision making – Attention: T n is often underestimated! • Discontinuous technology leaps are often evoked by companies outside a particular sector of industry – they are, compared to direct competitors, more dangerous for the competitive position, as these company’s technologies often remain „blind spots“ despite precautions • Appearance of phenomena like INCUMBENT INERTIA, INNOVATOR’S DILEMMA or SAILING-SHIP-EFFECT resulting from management problems Info Box: T o T n • INCUMBENT INERTIA: technological change is interpreted primary as a threat, reacting on it with rigidness • INNOVATOR’S DILEMMA: business is still going strong with current technology, thus exists ‘no reason’ for a technology change. Organization is set up for steady-state innovation and is not able to respond well to weak signals about disruptive change • SAILING-SHIP-EFFECT: desperate attempt to once again notably improve the performance of an obsolete technology Figure 6: Disruptive technological change and potential management problems (According to: Voigt, 2008) 5.5 Technology Assessment 5.5.1 Detection of technological potentials In order to detect technological potentials, corporate analysis has to be focused on both technologies and markets (compare chapter 5.3.1). In doing so, previously established as well as newly established, potential technologies and markets have to be taken into account. In addition, the current and prospective general framework affected by the political, economic, ecological and legal environment is an integrated part of the analysis. Proceeding for detection of technological potentials is composed of three phases: TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS, APPLICATION ANALYSIS and POTENTIAL DETERMINATION (see fig. 7), which is explained briefly as follows. 57
KNOWLEDGE FOR BUSINESS IN BORDER REGIONS Analysis Assessment Figure 7: Procedure for detection of technological potentials (Source: Bullinger (ed.), 2008) TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS: Aside from the detection of future developments in the current technology portfolio, new emerging technologies should be identified in this phase. The general rule is to orientate technology analysis to the companies’ own competitive strategy and its internal strengths and weaknesses as well as external opportunities and risks of any technology. Technology analysis typically aims to identify the following three areas: • Identification of relevant functions (“Which kinds of functions achieve a certain technology?”) • Identification of competitive technologies (“Which other technologies rival the companies’ own technology?”) • Identification of competitors (“Which companies or institutions operate within the companies’ own technology field?”) APPLICATION ANALYSIS: In order to identify relevant existing and potential markets for emergent technologies, current and potentially possible application-fields should be identified in a ‘bottom-up’-approach. While current applications can be perceived as applications already offered on markets by the respective technology, potential applications do not yet exist on any market or are so far served by means of competitive technologies. In order to detect current and potential application-fields, the following proceedings are recommended: 1. Inventory of current applications 2. Identification of potential applications, internal view 3. Identification of potential applications, external view (e.g. industry experts) 4. Summary of all possible applications from steps 1 to 3 5. Completion and quantification of applications’ attributes and requirements 6. Determination of market figures (e.g. market size, market growth) for the applications POTENTIAL DETERMINATION: At the outset, afore determined attractive application-fields are consolidated to groups on the basis of their similarity. As figure 7 points out, relevant technologies then undergo a requirement-assessment and are allocated to the respective applications in case of meeting the particular, beforehand defined requirements. At this point, the following questions should be analyzed: • Which attractive applications could already be satisfied by current technologies? • What future requirements for technologies do attractive applications demand? Subsequent steps involve feasibility studies and potential analysis for the selected technologies and markets (using amongst others the identified market figures) as well as formulation of an appropriate strategy (see fig. 7). 5.5.2 Technology Portfolio according to Pfeiffer Similar to the S-curve concept or technology life cycle model a technology portfolio primarily serves as an instrument for the as-is analysis of a company’s worked technology field. Only on the basis of such as-is positioning of certain technologies does a technology portfolio allow for goal-oriented planning of the corporate R&D program and for derivation of further strategic steps. In compliance with the common portfolio approach which was first developed in the early 1980’s by consulting companies, a tech- 58
Page 1 and 2:
Spoštovani! Pred vami je priročni
Page 4 and 5:
KAZALO VSEBINE Module 1: Technology
Page 6 and 7:
1 Technology Transfer Model to impr
Page 8 and 9: 1 Technology Transfer Model Survey
Page 10 and 11: 1 Technology Transfer Model Figure
Page 12 and 13: 1 Technology Transfer Model Challen
Page 14 and 15: 1 Technology Transfer Model specifi
Page 16 and 17: 1 Technology Transfer Model transfe
Page 18 and 19: 1 Technology Transfer Model 1.10 He
Page 20 and 21: 2 BUSINESS MODELS „A business mod
Page 22 and 23: 2 BUSINESS MODELS 2.4.4 Customer In
Page 24 and 25: 2 BUSINESS MODELS • Market develo
Page 26 and 27: 2 BUSINESS MODELS Graph 7: The bala
Page 28 and 29: 2 BUSINESS MODELS 27
Page 30 and 31: 3 BUSINESS CULTURE universals, in w
Page 32 and 33: 3 BUSINESS CULTURE and doing their
Page 34 and 35: 3 BUSINESS CULTURE 3.5.3 Core value
Page 36 and 37: 3 BUSINESS CULTURE 3.8.1. Active li
Page 38 and 39: 3 BUSINESS CULTURE Raising question
Page 40 and 41: 3 BUSINESS CULTURE Why use it? The
Page 42 and 43: 3 BUSINESS CULTURE 3.9.3 Creative p
Page 44 and 45: 3 BUSINESS CULTURE II. REALIST/ PER
Page 46 and 47: 3 BUSINESS CULTURE • Toplak Ciril
Page 48 and 49: 4 Figure 1:Lewin’s phase model of
Page 50 and 51: 4 CHANGE PROCESS 4.5.2.3 Step 3: Cr
Page 52 and 53: 4 CHANGE PROCESS 4.5.3 Involvement
Page 54 and 55: 4 CHANGE PROCESS Then create a visi
Page 56 and 57: 5 Technology Management Figure 2: T
Page 60 and 61: 5 Technology Management nology port
Page 62 and 63: 5 Technology Management Technology
Page 64 and 65: 5 Technology Management Delphi Meth
Page 66 and 67: 5 Technology Management Figure 18:
Page 68 and 69: 5 Technology Management Dodgson, Ma
Page 70 and 71: 6 KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER Figure 2: Proc
Page 72 and 73: 6 KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER The empirical
Page 74 and 75: 6 KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER Figure 11: Inn
Page 76 and 77: 6 KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER The second pha
Page 78 and 79: 6 KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER In order to se
Page 80 and 81: 6 KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER tions of journ
Page 82 and 83: 7 Innovation und Technologietransfe
Page 100 and 101: 7 Financiranje in podporno okolje v
Page 108 and 109:
7 Financiranje in podporno okolje v
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
8 Učinkovito upravljanje intelektu
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
8 Immaterialgüterrecht (Österreic
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
9 Product and Service Dissemination
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154:
show all

TEchNOLOGy TRaNSFER MODEL - Javna agencija

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?