International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. www.ijicc.

net
Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019

Technology Strategy: Literature

Review and Issues
Suriani Sukria,b*, Rushami Zien Yusoffb, aSchool of Business Innovation
and Technopreneurship, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, 01000 Kangar, Perlis,
Malaysia. bSchool of Business Management, Universiti Utara Malaysia, 06010
Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia.
Email:*[email protected], [email protected]

Technology strategies have attracted serious research attention in the

recent past. In this paper, an attempt is made to review the status of the
literature as it relates to technology strategies. A literature
classification scheme is suggested. A total of 66 articles from refereed
journals and international conferences are classified into content
(technological capabilities, literature survey and performance
measurement) as well as issues to do with process application. The
methodology used to survey and study the relevant literature focuses
on conceptual, descriptive, empirical, exploratory cross-sectional and
exploratory longitudinal approaches. Based on this, possible research
issues are also identified.

Key words: Technology Strategy, Content-related issues, Process-related issues,

Conceptual, Descriptive, Empirical.

Introduction

For many years, American and European managers have been told by management gurus that
technology strategies should be given special attention as the study on technology strategies
has become increasingly important (Ford, 1988; Smith and Rogers, 2004). Ford (1988) in his
research states that technology strategies are not similar to an R&D strategy; the latter is
concerned only with acquiring technology through in-house activities. A technology strategy
is an aspect of that strategy concerned with exploiting, developing and maintaining the sum
total of a company’s knowledge and abilities. The development of a technology strategy is
the basis to foster future strategic behaviour that, in turn, leads to enhancing competitiveness
and growth. This is supported by Zahra (1996) who verifies that by possessing a technology
strategy, manufacturing companies are able to contribute and cope with its external
environmental effects and demands. To address this uncertain environment, manufacturers
should continue to examine their strategies, practices, capabilities and, in so doing, identify
their impact and performance (Ketokivi and Schroeder, 2004; Germain et al., 2008).
67
 International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. www.ijicc.net
Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019

To date, a number of studies have investigated the efficacy of a technology strategy (Parker,
2000; Li and Atuahene-Gima, 2001; Zahra and Nielsen, 2002; Wilbon, 2002; Gibbons and
O'Connor, 2003; Ngamkroeckjoti et al., 2005; Lin and Chang, 2006; Van de Velde, 2006;
Chen et al., 2008; Jin et al., 2008; Muhammad et al., 2009; Chadee and Pang, 2008; Man et
al., 2009; Ghazinoory and Farazkish, 2010; Dasgupta et al., 2014; Sikander, 2011; Husain,
2016; Nanayakkara et al., 2017). Most of these aforementioned studies are general and
focused on the contexts of high-tech companies (Lin et al., 2006; Man et al., 2009; Li and
Atuahene-Gima, 2001). Evidently, limited attention has been given to technology strategies
of manufacturing industries, regardless of their importance and potential. It is this very gap in
knowledge and understanding that makes the scope of study unique and wanting of further
explanation (Man et al., 2009). In current and competitive scenarios, technology strategies
assume significant and serious importance for research consideration.

The objective of this study is to provide an extensive literature review. 66 articles from
reputable journals and international conferences have been identified. More specifically, the
purpose of this study is to:

1. define what constitutes technology strategy research;

2. classify technology strategy research articles according their approach and
methodology and;
3. explore trends in technology strategy research and to suggest a research agenda for
future work.

This paper is structured as follows: (i) discussion of the literature classification scheme; (ii)
identification of gaps between theory and practice and; (iii) a suggested research agenda.

Technology Strategy

Having an established and embedded technology strategy is an essential part in creating an

organisation’s strategic position (Zahra and Bogner, 2000). It is an essential precondition that
takes advantage of current and effective technology. It works as a fundamental tool for
rivalry and establishes practical and physical alternative actions (Itami and Numagami,
1992). In a similar way, organisations’ core capabilities are dependent on technology as a
primary foundation.

As a variable, technology has become essential for profit or not-for-profit organisations to

maximise competitive advantages and to measure changes in performance. Zahra (1996)
emphasised that technology has been widely recognised as a cornerstone of an organisation’s
competitiveness through several mechanisms, such as creating barriers to entry, attracting
68
 International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. www.ijicc.net
Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019

new markets and customers and even changing the rules of competition in industry. Gillespie
and Mileti (1977), in Technology and the Study of Organisations, broaden the importance of
past technology to involve machine or equipment conceptualisation and incorporate delicate
advancements and utilisation qualities of present-day industry.

Miles and Snow (1978) and Porter (1985) recommend the linkage between technology and
strategy in that technology is assumed to be a noteworthy part in detailing different strategies.
Furthermore, a technology strategy chosen by organisations could shape an emerging
competitive nature within a select industry. In brief, the performance and achievement of an
organisation is fundamentally derived from the application of a technology strategy.
Essentially, a technology strategy is the process by which organisations utilise and deploy
their technological resources and capabilities to achieve corporate objectives (Rieck and
Dickson, 1993).

The evolution of a technology strategy is found in a number of studies and provide a

definition, concept and application. Initially, a ‘technology policy’ was applied to determine
the best alternatives for companies to acquire, develop and deploy technology to achieve
business and strategic goals (Adler, 1989; Zahra and Covin, 1993). Zahra (1996), in multiple
studies, stresses the acquisition and utilisation of technological resources and capabilities. A
technology strategy enables new businesses to make informed decisions regarding the
development and use of technological capabilities. Additionally, such a strategy empowers
firms to make educated choices and to determine options, while simultaneously enhancing
and utilising technological resources (Zahra and Bogner, 2000).

Narayanan (2001) in his book Managing Technology and Innovation for Competitive
Advantage expands the idea of technology strategy as uncovered technology designs.
Technology selections govern the type and degree of a company’s primary technological
capability and readiness of product and policy. The selections entail the liability of the
resources for fraud, preservation, utilisation and neglect of technological capabilities. Two
key points are central to a technology strategy. Firstly, carefully choosing a technology for
the purposes of either acquiring, developing, deploying or divesting. Secondly, uncovering
technology designs that are not only planned but can be further refined. A company
demonstrates its commitment to a technology strategy by executing resources and through
technology selection.

A study by Husain (2016) found that chief technology officers believed that a distinct focus is
emphasised in technology strategies and their indicators. The process of acquiring
technologies is achievable when there is no conflict of interest. If there was, this conflict of
interest needed to be addressed prior to achieving effective technological alliances. This is

69
 International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. www.ijicc.net
Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019

especially the case with equity interest, transparent digitisation, product, partnership and
market development.

Definition of Technology Strategy

Research of technology strategies has attracted interest in the field of strategic management.
Scholars have described technology strategy in several ways and from a range of
perspectives. Existing research has been scattered and, as such, differing meanings are used
to about technology strategies. Technology Strategy, according to Dodgson (1989),
Burgelman et al. (1996) and Zahra et al. (1994), indicate the need for companies to
strategically deploy technology. Companies need to align the strategy to ensure the linkage,
support, connection and sustainability of technology. Adler (1989) explains that a
‘technology strategy is a pattern of decisions that sets the technological goals and principal
technological means for achieving both those technological and business goals of the
organisation.’

Technology strategy is defined differently by scholars from various fields of study and Table
1 below provides a detailed overview of definitions used in previous research.

Table 1: Various Definitions of Technology Strategy Reported in the Literature

Author Definition of Technology Strategy
Maidique and Patch Technology strategy’s earliest concept was based on six
(1978) dimensions namely technology selection, level of competence,
the timing of technology introductions, level of investment,
organization and policies, and sources of technology.
Porter (1983a), Chiesa Technology strategy was a tool for effective use of technology
(2001) and Burgelman et to build new (offensive) or sustain (defensive) competitive
al. (2003) advantages.
Porter (1985) Effective deployment of the company’s technological
capabilities and resources that can enhance the company’s
financial performance and sustain the company’s competitive
advantages.
Porter (1985b) Suggested that a technology strategy must address at least three
broad areas: (i) the technologies to be developed, (ii) the need
to seek technology leadership in those technologies, and (iii) the
role of technology licensing.
Maidique and Patch Technology strategy consisted of a portfolio of choices and
(1988) plans that enabled the firm to respond effectively to
technological threats and opportunities.
Ford (1988) A formal plan for technology resources that guided long-term
70
 International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. www.ijicc.net
Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019

decisions related to development, acquisition, implementation,

and investment. Technology strategy consisted of policies,
plans and procedures for acquiring knowledge and ability,
managing that knowledge and ability within the company and
exploiting them for profit.
Burgelman and Proposed an evolutionary process perspective and framed the
Rosenbloom (1989) substance of technology strategy on competitive positioning,
technology and value chain, the scope of technology strategy
and the depth of technology strategy.
Mitchell (1990) Alternative frameworks for technology strategy. Technology
strategy transportation, banks/financial services and even some
wholesale/retail business were often focused around the
following three generic issues; the physical system, operations
or products (of the system).
Pavitt (1990) A set of choices that needed to be made about technology
development such as broad or specialized, product or process
and whether to be a market leader or follower.
Wheelwright and Clark The objective of a technology strategy was to guide the firm in
(1992) acquiring, developing, and applying technology for competitive
advantage.
Spital and Bickford (1992) Technology strategy as the set of strategic decisions and action
required by managers to transform input into output to gain
competitive advantages.
Rieck and Dickson (1993) Technology strategy was the process by which firms utilized
their technological resources to achieve corporate objectives
Zahra and Covin (1993) Technology policy embodied the choices companies made
about acquiring, developing and deploying technology to reach
the goals of their business strategy. Technology policy was the
set of organisational decisions concerning aggressive
technological posture, automation and process innovation and
new product development.
Zahra et al., (1994) Technology strategy specified its components and dominant
orientation; it denoted the aspect of a firm’s possible
technological choice and action.
Zahra (1996a) Technology strategy articulated a firm's plans to effectively
develop, acquire, and deploy technological resources and
capabilities that contributed to its competitive position and
achieve superior financial performance.
Zahra (1996b) Technology strategy was the plan that guided a new venture’s
decisions on the development and use of technological
71
 International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. www.ijicc.net
Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019

capabilities.
Pegels and Thirumurthy Technology strategy was defined as the approaches firms used
(1996) to translate R&D efforts into the advanced product and process
technologies that had the potential to provide competitive
advantage result to improve firm performance.
Zahra and Bogner (1999) Technology strategy was the sum of a firm’s choices on how to
develop and exploit its technological resources that can
profoundly affect a company’s performance and survival.
Zahra and Bogner (2000) Technology strategy was the most essential component in the
formation of the organisation’s strategic posture.
Narayanan (2001) Technology strategy was the revealed pattern of the firms’
technology design. His ideas identified two key points of
technology strategy, firms’ selection on types of technology
whether to acquire, develop, deploy or divest, and on an
uncovered firms’ technology designs that were not only planned
but rather additionally refined.
Gibbons and O'Connor Technology strategy referred to the set of choices the firm
(2003) makes about the state and quality of the know-how it
incorporated into the design, development and production of its
product or service.
Ngamkroeckjoti, Speece Technology strategy played a role in how much scanning they
and Dimmitt (2005) used, with a more proactive technology strategy requiring more
extensive scanning. Environmental turbulence, including
changes in technology, can cause failure in NPD if scanning did
not make companies aware of the situation.
Lin and Chang (2006) Technology strategy was counted as one of the most important
attributes for the achievement.
Larsson (2007) Technology strategy was defined as “the pattern or plan that
integrated an organisation’s major goals, policies, and action
sequences into a cohesive whole with respect to the physical
things, know-how, and procedures used to produce products
and services”.
Chadee and Pang (2008) A firm’s technology strategy was defined as the firm’s
deliberate commitment and willingness to proactively develop
and acquire relevant technologies, utilized these technologies
widely in the organisation and consistently upgraded its
employees to ensure that technologies were fully embraced
within the organisation.
Meyer (2008) ‘The operational expression of a technology strategy was the set
of projects that an organisation wanted to implement.
72
 International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. www.ijicc.net
Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019

Determining a strategy included selecting the projects and the

portfolio of projects’.
Ghazinoory and Farazkish Technology strategy was one of the most important aspects of
(2010) any firm’s strategic posture, especially in dynamic
environments such as the nanotechnology-based industry.
Dasgupta, Gupta and Technology strategy can be briefly and broadly defined as a
Sahay (2011) portfolio of choices and plans that a firm used to address the
technological threats and opportunities in its external
environment. The broad objective of technology strategy can be
used to guide a firm in acquiring, developing and applying
technology for competitive advantage.
Source: Various definitions of technology strategy from 1978 – 2011.

From Table 1 above, it can be seen that technology strategy definitions have significantly
evolved and that these definitions have been refined from multiple from various perspectives.
In brief, past studies have defined technology strategy as an organisation’s plans to
effectively develop, acquire, and deploy technological resources and capabilities that can
contribute to its competitive advantage and organisational performance. In light of previous
definitions, this study adopts the definition provided by Zahra (1996): that technology
strategy is an essential plan to develop, acquire, and deploy technological resources and
capabilities that contribute to competitive advantage and organisational performance.

Critical review of the literature on Technology Strategy

Researchers have presented different technology strategy dimensions as a result of their

research. Zahra (1996) distinguished six dimensions of technology strategy as a model that
guided a new venture's decisions on the development and deployment of technological
resources and capabilities. The six dimensions are (i) pioneering posture, (ii) selecting the
company’s technological innovation posture and capabilities (introducing new products to the
market first), (iii) determining the number of products to be introduced to the market, (iv)
technology sourcing using a venture's internal and external R&D sources (in-house R&D
activities, licensing, strategic alliances and acquisition of the technology) and; (vi) R&D
spending at a technological level through a combination of applied and basic research
projects and patenting use. The study highlighted the important roles of a technology strategy
in utilising the organisation’s technological resources and capabilities.

In an empirical study of 103 manufacturing-based firms, representing 28 established

industries, Zahra and Covin (1993) state that technology policy is a set of organisational
decisions and specific dimensions. The dimensions are technological posture (Oster, 1999),
the level of automation of plants and facilities, the adoption of the latest technology in the
73
 International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. www.ijicc.net
Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019

production, and capital allocation for new equipment and machinery (Hayes and
Wheelwright, 1984) and the intensity of the firm’s product development activities (Zahra,
1996). The findings support a strong positive relationship between technology strategy and
organisational performance.

Studies by Maidique and Patch (1982) outline a technology policy entailing six dimensions;
namely: (i) the type of technology, (iii) the desired level of competence (nearness to the state
of the art), (iii) internal versus external sources of technology, (iv) R&D investment, (v) the
timing of technology introductions and, (vi) R&D organisation. The six dimensions of the
strategy are derived from Zahra et al. (1994). The derivations focus on the company’s
technological innovation posture and capabilities (the first to the market, fast follower,
imitator and application), dominant technological thrust and company goals, globalisation of
its technology strategy (a company engaged in a global technology strategy), technology
sourcing (use of external and internal sources of technology), the nature of technological
investments, the technologies offered by the company after some time and the organisational
mechanisms for technological resources (technology experienced executive).
Notwithstanding this, Narayanan (2001) formulates two strategic dimensions, which are
technological leadership in pioneering technological advancement and company objectives.
Finally, select other studies illustrate technology strategy as positively linked with
organisational performance (Zahra and Bogner, 2000; Adler, 1989; Dowling and McGee,
1994). On the other hand, Kalay and Lynn (2008) stated that there has been no effect of
technology strategy on performance.

There are an abundance of studies about technology strategy (Porter, 1985; Adler et al., 1989;
Bell and McNamara, 1991; West, 1992; Kerin et al., 2015; Kotabe, 2004; Dussague et al.,
1992; Utterback, 1994; McGrath, 1995; Cho, 1996; Wilbon, 2002; Husain, 2016; Parker,
2000; Zahra and Nielsen, 2002; Gibbons and O’Connor, 2003; Ngamkroeckioti et al., 2005;
Lin and Chang, 2006; Van de Velde, 2006; Muhammad et al., 2009; Chadee and Pang, 2008;
Man et al., 2009; Ghazinoory and Farazkish, 2010; Sikander, 2011). Table 2 below presents
previous studies and their research context. Some studies were qualitative and in the form of
conceptual papers that explained technology strategy as well as proposing potential variables
in the research field. Given this, there is a need to empirically test the proposed variables
which are covered in this study.

74
 International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. www.ijicc.net
Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019

Table 2: Past Research on Technology Strategy

Author Country Context Methodology Research
Design
Porter (1985) - Firm Conceptual Qualitative
Adler et al., (1989) - Firm Conceptual Qualitative
Bell and McNamara - High-tech ventures Conceptual Qualitative
(1991)
Kerin et al., (1992) - Firm Conceptual Qualitative
Kotabe (1992) - Firm Conceptual Qualitative
Dussague et al., (1993) - Firm Conceptual Qualitative
Utterback (1994) - Firm Conceptual Qualitative
McGrath (1995) - High-technology Conceptual Qualitative
companies
Cho (1996) Korea Government R&D Empirical Quantitative
programs in Korea
Zahra (1999) USA 176 manufacturing Empirical Quantitative
companies in
Southeastern state
Wilbon (1999) USA 31 Computer Descriptive Quantitative/
software IPO firms Content
analysis
Parker (2000) Europe 78 organisations Exploratory Quantitative/
USA operating in the cross-sectional Exploratory
Asia telecommunications study
Middle industry
East
Africa
Li & Atuahene-Gima China 300 new technology Empirical Quantitative
(2001) ventures from a
sample frame of
500 firms in Beijing
Zahra and Nielsen USA 149 in 1996 and 97 Exploratory Quantitative/
(2002) in 1999 from 600 longitudinal Longitudinal
companies of 20 study
US based
manufacturing
technologies.
Wilbon (2002) USA 168 high- Exploratory Exploratory
technology firms cross-sectional study and
content
75
 International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. www.ijicc.net
Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019

analysis
Gibbons and O’Connor Ireland 359 Irish SMEs Empirical Quantitative
(2003)
Ngamkroeckioti et al., Thailand SMEs in the Thai Conceptual Qualitative
(2005) food industry study was
conducted
using semi-
structured in-
depth
interviews
with food
expert
Lin and Chang (2006) Taiwan 144 Taiwan Empirical Quantitative
Electrical and
Electronic
Manufactures
Association
Van de Velde (2006) Europe Corporate and Empirical Quantitative/
university spin-offs Content
in Flanders analysis
Experiment
and survey
Lin, Chen & Wu (2006) USA US technology Empirical Quantitative
enterprises
Muhammad et al., Malaysia 61 Malaysian Empirical Quantitative/
(2008) industrial Empirical
automation
company
Chadee and Pang China ICT firms from Empirical Quantitative
(2008) China, South
Korea, Thailand
and Philippines
Man et al., (2009) China 118 technology- Empirical Quantitative
based small and
medium-sized
enterprises
Ghazinoory and Iran Iranian Nano- Exploratory Qualitative
Farazkish (2010) composite cross-sectional and
companies quantitative
Sikander (2011) Malaysia E & E Empirical Quantitative
76
 International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. www.ijicc.net
Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019

manufacturing
industry
Althonayan and Sharif UK Airlines industry Empirical Qualitative/C
(2010) (International ase study
Airlines)
Husain (2016) India and India and Dubai Empirical Quantitative
United companies in
Arab different sectors of
Emirates industry
(UAE)
Source: Past research on technology strategy from 1985 – 2016.

In terms of the research context, most studies on technology strategy involved manufacturing
industries in different regions. For example, Lin and Chang (2006) studied 144 companies
from Taiwan Electrical and Electronic Manufactures Association. With regards to 20 US-
based manufacturing technology industries, Zahra and Nielsen (2002), in their exploratory
longitudinal study, focused on 149 companies in 1996 and 97 companies in 1999. Sikander
(2011) studied a Malaysian manufacturer and Ghazinoory and Farazkish (2010) Iranian
Nano-composite companies. Other than this, previous research centred on manufacturing
companies in developing countries (Chadee and Pang, 2008; Man et al., 2009; Gibbons and
O’Connor, 2003; Ngamkroeckioti et al., 2005), manufacturing companies in developed
countries (Zahra and Nielsen, 2002; Lin and Chang, 2006; Althonayan and Sharif, 2010) and
manufacturing companies in underdeveloped, but resource rich countries like Iran
(Ghazinoory and Farazkish, 2010). Focused research on manufacturing companies in
Malaysia has been limited and this study aims to close that research gap.

As shown in Table 2 above, different methodologies were used and included conceptual,
descriptive, empirical, exploratory cross-sectional and exploratory longitudinal. Malhotra and
Grover (1998) used a descriptive methodology to understand technology strategy and
associated performance measurement issues. They stated that ‘data for study is taken from an
existing database, review, case study, taxonomy or typology approaches.’ They go on to
explain exploratory cross-sectional as the “objective of the study is to become more familiar
through a survey, in which the information is collected at one point in time” and exploratory
longitudinal as a ‘survey methodology where data collection completed at two or more points
of time within the same organisations’.

With reference to the literature review, qualitative studies identify the variables of technology
strategy. However, these variables have not been empirically tested for manufacturing
companies in a developing country (Husain, 2016); whereas most of quantitative studies in
technology strategy have examined the relationship between variables and organisational
77
 International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. www.ijicc.net
Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019

performance (Zahra and Nielsen, 2002). Man et al. (2009) suggests that elements of copyright
and other means of intellectual capital protection should be considered in developing a
technology strategy. This suggestion affirms the relevancy variables in relation to the
copyright and patents of organisational performance. Moreover, Sikander (2011) suggests
that more research needs to be undertaken in a broader context and recommends
consideration of other variables. Bearing in mind the propositions of previous researchers,
this study aims to examine the impact of an innovative technology strategy on organisational
performance. In the context of the Malaysian manufacturing industry, the study also seeks to
analyse the moderating effects of external environmental factors that either strengthen or
weaken the relationship. Ultimately, testing the strength and sustainability of the relationship
between strategy and organisational performance, is the goal of this research.

Conclusion and Recommendations

This paper attempts to study and synthesise the diverse range of literature as it relates to
technology strategy. This study presents a review of major contributions on the relationship
between technology and strategy, the definition of technology strategy, the process of
technology strategy formulation and the identification of primary assessments related to
technology. The authors are currently conducting further research in this area. Technology
strategy cannot be viewed in isolation for manufacturing companies; it needs to be viewed in
accordance to their relationship with a technologically competitive environment.

78
 International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. www.ijicc.net
Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019

REFERENCES

Abdel-Maksoud, A., Dugdale, D. & Luther, R. (2005). Non-financial performance

measurement in manufacturing companies. The British Accounting Review, 37(3),
pp.261-297.

Abdullah, M.R.B. & Abdul Jalil, S. (2006). Industrial structure and concentration in
Malaysian manufacturing industry. International Journal of Management Studies
(IJMS), 13, pp.83-101.

Abidin, N.Z., Adros, N.A. & Hassan, H. (2014). Competitive strategy and performance of
quantity surveying firms in Malaysia. Journal of Construction in Developing
Countries, 19(2), p.15.

Aboody, D. & Lev, B. (2001). R&D productivity in the chemical industry. New York
(disponible en www. baruch-lev. com).

Adler, P.S. (1989). Technology strategy. Research in technological innovation, management

and policy, 4, pp.25-251.

Adler, P.S., Riggs, H.E. & Wheelwright, S.C. (1989). Product Development Know-How:
Trading Tactics For Strategy. MIT Sloan Management Review, 31(1), p.7.

Ahmad, K. & Zabri, S.M. (2016). The application of non-financial performance measurement
in Malaysian manufacturing firms. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, pp.476-484.

Althonayan, A., & Sharif, A. M. (2010). Aligning business and technology strategy within
the airline industry. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 6(1), 79-
94.

Bell, C.G. & McNamara, J.E. (1991). High-tech ventures: The guide for entrepreneurial
success. Perseus Publishing.

Burgelman, R.A. (2003). Strategy making and evolutionary organisation theory: Insights
from longitudinal process research (No. 1844).

Burgelman, R.A., Maidique, M.A. & Wheelwright, S.C. (1996). Strategic management of
technology and innovation (Vol. 2). Chicago: Irwin.

Chadee, D.D. & Pang, B. (2008). Technology strategy and performance: a study of
information technology service providers from selected Asian countries. Service
Business, 2(2), pp.109-126.

79
 International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. www.ijicc.net
Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019

Chen, J., He, Y.B. & Jin, X. (2008). A study on the factors that influence the fitness between
technology strategy and corporate strategy. International Journal of Innovation and
Technology Management, 5(01), pp.81-103.

Chiesa, V. (2001). Formulating Technology Strategy In Dynamic Contexts. World Scientific

Book Chapters, p 55-112.

Cho, H.D., Lee, J.K. & Ro, K.K. (1996). Environment and technology strategy of firms in
government R&D programmes in Korea. Technovation, 16(10), pp.553-560.

Dasgupta, M. & Gupta, R.K. (2014). Technological innovation and technology strategy:
proposing an interface. International Journal of Business Excellence 9, 7(2), pp.129-
147.

Dasgupta, M., Gupta, R. K., & Sahay, A. (2011). Linking technological innovation,
technology strategy and organisational factors: A review. Global Business
Review, 12(2), 257-277.

de Meyer, A. (2008). Technology strategy and China's technology capacity building. Journal
of Technology Management in China, 3(2), pp.137-153.

Dowling, M.J. & McGee, J.E. (1994). Business and technology strategies and new venture
performance: a study of the telecommunications equipment industry. Management
Science, 40(12), pp.1663-1677.

Dussauge, P., Hart, S. & Ramanantsoa, B. (1992). Strategic technology management (No.
hal-00708987).

Ford, D. (1988). Develop your technology strategy. Long range planning, 21(5), pp.85-95.

Germain, R., Claycomb, C. & Dröge, C. (2008). Supply chain variability, organisational
structure, and performance: the moderating effect of demand unpredictability. Journal
of operations management, 26(5), pp.557-570.

Ghazinoory, S. & Farazkish, M. (2010). A model of technology strategy development for

Iranian nano-composite companies. Technological and Economic Development of
Economy, 16(1), pp.25-42.

Gibbons, P.T. & O'CONNOR, T.O.N.Y. (2003). Strategic posture, technology strategy and
performance among small firms. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 11(02), pp.131-146.

Gillespie, D.F. & Mileti, D.S. (1977). Technology and the study of organisations: An
overview and appraisal. Academy of Management Review, 2(1), pp.7-16.
80
 International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. www.ijicc.net
Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019

Hayes, R.H. & Wheelwright, S.C. (1984). Restoring our competitive edge: competing
through manufacturing, Wiley, New York.

Husain, Z. (2016). Technology strategy framework for firms in growing economies. Journal
for Global Business Advancement, 9(3), pp.248-274.

Itami, H. & Numagami, T. (1992). Dynamic interaction between strategy and

technology. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S2), pp.119-135.

Jin, C., Wei, Y. & Yubing, H. (2008). The Research on the Influence Factors for Fitness
between Technology Strategy and Corporate Strategy. In 2008 International
Symposiums on Information Processing (pp. 472-476). IEEE.

Kalay, F. & Lynn, G. (2015). The impact of strategic innovation management practices on
firm innovation performance. Research Journal of Business and Management, 2(3),
pp.412-429.

Kerin, R.A., Varadarajan, P.R. & Peterson, R.A. (1992). First-mover advantage: A synthesis,
conceptual framework, and research propositions. Journal of marketing, 56(4), pp.33-
52.

Ketokivi, M. & Schroeder, R. (2004). Manufacturing practices, strategic fit and performance:
a routine-based view. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 24(2), pp.171-191.

Kotabe, M. (1992). Global sourcing strategy: R & D, manufacturing, and marketing

interfaces (p. 1992). New York: Quorum Books.

Larsson, C., Strand, M., Persson, A. & Syberfeldt, A. (2017). Communicating continuous
improvement in manufacturing companies: Divergencies between current practice and
theory. In PMAA-Performance Measurement Association Australasia 1-3 march
2017, Dunedin.

Li, H. & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2001). Product innovation strategy and the performance of new
technology ventures in China. Academy of management Journal, 44(6), pp.1123-
1134.

Lin, B.W., Chen, C.J. & Wu, H.L. (2006). Patent portfolio diversity, technology strategy, and
firm value. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(1), pp.17-26.

Lin, F.H. & Chang, H.Y. (2006). The Study of Computer Industry Company. Journal of
Information Technology and Applications (資訊科技與應用期刊), 1(1), pp.9-16.

81
 International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. www.ijicc.net
Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019

Maidique, M.A. (1982). Corpate strategy and technological policy. Readings in the
Management of Innovation, pp. 273-285.

Malhotra, M.K. & Grover, V. (1998). An assessment of survey research in POM: from
constructs to theory. Journal of operations management, 16(4), pp.407-425.

Man, T.W.Y., Chan, K.F. & Lau, T. (2009). Technology strategy, external environment, and
the performance of technology-based SMEs in China. In ICSB World Conference
Proceedings (p. 1). International Council for Small Business (ICSB).

Mark Dodgson ed. (1989). Technology Strategy and the Firm: management and public
policy. Addison Wesley Publishing Company.

McGrath, M.E. (1995). Product strategy for high-technology companies: how to achieve
growth, competitive advantage, and increased profits, Irwin Professional Pub.

Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C., Meyer, A.D. & Coleman Jr, H.J. (1978). Organisational strategy,
structure, and process. Academy of management review, 3(3), pp.546-562.

Muhammad, N. M. N., Jantan, M., & Keong, C. C. (2008). Technology Strategy and Firm’s
Revenue Growth: Empirical Evidence of Malaysian Industrial Automation
Industry. International Journal of Business and Management, 3(7), 97-106.

Nanayakkara, S. M., Wickramasinghe, V., & Samarasinghe, G. D. (2017, May). Emotional

intelligence, technology strategy and firm's non-financial performance. In 2017
Moratuwa Engineering Research Conference (MERCon) (pp. 467-472). IEEE.

Narayanan, V. K. (2001). Managing technology and innovation for competitive advantage.

Pearson Education India.

Ngamkroeckjoti, C., Speece, M., & Dimmitt, N. J. (2005). Environmental scanning in Thai
food SMEs: the impact of technology strategy and technology turbulence. British
Food Journal, 107(5), 285-305.

Oster, S. M. (1999). Modern competitive analysis. OUP Catalogue.

Parker, A. R. (2000). Impact on the organisational performance of the strategy–Technology

policy interaction. Journal of Business Research, 47(1), 55-64.

Pavitt, K. (1990). What we know about the strategic management of technology. California
management review, 32(3), 17-26.

82
 International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. www.ijicc.net
Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019

Pegels, C. C., & Thirumurthy, M. V. (1996). The impact of technology strategy on firm
performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 43(3), 246-249.

Porter, M. E. (1985). Technology and competitive advantage. Journal of business

strategy, 5(3), 60-78.

Rieck, R. M., & Dickson, K. E. (1993). A Model of Technology Strategy: practitioners'

forum. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 5(4), 397-412.

Sikander, A. (2011). Strategic technology management and the performance of firms in the
electrical and electronics manufacturing industry of Malaysia (1986-1995)-An
exploratory study (Doctoral dissertation, Murdoch University).

Smith, D. J., & Rogers, M. F. (2004). Technology strategy and innovation: the use of
derivative strategies in the aerospace industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, 16(4), 509-527.

Spital, F. C., & Bickford, D. J. (1992). Successful competitive and technology strategies in
dynamic and stable product technology environments. Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management, 9(1), 29-60.

Utterback, J. M. (1994). How Companies Can Seize Opportunities in the Face of

Technological Change. In Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Harvard Business
School Press Boston, Mass.

Van de Velde, E. (2006). The performance of corporate spin-offs and the implications for
their technology strategy (Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University).

West A. (1992). Innovation strategy. Prentice Hall Direct.

Wheelwright, S. C., & Clark, K. B. (1992). Competing through development capability in a

manufacturing-based organisation. Business horizons, 35(4), 29-43.

Wilbon, A. D. (2002). Predicting survival of high-technology initial public offering

firms. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13(1), 127-141.

Zahra, S. A. (1996). Technology strategy and financial performance: Examining the

moderating role of the firm's competitive environment. Journal of Business
venturing, 11(3), 189-219.

Zahra, S. A., & Bogner, W. C. (2000). Technology strategy and software new ventures'
performance: Exploring the moderating effect of the competitive
environment. Journal of business venturing, 15(2), 135-173.
83
 International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. www.ijicc.net
Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019

Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1993). Business strategy, technology policy and firm
performance. Strategic management journal, 14(6), 451-478.

Zahra, S. A., & Nielsen, A. P. (2002). Sources of capabilities, integration and technology
commercialisation. Strategic Management Journal, 23(5), 377-398.

Zahra, S. A., Sisodia, R. S., & Das, S. R. (1994). Technological choices within competitive
strategy types: a conceptual integration. International Journal of Technology
Management, 9(2), 172-195.

84