perspectives on the management of technology

Perspectives on the Management of Technology

By Gerard H. (Gus) GaynorRetired 3M Director of Engineering

President, IEEE Technology Management Council

IEEE-USA E-Books

Published by IEEE-USA

Copyright © 2008 by the IEEE. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

Edited by Georgia C. Stelluto, IEEE-USA Publishing Manager

Cover design and layout by Josie Thompson, Thompson Design

This IEEE-USA publication is made possible through funding provided by a special dues assessment of IEEE members residing in the United States.

Copying this material in any form is not permitted without prior written approval from the IEEE.

3Table Of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Origins of MOT in Academia and Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Where Are We Today? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Technology, Management, Engineering Management, Management of Technology . . . . . 8

Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Management of Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Management of Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Critical Issues in MOT Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Mindless Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Overspecialization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Peculiar Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Critical Issues in MOT Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Back to Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

What Are We Trying to Accomplish with MOT? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

What Were the Expectations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Who Are the Players? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Research in MOT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

The MOT Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Chief Technology Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

MOT Body of Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Challenges in Promoting MOT in Academia and Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

PErSPECTIvES On THE MAnAGEMEnT Of TECHnOlOGy

4 Introduction

You may ask why technology professionals and engineering and technology managers should be interested in the concept, Management of Technology (MOT). My objective is

to provide some general background information, report on the current status of MOT, identify what needs to be done to develop MOT as a recognized academic discipline, and provide a positive impact on industry operations.

Technology professionals and technology managers have heard much over the years about managing technology specialists. I use the term technology professionals to include the complete technology family that includes engineers, scientists, software developers, support personnel, and others responsible for creating new products and processes. Managing technology professionals is an oxymoron. Managing any professional is an oxymoron. Why? Because it’s difficult, if not impossible, to manage knowledge workers (in the classical sense) who are hired to demonstrate their thinking, their creativity, and their dedication in developing new products, new services and new processes. The best any manager can do is manage the “activities” of technology professionals and the interaction with other professionals in meeting organizational objectives. Technology managers must differentiate between managing technology professionals and managing their activities. What does this technology manager and technology professional relationship have to do with managing technology? Managing technology goes far beyond managing engineering operations: it requires a change in the mindset of the technology professionals and their managers; both need to expand their roles in meeting organizational results.

~Gus Gaynor


5Origins of MOT in Academia and Industry

What was to become the discipline of Management of Technology (MOT) began over four decades ago with articles in the Economist, but more formally over two decades ago

with great expectations from both academia and industry. While most discussion involves MOT, I also consider its complement — Managing Technology (MT). MOT applies to the research and academic aspects, and MT applies to the doing of MOT— which is MT.

At the First International Conference on Engineering Management, in 1986, Dr. Edward Roberts1, David Sarnoff professor of management of technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, suggested that the failures of the automotive, office equipment and electronics industries were not a result of economic conditions, technology policies, trade regulations, or political policies — but from the inability of industry to implement programs in managing technology. Roberts emphasized:

• Integrating technology into the firm’s strategic objectives

• Being proactive in introducing new technologies, new products and processes, with an emphasis on cycle time

• Increasing productivity of the firm’s technical community

• Understanding the interdisciplinary needs of project management

• Analyzing the organization’s resources and infrastructure in selecting the scope of technical activities and the work effort

Roberts’ major concern was that engineering and management were being taught as two separate disciplines — nobody was teaching engineering and management as a combined discipline. Keep in mind, this is in 1986.

Resolving each of these eight major issues involves knowledge related to strategic thinking, organizational behavior, finance, operations research, marketing, science, engineering, risk analysis, political science, human resource management, infrastructure development, and much more. MOT involves more than completing technology projects: it involves multi-disciplinary knowledge.

Management of Technology: The Hidden Competitive Advantage2 was published in 1987. The Task Force and its many Committees included representatives from academia, industry and government. The Report was prepared because of the decline in international competitiveness of U.S. industries. We continue the same discussion in 2008. Managers somehow lost their awareness of the importance of the role technology plays in shaping the “economic future of their firms.” This scenario was taking place in 1987, when international competition, primarily from Japan, was decimating the U.S. automobile and electronic


6 industries. The United States was late in accepting computer-aided design and manufacturing, concurrent engineering, and cycle-time reduction. The work of Dr. W. Edwards Deming and Dr. Joseph Juran focusing on reducing product defects generally was disregarded (if not all together ignored) by US industry, but Japanese industry accepted it, and practiced it with determination. It took several years before U.S. industry took on the challenge to reduce product defects.

The Report describes Management of Technology as:

“ Management of technology links engineering, science and management disciplines to plan, develop and implement technological capabilities to shape and accomplish the strategic and operational objectives of an organization.”

The key elements of MOT in industrial practice include:

1. Identifying and evaluating technical options

2. Managing research and development

3. Integrating technology into the firm’s operations

4. Implementing new technologies in products and processes

5. Obsolescing and replacing products and processes

Resolving each of these five major issues involves knowledge related to strategic thinking, organizational behavior, finance, operations research, marketing, science, engineering, risk analysis, political science, human resource management, infrastructure development, and much more. MOT involves more than completing technology projects. It involves multi-disciplinary knowledge and inter-disciplinary interaction.

OrIGInS Of MOT In ACAdEMIA And IndUSTry

7


Where Are We today?

Management of Technology (MOT) as an academic discipline and an industry practice was heralded as a solution for providing growth opportunities by linking technology and

management. Some two decades later, little (if any) agreement exists as to the direction of MOT research, to whom MOT should be directed, what should be taught in MOT programs, and how MOT should be practiced in industry. The concept of managing technology provided a multi-disciplinary approach to managing the impact of technological change. Unfortunately multi-disciplinary scholarship does not necessarily fit into the strategic directions of academia and industry has not as yet found a way to manage its technologies and operations from a systems perspective — the functional silos continue. The best that can be said is that academia and industry promote MOT by trial and error. Academia has not made significant progress in developing MOT as a discipline. And industry has failed to recognize the advantages from managing technology from a systems perspective.

Chapter 4

8 Technology, Management, Engineering Management, Management of Technology

Lack of or ambiguous communication too often creates difficulties in implementing workable concepts. In our age of total freedom of expression, individuals and groups develop new

definitions or descriptions for old concepts and disregard the language of practice. What at one time was referred to a block diagramming now becomes mapping. What was at one time a major change in direction now becomes a new paradigm. Invention is confused with innovation. Management of engineering is considered equivalent to management of technology. The same applies to our understanding of descriptions of technology, management, technology management, and engineering management. While everyone may not agree on definitions, the starting point must, at a minimum, include an understanding of the terms and the context in which they are being used.

Technology

There is no shortage of descriptions or definitions for technology but not one has been accepted universally. Shenhar3 et al. include ten definitions that range from the simple to complex. Some examples include:

“Technology is knowledge embedded in products and processes.”

“Technology is created capability.”

“Technology is the totality of means created by people to facilitate human activity.”

“ Technology is science-based knowledge that can be “reduced to practice” or optimized toward commercial use.”

“ Technology is a systematic and standardized means for achieving any predetermined result.”

Shenhar goes back to the original meaning of the Greek term “techne” meaning “knowledge of technical things” and links “techne” with the word “artifact” — which is defined as any object made by humans. Artifacts can be divided into “art or artistic artifacts” that cannot be reproduced, and “man-made objects” are those that can be reproduced. Shenhar refers to these man-made artifacts as “technofacts.” Technology then involves capability to create technofacts which involves knowledge, skills, machinery, processes and methodology. In essence, “technology is the capability to create artifacts.”

A hierarchy or continuum of technofacts begins with basic materials and concludes with what Shenhar describes as an array. Shenhar suggests six levels of artifacts:

• Material: basic materials like steel, glass, and plastics

• Components: simple products never used as end products like wire, switches, and building elements of any kind


9• Assemblies: a linkage of components that perform a single or limited function like a power supply for a computer or any stand-alone assembly of components

• Systems: a complex of assemblies that perform multiple functions, such as a radar system or an automobile

• Platforms: a base or carrier on which systems can be incorporated such as ships, airplanes, and buildings

• Arrays: a widely dispersed collection of systems and platforms functioning to meet a common purpose, such as an air traffic control system or national communication system

Management

Management is not science, although the scientific method can be used in developing the information required for sound decision-making. Management research has not as yet developed workable algorithms to predict the results from a group of people working to accomplish a particular task. Management as a practice is not new; it is ancient, but as a discipline, its roots begin in the World War II period. As Peter Drucker4 has noted, “management deals with action and application: and its test is results.” Drucker has also noted on many occasions that the practice of management is truly a “liberal art.” If we agree that “management deals with action and application; and its test is results,” we must recognize what it takes on the part of managers to fulfill that maxim. Too often, we disregard the importance of managing. Henry Mintzberg reminds us:

“ No job is more vital to our society than that of the manager. It is the manager who determines whether our social institutions serve us well, or whether they squander our talents and resources.”

If by chance you should doubt those words, just reflect on your career and the career of your colleagues and recognize the implications of poor management. Managers can take the best and the brightest, and because of lack of understanding, destroy a career. Those are words that managers, as well as technology professionals and others engaged in the practice of managing, need to think about seriously. Every failure and every success in academia, government and industry can be traced to the manager’s performance. As managers we can foster environments that promote innovation; we can foster environments that build successful careers; we can foster environments that build successful organizations. The “managing credo” places final responsibility and accountability for results on the manager.

Effective management involves:

1. Administration

2. Direction

3. Leadership

TECHnOlOGy, MAnAGEMEnT, EnGInEErInG MAnAGEMEnT, MAnAGEMEnT Of TECHnOlOGy

10 Administration

Administrative matters must be executed but cannot dominate. The department effort must be planned; performance appraisal requires continuous attention; various routine documents must be reviewed, discussed, and approved, or disposed of in some manner; the organizational pa-per must be moved through the system; reports must be submitted; staff needs to be hired, as well as occasionally reeducated, transferred, or terminated; meetings require attendance within the organizational unit and with cooperating organizational units; and various legal requirements require compliance. And there are many more routine duties that need to be performed.

Direction

Direction involves being a teacher, a coach, a promoter and an innovator. Managers provide direction by integrating the knowledge, skills, attitudes, personal characteristics, experiences, and the career needs of their employees to effectively and efficiently meet the needs of the organization. Basically, direction involves managing the assigned and available resources within the organization’s infrastructure. Those resources include people with all their competencies or lack thereof, the intellectual property of the organization, available time, access to information, technology, the organization’s distribution system, customers and suppliers, production capability, and of course, the financial capability to meet the organization’s needs.

Infrastructure includes the organization’s purpose, its vision and values, its goals and objectives, the organizational structure, the management attributes, the attitude toward risk taking, the policies and procedures, and finally, the ability to communicate effectively what needs to be communicated. One major infrastructure element that supersedes all others is the managers’ capability to create a culture that fosters innovation.

Leadership

Much has been written about the differences between managers and leaders. If the assump-tion is made that managing and leadership are two independent functions, then much of what has been written has not provided any guidance to managers or leaders. Managers who do not demonstrate leadership are not managers and leaders who lack competency in managing are not leaders. Leadership and management are opposite sides of the same coin. Leaders do not lead 24-7-365. Leadership involves being the pathfinder, defining the future and meeting expectations, and taking the initiative. I prefer to think of leadership as taking the lead — which involves accepting responsibility and accountability for actions; accepting the messenger with bad news; making judgments on the available facts (usually insufficient facts); challenging the status quo; making the complex simple; challenging the experts; obsolescing the present before its time; and fulfilling what I describe as the six “I’s” – initiative, imagination, interest, invention, innovation and implementation. Taking the lead also requires managers and technology professionals to think strategically, create new opportunities, communicate and collaborate, develop a business perspective, become innovators and entrepreneurs, cross traditional boundaries, and sharpen all their skills to meet the requirements in the context in which they are working.

We need to recognize the differences between management and administration. Administration usually involves following rules, regulations, processes and specified methodologies. Admin-istrators seldom focus on creativity, foster an innovative environment, take risks, and focus on change: they are more attuned to fostering the status quo. Administration is not management.

TECHnOlOGy, MAnAGEMEnT, EnGInEErInG MAnAGEMEnT, MAnAGEMEnT Of TECHnOlOGy

11Management of Engineering

Management of Engineering (ME) is much different from MOT. ME is just what the name implies and basically involves managing engineering operations. This in no way belittles

the responsibilities or contributions of those involved in managing the engineering process, whether in a start-up organization or a major multi-national corporation. Most engineering organizational units focus on meeting specifications, schedules and costs in the complete chain of activities required to bring quality products to the marketplace. Yes, they do have responsibilities that include developing budgets, hiring and performing performance appraisals, serving on other organizational committees, and interacting with other operational functions. Relatively few engineering managers adopt what I refer to as performing the engineering function from a systems perspective.

The systems perspective to managing engineering goes beyond just performing the duties assigned to the engineering department: it involves considering engineering decisions from the perspective of the organization and not just engineering. As an example, the extensive discussions, and often acrimony, created between engineering and marketing benefit neither marketing nor engineering — and certainly provide no benefit to the organization. An engineering success and a marketing failure should not provide a sense of pride for engineering. Few engineering managers develop technology policy. Few engineering managers develop technology strategy. Few engineering managers cross discipline boundaries and interact with their counterparts in other organizational functions. Managing engineering from a systems perspective involves looking beyond the needs of engineering and focusing on the business picture. I’m not placing blame on engineers and engineering managers for this lack of a systems perspective, because such a perspective is not fostered by executives as a rule. However, the business of engineering and technology is “the business”— not the engineering and technology. Technology is what provides the stimulus to grow the business.

One of the best experiences I had as a young engineer was the organization’s expectation that young engineers would do booth duty at the organization’s trade shows. What better way to find out what customers think of your design work. What better way to gain first hand an appreciation for the needs of customers. What better way to explore future customer needs. Such experiences quickly begin to change the view of just what being an engineer or engineering manager involves. How many engineers consider the manufacturability of their product designs? Yes, some do, but we know too many focus only on their parts — basically disregarding how their designs will be manufactured. How could General Motors invest billions of dollars in 1987 in redesigned product lines and automated factories that resulted in one of the highest manufacturing costs in the industry?


12 Management of Technology (MOT)

The Hidden Competitive Advantage described MOT as:

“ Management of technology links engineering, science and management disciplines to plan, develop and implement technological capabilities to shape and accomplish the strategic and operational objectives of an organization3.”

We need to ask if this description has hindered substantive academic research and acceptance by industry. As noted in Shenhar, “it describes MOT in terms of what it does rather than what it is.” In essence, this description provides no boundaries. It includes any organization that uses technology in pursuit of its objectives. It includes any individual who uses technology in pursuit of some goal. In many organizations, technology is accepted as a necessary condition for survival -- but there is no attempt to manage technology. The organization just uses the technologies that have been proven and available to all organizations. Technology is not used to develop competitive advantage. More importantly, technology does not focus on the total organization. And much too often, the technology focus is limited to information technology.

Shenhar explores the boundaries of MOT. Some researchers have described MOT as management of technology-based organizations. In these organizations, technology would be considered a strategic issue. Others have substituted “high-tech” for “technology-based.” The requirements of a “technology-based” organization include use of a strong scientific- technical base, obsolescing of current technologies and a preference for new technologies, and using new technologies to revolutionize markets. Shenhar once again goes back to basics. If technology is analogous to other “-ologies”, why talk only about MOT, and not management of psychology and other “-ologies”? The fact remains that the management part of MOT only applies when considered in a particular organizational context. So Shenhar concludes that MOT is the “management of organizations that create economic value through technology.” This description tells what MOT is and not what it does. The “doing” can take on many different approaches, depending on the industry in which an organization operates. Implementation would be quite different in Boeing, GE, BMW, Toyota, Intel and 3M.


13Critical Issues in MOT research

Except for the early days of MOT, little substantive and directed research has come forward from the academic community. There are bits and pieces and mostly on the surface. Few

longitudinal studies are available. Many academics have reached the “guru” status, with books and consulting services that promote some definitive process or methodology to solving all problems. Much research from the academic community is paper-oriented, justifying self- evident hypotheses.

At the 1989 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (1 August 1989), Arthur G. Bedeian5, President of the Academy, challenged the research community in his presentation Totems and Taboos: Undercurrents in the Management Discipline. Bedeian identified three undercurrents: Mindless Research, Overspecialization, and what he referred to as a Peculiar Situation.

Mindless Research

• Using proxies that have the most tenuous logical and empirical connection to the phenomena under study

• Mindlessness in grounding the analysis of a complicated phenomenon on survey questions, without any idea of how respondents understood the questions

• Mindless fieldwork, with thick descriptions of what is already common knowledge

• Failure to foster a productive interplay between theory and research

• Research that begins with hypotheses that are clearly true, and if all premises held, the hypotheses would be obviously true

• Too much of the discipline is “theory thin” and “method driven”

Overspecialization

• Movement toward greater and greater academic specialization

• Today’s graduates are not being trained in management, but in such subfields as “transaction cost analysis” and “resource dependency”

• Researchers cultivating their own turf

• Current subfield boundaries within the discipline of management are arbitrary

• The discipline needs what Daniel P. Moynihan has called the “great complexifiers,” the Chester I. Barnards and the Mary P. Folletts, the people who tend to gravitate to ambiguity, and away from subjective certainty.


14 Peculiar Institution

• Although educators are paid for the number of courses they teach, they are promoted on how much they publish and only sometimes by the quality of their publications.

• Careers advance through quantity rather than quality.

• Academics have been criticized for being more interested in their careers than educating the constituencies of management.

• Academia needs a broader definition of scholarship that includes teaching, research and service.

• One possible solution: Upon receipt of a terminal degree, potential authors receive an allocation of a fixed number of journal papers for their career -- perhaps the emphasis would change from quantity to quality.

In his conclusion, Bedeian says:

“ As currently practiced, most of our tenure and promotion systems not only discourage interdisciplinary, longitudinal field studies — the “anthropological field work” that is so badly needed as a foundation for meaningful research — but also topics where “risk” is involved. The jeopardy of being unable to collect necessary data, or not finding statistically significant results, or engaging in research projects that are meaningful, but take years before a worthwhile product can be identified are luxuries seldom tolerated by most tenure and promotion systems.”

Professor Bedeian saw opportunities in linking academia and industry through relevant research. After almost twenty-years of mindless research, overspecialization, and the peculiarity of academic institutions, it seems granting tenure on the basis of quantity rather than quality continues.

CrITICAl ISSUES In MOT rESEArCH

15Critical Issues in MOT Education

The MOT educational programs have not been defined by either the academic or business communities. While many universities provide graduate level programs in some form

of technology management, arriving at a consensus as to what should be taught has been elusive. A 1991 paper by Judith Kamm6 reviewed the curricula of some 100 plus MOT programs and found no clear understanding among academicians regarding the purposes, objectives and strategies associated with MOT educational programs. There was a great deal of diversity in thinking as to what an MOT program should include. As I read through the objectives of these programs in the Kamm Report, I was concerned about two issues:

1) Most programs are modified MBA programs and

2) An analysis of the verbs used to describe the participation by professors and students showed that:

• Professors: clarify, design, develop, give, help, introduce, offer, present, promote, provide, and utilize

• Students: acquire, come to understand, gain, overcome, study, understand

• Professors and students: consider, examine, explore, identify, and recognize

These verbs suggest that professors give and students receive. The verb “experience” was missing. There were no significant opportunities for experiencing what’s involved in MOT.

I found this most disconcerting, since MOT focuses on integration and takes a holistic perspec-tive on the impact of technology in providing competitive advantage. The curricula did not seem appropriate for someone who was to take on the responsibilities of a chief technology officer (CTO). Few significant changes have taken place since 1991. Since implementation of MOT is practitioner oriented, I suggest that MOT education must provide not only theory and history, but also opportunities for experiencing the ways and means for implementing MOT.

There are several reasons for this lack of consistency:

1) Academic institutions were quick to recognize MOT programs as not only an addition-al source of revenue, but for providing a new field for research and teaching.

2) There was no, so-to-speak, academic home for MOT.

and

3) Industry began to finance university MOT programs without adequate discussion and consideration as to the deliverables.


16 The MOT educational and industry communities failed to identify the MOT educational requirements for the communities to be served. They didn’t consider just how this concept we called MOT was to be implemented. We need to ask:

1. Do current MOT programs serve the technical professional looking to become a manager in one of the technology related business functions, such as research, development, manufacturing, or marketing?

2. Do current MOT programs serve the technology manager looking for a more expansive role in some aspect of managing technology?

3. Do current MOT programs serve the technology professional looking to become the organization’s chief technology officer (CTO)?

My experience shows that most MOT programs are directed toward professional specialists seeking mid-level positions in managing one of the technical functions. First, most MOT programs involve a combination of some required courses that include subjects like strategy, marketing, operations research, finance/accounting, technology forecasting, information systems, statistics, communication, leadership, project management, innovation, entrepreneur-ship, and a selection of several electives and perhaps some form of capstone project. This curriculum does not meet the requirements of a person designated to be the chief technology officer, or an upper level manager of some technology function who has responsibility for codifying and proposing future directions in technology. Perhaps in the urgency to develop an MOT curriculum, educators disregarded the needs of different groups of constituents.

The educational needs for these three groups must relate in some manner to their future work. They are significantly different. Not only are they different but also require different levels of depth to be productive. Expanded survey courses do not meet the requirements. A modified MBA program does not meet the requirements. While a course in operations research may be desirable, is it necessary? Obviously, the knowledge and experiences that individuals bring to each of these three educational requirements determines the results to be achieved. As currently structured, the curricula do not teach about taking a broader perspective of the im-plications of technology on organizational performance. The MOT curricula as structured and the MBA curricula do not teach the basics of how to manage. They teach “topics” and even capstone projects or work-related programs do not provide the opportunities for experiencing the leadership that would be expected from a person with an advanced degree in MOT. One of my greatest concerns after teaching in two graduate-level programs in MOT for over a five-year period was that nobody really aspired to top-level management: Most students were interested in being appointed as a manager, but not seeking top-level positions; that was disappointing.

It appears that the roles that these three groups will play in determining the future of the organization have not been considered. What roles will each of these three groups (the techni-cal professional aspiring to management, the upper-level manager, the aspiring CTO) play in building the firm’s future? Does someone being appointed to a CTO position need courses on management basics, project management, strategy, accounting, or any number of other courses that now make up the MOT curriculum? If so, that applicant probably does not bring the minimum of credentials and experience to the job. What each participant must bring “to the table,” so-to-speak, to function successfully in the assigned role has not been codified to meet specific requirements.

CrITICAl ISSUES In MOT EdUCATIOn

17Back to Basics

As an engineer, whenever I found myself struggling for a solution, I concluded it was best to stop and reflect for a moment and then go back to the “basics.” It’s difficult to contra-

dict fundamentals and though the fundamentals of engineering are more definable than those related to managing, I suggest that they can be applied to the issues related to management. In our quest to resolve the issues related to MOT perhaps we have not described adequately the mission of MOT. So, in my desire to rethink MOT, I pose some questions:

1. What are we trying to accomplish with MOT that’s different from managing engineering?

2. What are the expectations from investing in MOT?

3. Who are the players?

4. What kind of research will provide a benefit for industry, and at the same time develop scholars in MOT?

5. Where does the organization begin implementing a program in MOT?

6. What are the expectations from the designated Chief Technology Officer?

What are we trying to accomplish with MOT?

MOT was intended to integrate technology into the organization’s strategy. It was to be interdisciplinary. It was to spur the creativity and innovation in introducing new technologies. It was to provide the required resources and organizational infrastructure and increase the productivity of the technical community. MOT was to link the engineering, science and management disciplines. That word “link” may be the problem because MOT involves more than providing a link. It requires bringing together engineering and science to optimize the benefits to the organization. It requires identifying, developing, and implementing identified actions. If MOT is operational, the functional silos may exist structurally and on the organization chart, but the mental attitude within those silos must transcend the physical description of the silo. We cannot claim MOT operational, if the six major contributors — research, development, design, manufacturing, marketing, and information — operate independently, with only occasional opportunities for resolving differences. That bringing together requires changing the mindset, not only of managers at all levels, but also all the discipline specialists — to understand that a success in any one silo is of no value if the project fails. That mindset requires acknowledging and recognizing that a single decision within any function may require significant changes in other functions. A change in research direction could negatively affect manufacturing. New information in marketing could force changes in research, product development and manufacturing, and possibly in the distribution and administration operations.


18 What were the expectations?

The expectations from MOT were very high. The premises were quite simple; the academic community would provide the relevant research and industry would implement the results. Research would eventually define the discipline of MOT. But the relevant research efforts were short lived. While some excellent research was provided in relation to general management issues, research specifically related to MOT was limited and questioned as to its usability, because of the limited scope of the research. In the process, the word “innovation” crept into the MOT vocabulary, and often dominated the discussion and the published research. Here too, few longitudinal studies were undertaken grounded in research that would go beyond the obvious for those of us who have been involved in doing “innovation.”

MOT practice expected organizations to adopt new technologies and exit old technologies in a timely manner; track and evaluate new technologies; assess future directions of technology (project into the future and speculate if you wish); and not only reduce product development times, but also consider the total time required from concept to commercialization. MOT principles required using cross-disciplinary approaches to resolving issues. Organizations basically operate in a matrix form. The silos not only exist in R&D, marketing, manufacturing, product development, engineering, and other functions — but within functions. Those silos do exist between electrical, electronic, mechanical, chemical, and even among their sub-functional groups. As noted, managing requires integration of many sources of knowledge and many activities. A new mindset must be created, if MOT is to provide the expected benefits.

Who are the players?

Theoretically one could argue that everyone in the organization has some opportunities for providing input to managing technology, since one of the major requirements of MOT includes the capability of tracking technologies — not only those of immediate concern, but to consider future possibilities for gaining competitive advantage. However, the primary responsibility falls to the scientists, engineers and all other technology professionals and their managers from the first to the uppermost levels. These are the people who should know what is going on in their particular field of interest. But as with other responsibilities, someone must be responsible and accountable for the results. If everyone has responsibility, no one has responsibility or account-ability for the results.

If organizations were to manage their technologies, there was obviously a need for some one to manage this activity, so the office of the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) came to life. Little thought was given as to just how the CTO would function. Not much information was provided as to the role and expectations of the position. A research executive could become the CTO. Any seasoned executive of the organization could become the CTO. But the function of the CTO involves more than technology: it involves intimate knowledge of where the organiza-tion is directing its future, understanding of the competition and not only the financial numbers but the history of the competition, and the ability to not only think about the future individually but garner the organization’s key technical personnel to direct the future. But the function of the CTO must be defined, the limits of authority must be clearly stated, and a decision must be made as to whether the position is advisory or operational. Will the CTO become the, so-to-speak, technology czar? It appears that these questions and others were never answered because they were never asked.


So, the issue is not so much the role of the CTO but the role of the Office of the CTO, which would include representatives from the functional groups -- not based on rank but on knowledge. Bringing people into a discussion who can only opine and not present factual information provides little, if any, benefit. Eventually someone in authority must make a decision, but that decision must be grounded in knowledge, and not from the latest newsletter from an organization promoting an agenda.

So, how does an organization find a way to understand the limitations of their current technologies, and those that currently do not impact them, but may in the future? How do they track these technology advancements? Will one person, the CTO, fulfill such a mission? I suggest that may be an impossible task, if for no other reason than the inability of a single individual to possess the competence to cope with the many technologies associated with any organization’s business. I suggest that responsibility for pursuing or implementing appropriate technologies cannot be given to one person. The manager and the related specialists of any technology function have the responsibility for keeping abreast of the technologies related to that sector of the business, including research, development, manufacturing, marketing, and all the sub-functions associated with these groups. Managers and their associated colleagues, however, should have input to the CTO, if there is one, and work cooperatively to meet the organization’s objectives. The CTO, however, is expected to have a much broader perspective about the interaction of technologies, how to make technology choices, and understand future technology directions.

BACk TO BASICSBACk TO BASICS

20 research in MOT

While much was written about what research was required to move MOT into organiza-tional operations, very little was funded and most came from MBA and doctoral papers.

In 1994, Albert H. Rubenstein’s7, Trends in Technology Management Revisited, identified areas of research that needed attention:

1. Technical Entrepreneurship in the Firm – an important organizational activity, but with few successes

2. The Role of Corporate Research Laboratories – many organizations have scaled back these operations in preference to more related product or process research

3. Networking of Divisional Technology – forcing intercommunication to take full advantage of the organization’s leading-edge technologies seldom works — who owns the organization’s intellectual property?

4. Long-Range Technology Planning – proactive technology planning, not as an afterthought, but as a continuous activity

5. R&D Production Interface – using concurrent development processes and eliminating the barriers

6. Evaluation and Technology Audit – it’s more than project selection — auditors need more than a technical background; they need market understanding

7. Expert Systems – we have only seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to artificial intelligence; it requires some new thinking

8. Make or Buy – what should be outsourced and under what circumstances

9. Technology Policy and Embedded Technology Capabilities – organizations seldom enunciate a technology policy and evaluate their technical capabilities beyond the typical performance appraisal — what is the net value of the capabilities?

10. Software Development Process – new technology for researchers, but every researcher does not have to be a software developer

11. Source of Chief Technical Officers – need for people with a cultural attachment to technology

12. Effects of Strategic Business Units on Technology and Innovation – what is the impact; short- and long-term?

These areas of research could have provided industry with some valuable input for improving performance of all technology operations. With relevance, industry will listen. It is unfortunate that an MOT Think-Tank never materialized two decades ago. While many papers have been published, most reflect a very short-term perspective. The 12 major areas of research identified by Albert Rubenstein continue to be the top research priorities.


21The MOT Organization

Figure 1 illustrates a simplified model of an organization: it is divided into three primary activities: Genesis, Distribution and Administration. I use the word Genesis to include the

organization’s sources of creativity and innovation for new products, services and processes. Genesis does not mean that creativity and innovation do not play a major role in the Distribution and Administration areas. While the Genesis function is not responsible exclusively for creativity and innovation, it provides the initiative and thinking that drives an organization’s performance. The Distribution function includes sales, physical distribution and customer service. The Administration function includes financial, procurement, patents, legal, human resources, general administration and public relations. Each of these specific activity categories can be subdivided in many sub-categories.

ACTIVITY

GENESIS DISTRIBUTION ADMINISTRATION

RESEARCH SALES FINANCIAL

DEVELOPMENT PHYSICAL DISTRIBUTION PROCUREMENT

DESIGN CUSTOMER SERVICE PATENT AND LEGAL

MANUFACTURING HUMAN RESOURCES

MARKETING GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

INFORMATION PUBLIC RELATIONS

Figure 1 Functional Organizational Model

In recent years, significant resources have been allocated to information technology, and at times, it appears when the word “technology” is mentioned, it too often embraces only information technology. No doubt information technology is a vital component in the manage-ment function, but it is only a means to an end — it is not the end. As an example, the CERN Large Hadron Collider, atom smasher, constitutes many technologies and obviously includes information technologies — but these information technologies, while important, represent the means for integrating the various functions of the Collider — they are not the Collider.

Figure 1 represents a typical organization. What are the differences in managing this model from a purely management perspective and from a technology management perspective? In the ideal world, there would be no difference. Executives and managers would be sensitive to issues of competition. They would recognize that what we refer to as market competition is really technology competition. All executives and managers would be technologically literate. But that’s not the real world. We are all familiar with why organizations often fail to meet expectations: functional managers focus on their function; upper level managers focus on their short-term responsibilities; and when we reach the executive levels, the focus is on the bottom line. We can argue this practice, but unless an organization meets its short-term tar-


22gets, it will not meet its long-term targets. We also need to recognize that society, as a collective, prefers to live with the status quo, rather than play the role of the pathfinder. Relatively few organizations are driven by innovation and entrepreneurship; relatively few managers take initiative and focus with regard to the future. The emphasis is on today.

How can these functions be integrated? Figure 2 shows a stage by stage process for integrating the organizational functions.

LEVELS of INTEGRATION of BUSINESS FUNCTIONS in MOT

Information Information Information Information Information

Research Research Research Research Research Development Development Development Development Development Design Design Design Design Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Marketing Marketing Marketing Marketing Sales Sales Sales Physical Physical Physical Description Description Description Customer Customer Customer Service Service Service Financial Financial Procurement Procurement Patent and Patent and Legal Legal Human Res. Human Res. General Adm. General Adm. Public Rel. Public Rel. Customers Suppliers Other Internal Other External

STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4 STAGE 5

Figure 2 Five Stages of MOT Integration

Figure 2 represents a five stage process for implementing MOT. Any effort to integrate aspects of MOT begins with providing the means for socializing the impact of the change on both individual and organizational performance. Developing and using information guides all five stages. But information is not technology information involves 1) developing information that can be analyzed and 2) technology to process the information.


23The process begins at Stage 1 with the intention of integrating the activities of research and development. Integration means focusing on the defined program or programs and recognizing that tradeoffs will need to be negotiated. A researcher with an understanding of development not only works more effectively, but also prevents countless of hours of rework. Stage 2 adds design, manufacturing, and marketing as required. Stages 2 to 5 are self-evident. Stage 5 adds customers and suppliers, other internal and other external.

While Figure 2 illustrates the five stages, how can managers make it a reality? Change doesn’t come easily. It may be beneficial to begin by putting together a team that will lead the project. The team begins the socialization of the issues. The mindset must be changed. Organizational structures will not cease to exist. There is one simple answer: develop the information to show what operating these functions as silos costs the silo, and the organization. If the managers and discipline specialists cannot understand the costs involved, then perhaps some education may be required, or eventually some terminations may be in order. It’s not possible to build a successful team without the appropriate talent, especially if that talent resists learning what is required to make it successful.

Chief Technology Officer

Dr. Rias van Wyk8 has described the requirements of the CTO as tracking the major trends in technological evolution and implementing the technological advances for the benefit of the organization.

Dr. van Wyk defines the key tasks of the CTO as:

1. Maintaining a corporate technology knowledge center

2. Participating in overall strategy development

3. Assisting the board and senior management to become technologically literate

4. Assisting investor relations to promote technological vitality

These four tasks describe not only the role of the CTO but the Office of the CTO. This Office becomes the organizations’ Technology Center, requiring not only the CTO, but also input from all those managers and discipline specialists involved in the technology-related functions — and from whoever may be knowledgeable.

Changing the title from vice president of research to chief technology officer without changing the job design provides no significant benefit. Wouldn’t it be plausible to think that looking into future potential technologies already exists in the job description of the vice president of research? The responsibility of the CTO involves giving consideration to all technologies required to move products successfully from the laboratory to the marketplace. It will involve knowing about and identifying the directions and timing of those new discoveries. The CTO would be expected to provide wise counsel when introducing new technologies, and in the

THE MOT OrGAnIzATIOn

24discussions related to technology tradeoffs. So, what should the CTO bring to the table? Evidently, sufficient knowledge in technology is a given. Looking toward the future involves more that a PhD in some technical discipline. At one time in my career, I worked for a CEO who was an attorney by education, but was probably more technologically literate and interested in what technology can accomplish than many high level technology executives. He had an emotional and a cultural attachment to technology. He had highly developed powers of observation related to technology. He was a pathfinder for new applicable technologies for the business. He had an insatiable curiosity when it came to technology. These are some of the charismatics the CTO must bring to the position.

How much power should the CTO have? Just what role does the CTO play? The selection of a CTO depends on the role assigned. Is it that of a pathfinder, an advisor to top management? Or an advisor to those at the technology bench, a communicator, a manager of a report factory, a coordinator of all technologies?

THE MOT OrGAnIzATIOn

25MOT Body of knowledge

The Body of Knowledge (BOK) includes the requirements for the CTO or equivalent, several levels of managers, and the discipline professionals, and to all in the organization through

a general technology awareness program. Not all knowledge acquisition requires courses or advanced degrees. The MOT Body of Knowledge basically evolved from the MBA programs with the possible inclusion of courses in technology policy, technology forecasting, use of simulations and models, a focus on innovation and entrepreneurship, possibly organizational design, human behavior, economic analysis, and other courses that provide relevant knowledge and experiences. So, how can a manager manage effectively at any level, without considering the business or organizational system? What is missing is what it means to manage an organization.

Do we need a Body of Knowledge for the CTO? I doubt that a need exists to develop a Body of Knowledge for the organization’s CTO. I suggest that the selection of the CTO of an organization would involve an individual who understands the organization’s strategy and direction, who is technologically competent — not as a specialist — but who possesses a breadth of current as well as future technological requirements. This person may also need some exposure to the latest knowledge about assessing and mapping technologies, and charting the future technology directions within the context of the organization’s strategic direction. If the person selected to be the CTO needs to take a course in Financial Management for Non-Financial Managers, chances are, the wrong person has been selected. If the person selected to be the CTO needs to take a course in Project Management, chances are, the wrong person has been selected. If the person selected to be the CTO needs to visit a foreign country for a week to get exposure to other cultures, chances are, the wrong person has been selected.

There is a need, however, to develop a Body of Knowledge for technology managers and those aspiring to managing technology related functions who will bring a more comprehensive perspective than those managing engineering. If given the opportunities, such people can play a major role in the Office of the CTO. They should recognize that technology decisions are made in relation to the business and not to the technology. Using the most advanced technologies may not be essential, but knowing when to introduce a new technology from a business perspective is quite different from introducing it because it is new.

And here I’d like to introduce to you an approach by Dr. Rias van Wyk9. I propose his comments as a means for the MOT community to step back and engage in a rational conversation — to reconsider how this field of MOT, that drives economic growth and well-being, will fulfill its function.


26Dr. van Wyk asked where we are academically when it comes to MOT. He examined the academic status of knowledge and found the following in relation to MOT:

1. Technology

a. General theory of technology – dangerously underdeveloped

2. Technology-focused management topics

a. Generally well documented

3. General management topics

a. Extremely well developed

4. Supporting disciplines

a. Some areas are well developed, e.g. economics

He suggested the following template for MOT educational programs, recognizing that the needs will vary depending on the organization, and that the specific curriculum cannot be legislated, but must be grounded in the fundamentals. As noted, MOT was conceived and is multidisciplinary. Dr. van Wyk’s Educational Template suggests meeting three requirements:

1. Focused enough to emphasize the unique features of technology

2. Sufficiently broad to encompass the entire scope of MOT

3. Flexible enough to allow for creative diversity and competencies of host universities

The Template includes:

1. Technology-centered subjects – theory of technology, emerging technologies, technology foresight and specialty fields

2. Technology related management procedures – technology forecasting, managing research, development, new products, innovation, programs and projects and intellectual property

3. Corporate functions – strategy, marketing, finance, operations, management information systems, human resources and general administration

4. Supporting disciplines – national technology policy frameworks, general systems theory, futuristics, industrial ecology, ethics, economics, human behavior, quantitative methods, accounting and law

5. Special assignments – internships, capstone projects, research topics, business studies

MOT BOdy Of knOWlEdGE

27Challenges in Promoting MOT in Academia and Industry

Does promoting academic research in MOT and implementing MOT in industry provide any benefits in developing economic value through technology? The response should be

a resounding, yes. But for that to occur, the academic research must be relevant and industry must begin managing from a systems perspective. That shift cannot be accomplished without changing the mental approach to managing. A manager cannot just manage his or her activities without consideration of all the related functions. Technology successes, but business failures, provide no benefit. The functions of a technology group are not to use the latest technology. The function involves giving the customer products and services that provide that customer with a competitive advantage and that involves more than technology. It involves a process and a team that can take an idea and transform it into a useful product or service that is accepted by the marketplace. The research must be relevant, and managers of various technology-related functions need to develop a business perspective. The business of technology is business performance.

Making MOT a reality involves a response to the following issues:

1. Academia and industry need to reflect on what they’re attempting to accomplish through MOT education. Who are the candidates? What’s the purpose? What are the outcomes? For what kind of organization (Fortune 500 or the continuum from start-up to Fortune 500)?

2. MOT requires multi-disciplinary research. The academic community needs to promote research in MOT that crosscuts the disciplines. Such promotion will require a new approach to scholarship. Research from MBA programs or variations adapted as MOT programs will not satisfy the needs of scholarship.

3. The MOT curriculum needs to be defined to focus on MOT issues. Trying to include many basic management courses inhibits focusing on MOT issues. Perhaps the basic management course should be a requirement to participate in a MOT graduate program.

4. Much has been written about the Chief Technology Officer. Where are the programs that focus on the seasoned manager who needs not only general management education, but learning opportunities appropriate to the CTO?

5. Many people have graduated with their advanced degree in MOT. At what level are they working today? A study could show just where after these many years these graduated have progressed.


28 6. Attendance at the MOT academic programs as currently structured was expected to

influence the management of technology in industry. Research to determine benefits may reveal some of the shortcomings.

7. Do those attending current MOT programs develop the leadership competence to promote the principles of MOT in their organizations?

8. Industry continues as structured and operates basically along functional disciplines. What are the ways of breaking down these barriers that prevent optimizing performance?

9. Current MOT programs appear to educate for mid- to upper-level management positions in one of the technology related functions. While such programs may be beneficial, what are the requirements to take that education to the next level?

CHAllEnGES In PrOMOTInG MOT In ACAdEMIA And IndUSTry

29references:

1. Edward Roberts, Comments from the First International Conference on Engineering Management, 1996.

2. National Research Council, Management of Technology: The Hidden Competitive Advantage, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1981, p.13.

3. Aaron J. Shenhar, Rias van Wyk, Josa Stefanovic, Gerard Gaynor, Technofact: Toward a Fundamental Entity of Technology, IAMOT Conference, 2004, Washington, D.C.

4. Peter F. Drucker, People and Performance. New York: Harper’s College Press, 1977, 345.

5. Arthur G. Bedeian, Totems and Taboos: Undercurrents in the Management Discipline, Academy of Management News, Vol. 19, No.4 October 1989.

6. Judith Kamm, Report presented at a business meeting of the Technology and Innovation Management division of the Academy of Management, August 1991.

7. Albert H. Rubenstein, Trends in Technology Management Revisited, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 41, No. 4, November 1994.

8. Rias van Wyk, Personal discussions with Dr. van Wyk

9. Rias van Wyk, A Template for Graduate Programs in the Management of Technology, Report of the Education Committee of the International Association for Management of Technology (IAMOT), May 11, 2004

Suggested reading:

Rias van Wyk, Technology: A Unifying Code, Cape Town, 2005. ISBN: 062 032 029-Handbook

Handbook of Technology Management, published by McGraw-Hill, 1996, Gerard H. Gaynor, Editor-in-Chief.


1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1202 • Washington, D.C. 20036-5104+1 202 785 0017 • www.ieeeusa.org www.ieeeusa.org/communications/ebooks

perspectives on the management of technology

Documents