See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233648575

Technology Management at Rolls-Royce

Article in Research-Technology Management · March 2010

DOI: 10.1080/08956308.2010.11657619

CITATIONS READS
28 12,902

2 authors, including:

Hans Berends
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
87 PUBLICATIONS 3,636 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hans Berends on 30 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT AT ROLLS-ROYCE
A framework for manufacturing technology innovation must be systematic, robust and
transparent.

James Foden and Hans Berends

OVERVIEW: Technology management tools, such as TM sub-processes: identification, selection, acquisition,

technology roadmapping, have received significant atten- exploitation and protection (4). Such frameworks should
tion in Rolls-Royce and other manufacturing organiza- provide support along the complete technology life
tions. Yet, these tools have often been treated and used in cycle (5).
isolation. Organizations that consider implementing such
practices should employ an integrated framework to en- Still, a number of challenges prevail in TM. Available
sure timely technology investment decisions and capability frameworks are not operationalized through TM tools
development. To achieve integration, organizations need to across the technology life cycle. Moreover, the tools are
consider the ownership, data and timing of each of the tools often presented and used in isolation or without suffi-
across the different framework stages and the technology cient integration with other tools. Finally, most discus-
life cycle. This will maximize the effectiveness of technol- sions about TM focus on technologies to be incorporated
ogy management practices so that they truly add value. within new products. Less attention is paid to the man-
agement of manufacturing technologies, even though
KEY CONCEPTS: technology management, technology many organizations compete on the basis of their manu-
strategy, technology framework, Rolls-Royce. facturing capabilities. For this reason, this paper con-
centrates on manufacturing technology innovation as
Organizations worldwide have introduced and applied opposed to generic technology innovation. Our study
many technology management (TM) tools, including tech- addresses:
nology roadmapping, maturity assessment, and knowledge
management. However, these organizations have difficul- • The development and application of an integrated
ty implementing an overarching framework that will sup- framework in a technology-driven organization: Rolls-
port their managers with an integrated knowledge-building Royce.
routine (1). The dynamics of TM need to be structured • The operationalization of this framework with TM
and channelled through some TM framework that is tools across the entire life cycle (i.e., from concept to
systematic, robust and transparent as opposed to ad hoc. abandonment).
Several frameworks have been proposed (2,3). Gregory, • The integration of these tools as a sequential set of
for example, proposes a framework consisting of five knowledge-building activities

James Foden is a capability acquisition engineer within group of the School of Industrial Engineering at the
Combustion and Casings, Rolls-Royce plc, Nottingham, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Nether-
England. His role involves strategic planning of ad- lands. He has published on knowledge sharing, or-
vanced manufacturing technologies, their development ganizational learning and innovation management in
and eventual deployment for the manufacture of prod- the Journal of Product Innovation Management, Jour-
ucts. He completed a B.Eng.(Hons.) in manufacturing nal of Engineering Technology Management, R&D
engineering at the University of Malta, and an M.Phil. Management, and Human Relations. His current
in materials engineering and engineering doctorate in research interests include innovation and organiza-
technology management at the University of Birming- tional learning processes, organizational design, and
ham, England. He continues to be active in technology
knowledge management. He holds a Ph.D. degree
management research. [email protected]
from the Eindhoven University of Technology for a
Hans Berends is assistant professor in the Innova- thesis on knowledge sharing in industrial research.
tion, Technology Entrepreneurship & Marketing [email protected]

March—April 2010 33
0895-6308/10/$5.00 © 2010 Industrial Research Institute, Inc.
How the Study Was Conducted
Rolls-Royce is a leading provider of power systems and Effective technology
services for use on land, at sea and in the air. It operates
in four global markets: civil aerospace, defense aero-
space, marine, and energy. It continues to invest in core
management
technologies, products, people, and capabilities with the
objective of broadening and strengthening the product
portfolio, improving efficiency and enhancing the envi-
requires integrating
ronmental performance of its products. The company
has established strong positions within programs that multiple activities
will shape the power systems market for years to come.
Our study at Rolls-Royce consisted of three main parts.
The first part aimed at developing an overall framework.
and tools.
Exploratory interviews with the company’s central
technology managers provided insight into the orga-
nization’s business and technology planning practices. with a manufacturing technology focus. The proposed
These interviews covered technology planning from framework (Figure 1) consists of six sub-processes, or
technology concept identification to shop-floor imple- stages, that are aligned to the technology life cycle: 1)
mentation. They ascertained the need for a robust TM identification and monitoring; 2) selection and approval;
framework to complement the organization’s tools and 3) development research; 4) acquisition and adaptation;
techniques. The outcome of this first part of the study was 5) exploitation and review; and 6) protection. The first
the outline of a technology management framework that five of these processes represent sequential stages, al-
suits technology-driven organizations like Rolls-Royce. though several feedback loops exist, the most important
The second part of the study focused on individual TM being between the first and last stages. These represent
tools. A survey of the R&D chiefs and engineers across the replacement of aging technologies by newer radical
seven sub-units (yielding a total of 17 responses), resulted solutions.
in an overview of the usage of different tools, problems At the beginning of the life cycle, a technology exists
encountered with specific tools and areas across the within the organization merely as an idea or concept that
technology life cycle that were insufficiently covered by
could have a beneficial impact on the organization’s op-
TM tools. Hands-on experimentation gave deeper in-
erations. Awareness of these potential technologies can
sight into the effectiveness of existing tools and devel-
opment of new tools. Workshops for Technology Watch, be acquired through the application of the first TM stage:
Technology Roadmapping and several other tools were Identification and Monitoring. Tools for identification
conducted for Rolls-Royce’s sub-units and documented and monitoring applied within Rolls-Royce include
as embedded case studies (6). Interviews with technology Technology Networking, Technology Watch and Make-
managers in the organization’s sub-units provided addi- the-Future (Table 1). Based upon workshops, these tools
tional insight into the suitability of current TM tools and help stakeholders identify those external technologies
their effectiveness. These studies resulted in an effective that are of interest or concern to the organization from a
TM tool suite for each stage of the framework. business perspective. Moreover, technology identifica-
tion is supplemented by benchmarking and technology
The third part of the study, which overlapped partly with maturity assessments that support more robust decision
the second, focused on the integration of the different making.
tools. Interviews with workshop participants and tech-
nology managers revealed the need to integrate activities The next TM stage, Selection and Approval, is con-
with respect to ownership, timing and information flows. cerned with selecting those technologies that meet busi-
The outcome of this final part of the study was a set of ness requirements and offer competitive investment
tools for each stage of the framework that were integrat- opportunities. The down-selection of ideas is supported
ed across these three dimensions. We shall now discuss by Technology Roadmapping and similar tools. Tech-
the integrated TM framework and tools. Following that, nology “wants” can then be presented to the organiza-
the final two sections deal with the introduction of the tion’s Research and Technology (R&T), or equivalent,
integration dimensions and their application. funding body for investment decision-making. The Iden-
tification and Monitoring and Selection and Approval
Integrated Technology Management Framework stages complete the development of a technology strat-
Building upon earlier work, e.g., Gregory (4) and Far- egy and usually concern generic technologies that tend
rukh et al. (2), we designed an integrated TM framework to be at an embryonic maturity level.

34 Research . Technology Management

 Figure 1.—The integrated technology management framework developed for Rolls–Royce
consists of six sub-processes, or stages, that are aligned with the technology life cycle.

Should funding be approved for technology investment, that satisfy (internal and external) customer require-
the Development Research stage commences the devel- ments. The technologies at the end of this stage have
opment of technology maturity and proving of capability. demonstrated throughput rates, repeatability and process
By this time in the technology life cycle, technology ap- capability of a full range of parts and production run
plications may be established to initiate a technology- lengths. Rolls-Royce accomplishes this through the use
push on future components or products. The need for new of TM tools such as Technology Make-Buy, Capability
technologies to satisfy planned business and product re- Acquisition and the Technology Readiness scale (Table 1),
quirements (i.e., technology-pull) could require technol- which ensure a gradual development of technology ma-
ogy maturity development for a particular application. turity using a structured approach.
Following the initial stages of technology capability- Within the final sequential TM stage, Exploitation and
proving, technology development must be advanced and Review, mature technologies are deployed and exploited
its validity demonstrated in a production environment, on the shop floor. Thus, an “off-the-shelf” capability is
where capital expenditure may be required. This occurs established and further technology development becomes
in the Acquisition and Adaptation stage. Once techno- associated only with best-practice determination and
logy maturity has been confirmed on representative continuous improvement. However, as technologies may
equipment, adaptation to a shop floor “production- decline in their ability to satisfy customer requirements
ready” state is required for the manufacture of products over time, the Exploitation and Review stage also includes

March—April 2010 35
the continuous review of mature technology suitability technology managers that each of the framework stages
through Technology Maturity Assessment. addresses. Yet, outlining a framework and its stages is
not sufficient for practical application of these TM con-
The review of technology suitability closes the TM cepts in real industrial environments. Hence, Table 2
framework cycle through the feedback loop indicated in suggests a suite of TM tools for each framework stage to
Figure 1. It may be possible to improve the ability of equip technology managers for technology strategy de-
technologies to meet customer requirements and delay velopment, capability development and implementation
their decline. However, if their lifecycle cannot be ex- decision-making, as well as continuous improvement.
tended they must be replaced. The timely identification
of more suitable competing technologies within the Iden-
tification and Monitoring and Selection and Approval Integration of Technology Management Tools
stages, and their eventual capability development through Effective technology management requires the integra-
subsequent stages, is thus important. tion of multiple activities and tools, but tools are often
Figure 1 indicates the central positioning of the sixth presented and applied in isolation, possibly leading to
technology management process: Protection. This stage fragmentation (7,8). Especially in large, complex orga-
interacts with all of the other five stages; it protects nizations, TM activities are often dispersed across depart-
against unintended transfer of intellectual property (IP) ments without building upon one another in an integrated
outside of the organization, manages technological risks knowledge-building routine. Consequently, we identify
and protects knowledge and its re-use. IP Protection (e.g., three dimensions through which TM tools should be in-
contracts, non-disclosure agreements, licensing, etc.) tegrated: 1) the inputs and outputs of different tools, 2)
and risk management tools are widely available. Rolls- organization and ownership, 3) timing.
Royce protects its knowledge with these tools as well as
Through observation of industrial TM activities, it be-
through data mining and knowledge management.
came evident that the scope of some tools overlapped
The functional intent of each of the TM stages is sum- and the outputs of adjacent tools were not fed into each
marized in Table 2. The table highlights the challenges for other. In fact, tools often existed as isolated islands with

Table 1.— Typical Technology Management Tools Addressing Each of the Framework Stages*
Framework Stage Tool Description
Identification and Monitoring Technology Networking Exploratory tool for increasing external environment
awareness through participant networking.
Technology Watch Identification of organization’s critical established, competing
and disruptive technologies.
Make-the-Future Inward-facing technology opportunity identification aligned
with product development programs.
Technology Maturity Assessment The assessment of the position of a technology’s maturity
along its S-curve/life cycle.
Technology Benchmarking Internal benchmarking of technology alternatives with the
organization + benchmarking against competitors.
Selection and Approval Make-the-Future Selection Inward-facing technology opportunity down-selection aligned
to new product drivers.
Technology Roadmapping Convergence of inward and outward-technology opportunities
aligned to market and product drivers to enable selection of
R&D programs.
R&T Funding Approval Technology investment decision-making for technology
opportunities presented by Technology Roadmapping.
Capability Development: Technology Make-Buy Make or buy decision-making for development of down-
Development Research, selected technology program capabilities.
Acquisition & Adaptation, and Capability Acquisition Definition, launch and management of technology programs
Exploitation & Review stages aimed at developing technology maturity through R&D.
Technology Readiness Scale A gated process against which current technology maturity can
be gauged and managed.
Protection Technology Risk Management Management of risks arising from R&D technology programs.
Knowledge Base Protection Capture of valuable knowledge such that it can be re-used.
Intellectual Property (IP) Protection against unauthorized transfer of IP outside of the
Protection organization.
*Development Research, Acquisition and Adaptation, and Exploitation and Review stages have been absorbed into an overarching Capability
Development stage for the purpose of simplification.

36 Research . Technology Management

 Table 2.—Summarized Functional Intent of Each TM Stage

Technology Management Stage Functional Intent

Identification and Monitoring Internal and external environment technology awareness.
Selection and Approval Consolidation of technology ideas.
Alignment of technology and business strategies to enable technology investment
decision making.
Development Research and Acquisition & Sequential approach to developing technology maturity/capability.
Adaptation Understanding technology capabilities against product program timelines.
Ensuring mature technologies are deployed for use within manufacturing.
Exploitation and Review Management of the deployment of mature/capable technologies on the shop floor
to satisfy internal and external customer requirements.
Continual review of the ability of exploited technologies to continue to meet
customer requirements and forward planning of more innovative replacement
technologies.
Protection Knowledge-base protection.
Intellectual property protection.
Risk management.

sub-optimal results and adjacent tools did not comple- ities. This requires effective organization of tools, activ-
ment each other, resulting in a large amount of knowl- ities and people, such that the best use is made of time
edge and data re-creation. This often happened because and resources, while supporting effective data collection
stakeholders did not understand the flow of data and within the boundaries of the activity and promoting a
knowledge through the technology life cycle. collaborative working environment for multidisciplin-
ary people. The specification of TM activity ownership
Inputs and outputs of TM tools should be integrated to can support effective organization, through attributing
form a systematic knowledge-building routine. Infor- accountability and drive, as well as establishing a key
mation and insight that are produced through a par- source and repository of knowledge on relevant technol-
ticular TM activity, such as roadmapping, should ogies. The integration of ownership also aids the harmo-
systematically feed forward to subsequent TM activi- nization of the TM tools across the organization and
ties, such as the selection of projects to be funded. supports change control.
Hence, the concept of TM as a sequential set of comple-
mentary knowledge-building activities (1) that supports Timing is the third dimension across which TM activi-
an integrated approach to technology strategy and capa- ties need to be integrated. Its importance derives from
bility development, requires the definition of tool inputs the need to make manufacturing capabilities available at
and outputs. The inputs and outputs to be integrated in- the right times. Interviews revealed that some technolo-
clude the technology-push and market-pull dynamics to gy managers did not always understand the sequencing
be considered for the alignment of business, product and and timing of TM activities (e.g., incorrect Technology
technology strategies. By specifying inputs and outputs Roadmapping timing), which often resulted in misuse of
for TM activities, one can ensure the alignment of tech- the tool and failure of its outputs to realize the expected
nology strategy with product and business strategies. benefits. The managers felt that further guidance on the
timing of TM tools could alleviate their concerns over
The second integration dimension concerns the orga- the usefulness of particular TM tools and their outputs.
nization and ownership of TM activities. Interviews The interviews confirmed that effective and successful
revealed that ambiguities and inconsistencies in organi- TM depends on the correct deployment of tools at the
zation and ownership often resulted in sub-optimal right stages of the technology lifecycle.
activity accountability, uncertainty in the selection of
activity participants, and duplication of work. Further-
more, TM tools like those listed in Table 1 were not ad- Integrating TM in Industry
equately deployed across the technological areas of
interest to the company. Stakeholders initially voiced concerns over accountabil-
ity, representation within TM activities, and work dupli-
Effective TM depends on skills (people) and routines cation. More critically, there were concerns over the use
(tools) across an integrated route (7). Employees are valu- of TM activities as isolated efforts with sub-optimal syn-
able assets and their relevant knowledge and experience ergy and redundancy of knowledge almost immediately
need to be concerted and captured through TM activ- after the activity took place. Other issues concerned the

March—April 2010 37
inappropriate deployment of TM tools and a lack of un- consideration of mechanisms between the TM Business,
derstanding of when the activities should be conducted Product and Technology levels. The inputs ensure that
and reviewed. the correct knowledge is available prior to the com-
mencement of workshop-based activities. Furthermore,
How the TM tools can actually be integrated depends on by specifying the expected outputs from each activity,
the specific tools being deployed and the local circum- stakeholders are informed of what knowledge they can
stances such as the organizational structure. In this sec- expect to be generated and how it should be dealt with as
tion we describe how Rolls-Royce has integrated its TM an input to a subsequent activity or even TM stage.
activities across the technology life cycle using each of
the three dimensions. While some details are unique to Inputs and outputs may be in the form of documents and
Rolls-Royce, the underlying principles can be applied to hard data (i.e., explicit knowledge), or tacit knowledge
other technology-driven organizations. residing in participants’ minds, which may be partly ex-
Inputs and Outputs Integration ternalized through TM activities (9). Figure 2 presents
an example of such inputs and outputs at a framework
This integration dimension defines the prerequisites for level for one of the stages.
each TM tool and how they can be sourced. The outputs
to the activities are also defined, together with how they Several input-output chains were validated through
provide an input to subsequent processes. The result is a embedded case studies of the particular tools within Rolls-
sequence of knowledge-building activities across the Royce’s sub-units. These case studies involved Technology
technology lifecycle and framework. This involves the Watch, Make-the-Future and Technology Roadmapping
further contribution of transforming tacit and explicit tools, among others, and consisted of deploying and fa-
knowledge from different sources into localized, explic- cilitating multidisciplinary workshops for these activities.
it knowledge. The validation of the input-output chains was achieved
by using output data from one tool as input data to the
A set of inputs and outputs was derived for each of the next adjacent (downstream) tool. The resulting knowledge
TM tools in each stage. They were obtained through in- flow was successful and tool isolation was reduced or
terviews and surveys within Rolls-Royce to define the eliminated completely. A decrease in work duplication, due
knowledge technology managers needed in order to to the avoidance of knowledge re-creation at each in-
make informed technology decisions. This included the stance it was required, was also demonstrated successfully.

Figure 2.—Example of input and output integration at a framework level for the Identification and Monitoring stage.

38 Research . Technology Management

Data were re-used to support previously independent TM processes motivated them to develop more strategic and
processes and a knowledge chain was created that consolidated strategies.
improved the technology managers’ confidence in a total
approach to TM. On the other hand, an organization’s product and business
domains may require development of particular tech-
nologies for alignment to new product introduction.
Organization and Ownership Integration Hence, product introduction engineers were chosen to
lead the selection of technological solutions to satisfy
Strategic Technical Areas (STAs) are critical technology new products through Make-the-Future tools. Bench-
groups and combinations of technical skills for a particu- marking and technology maturity assessments are often
lar application (e.g., joining). They were identified by best conducted by Capability Acquisition engineers
this study as one of the mechanisms for defining tool who own the existing technologies under study. They
ownership. In fact, STA leaders/owners within the orga- would also typically be responsible for technology Ca-
nization were selected as the appropriate owners for the pability Acquisition along a technology maturity scale.
exploratory TM tools (Technology Networking, Technol- Again, the primary motivation for tool owners and stake-
ogy Watch, Technology Roadmapping, and Technology holders to contribute is the matching of TM tool owner-
Make-Buy) and were recommended to assume responsi- ship to the organizational function targeted by the tools.
bility for these activities within their areas.
Obtaining commitment of the product introduction engi-
STA owners possess in-depth technical knowledge of neers for Make-the-Future responsibility and that of
a technology area and frequently engage with other Capability Acquisition engineers for Technology Bench-
experts—partners, suppliers and research centers—to marking, Technology Maturity Assessment and Capability
explore the organization’s internal and external environ- Acquisition, was appropriate due to their roles being
ments. Hence, STAs and their owners provide an appro- naturally aligned to the same technology life cycle stages
priate platform for exploratory and technology strategy as those governing these tools.
development TM tools, mainly concerned with technol-
ogy-push. STA owners were willing to take responsibility Figure 3 summarizes tool ownership while indicating
for exploratory tools because their interest in exploratory the TM tool responsibilities of central teams. Due to the

Figure 3.—Different groups of engineers “own” different tools.

March—April 2010 39
multidisciplinary nature of TM, it was not feasible to
further simplify tool ownership since this would not be
achievable in practice. This is due to technology exper-
Involving a targeted
tise tending to evolve across the technology life cycle,
creating the need for focused expertise at particular stag-
es of the cycle. Furthermore, the motivation to contrib-
set of participants
ute is also generated by aligning TM tool responsibility
to the area of expertise. helps transform
Although TM tool ownership is singular and tied to one
owner, stakeholder participation in the activities should tacit into explicit
be multidisciplinary. Rolls-Royce strives to have a
broad array of functions participating in each tool in
order to create synergy among external environment
knowledge.
awareness, business and product-pull considerations
and earlier engagement of subsequent stakeholders in
the technology life cycle. Particular examples of this
success include Technology Watch, Make-the-Future Besides people, software platforms and IT architectures
and Technology Roadmapping pilots, which resulted in can play an important role in enhancing the integration
improved multidisciplinary synergy, improved business between business, product and technology domains, and
and technology strategy alignment and technological create a collaborative environment to use, maintain and
awareness. Figure 4 lists typical participants involved store data. At Rolls-Royce, for example, information sys-
with the different tools within the Identification and tems support Technology Roadmapping and Risk Man-
Monitoring stage. agement and thereby enhance collaboration across global
businesses.
Involving a targeted set of participants aids the trans-
formation of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge
(9). Knowledge residing in people’s minds gets exter- Timing Integration
nalized through communication in TM workshops To synchronize TM activities, we examined the dura-
where it can be captured in explicit form. This was tion and timing of each TM activity through hands-on
demonstrated in a Technology Watch pilot in which the experience. Figure 5 provides a generalized overview to
STA owner captured explicit information from work- highlight a timing solution that consists of a combination
shop discussions that was previously unknown to the of discretely deployed tools and tools that remain active
other STA members. This expanded the knowledge base for the duration of the technology life cycle. It shows
and reduced the threat of knowledge loss due to em- how a technology strategy evolves through a step-wise
ployee mobility. route of exploratory technology-push and directed
product-pull activities (Technology Networking plus
Watch and Make-the-Future activities, respectively).
These are supported by continuous Technology Bench-
marking and Maturity Assessments, and converge into a
Technology Roadmapping activity.
Essentially, Technology Roadmapping brings together
the timely derivation of exploratory technology solu-
tions and inward-facing technology solutions that ad-
dress new product introduction needs. The realization
of technology strategy culminates at the R&T funding
milestone (or equivalent), where technology proposals
generated from Technology Roadmapping, are evaluated
for funding and investment by the organization. Capa-
bility Acquisition projects will then be deployed (with
any Make-Buy decision activities) for those technolo-
gies that successfully receive funding, to commence
technology capability/maturity development along a
Figure 4.—Typical people/stakeholders whom readiness scale.
one would want involved with the different
tools (technology networking, etc.) in the Full technology maturity may not be reached for several
Identification and Monitoring stage. years, depending on the complexity and novelty of the

40 Research . Technology Management

technology in question. Nevertheless, timing of the evolv- making to decisions based on arbitrary and hasty
ing maturity/capability across Capability Acquisition read- assumptions.
iness gates is planned such that mature technologies can
be deployed at the right time to contribute to the realiza- TM—A Value-Adding Route
tion and launch of new products. Risk Management and
other Protection tools continuously support the projects Technology managers often have a limited set of TM
along the life cycle. tools at their disposal, particularly for the exploratory
stages of this framework. This tends to weaken their
Organizations typically review R&T funding annually. perception of external technological developments. Also,
Hence, these tools for technology strategy development without TM tools, technology investment decisions could
can also be deployed on a yearly basis in good time for the be subjective rather than based on more informed, ob-
R&T funding milestone. Frequent internal reviews may jective judgements. Furthermore, this technology strategy
also be conducted for the activities, depending on the na- may be weakly aligned to business and product strategies
ture of the company and the speed of technological change. within other parts of the organization.
These reviews would keep knowledge current, especially
for Technology Watch and Technology Roadmapping The tools recommended and piloted in this project im-
activities, which are “live” processes with continually proved Rolls-Royce technology managers’ confidence in
evolving data. This process was adopted by a central team formulating strategies, selecting ideas, aligning to business
in Rolls-Royce through publication of the TM framework, and product requirements, and formulating technology
together with “How-To” documents providing detailed proposals. The latter was particularly evident since the
instructions for the timing of each activity. managers became better equipped with supporting data
generated by TM tools and participant involvement to
In the face of operational pressures, organizations may formulate more robust and comprehensive investment
struggle to deploy TM activities in an optimum manner. proposals.
For this reason, the described solution provides a skele-
tal plan to which organizations may adhere so as to en- Similarly, the tools suggested for the Capability Devel-
sure that the build-up to technology investment bidding opment stages (Table 1) and the positioning of Capabil-
is appropriate. Otherwise, stakeholders may resort to ity Acquisition within a TM context improved the
short-cuts in a reactive effort to meet R&T bidding time- development of technology maturity along a gated pro-
lines. This could lead to a shift from informed decision- cess. Finally, the positioning of tools like Technology

Figure 5.—Timing integration for recommended technology management tool suites.

March—April 2010 41
Risk Management and Features technology within a
central Protection process provided stakeholders with
the necessary tools for understanding the importance of
Tech management
managing risk across the entire technology life cycle
and protecting valuable knowledge for its subsequent re- can indeed add value
use in future projects.
The three integration dimensions we proposed were test- to strategy
ed across a number of tools, demonstrating improved
TM practices and confidence in a real environment. The
TM framework presented in this paper also helps to
development and
strike a balance between technology-push and business/
product-pull for manufacturing organizations. The ex-
ploratory tools and their integration strengthen manufac-
implementation.
turing technology innovation. At the same time, the
inward-facing tools provide technology solutions for
the business/product-push requirements resulting from strategy development and implementation for technolo-
product innovation. gy-driven organizations. This is assured when due con-
The framework presented here can be applied to organi- sideration is applied to a framework that supports the
zations that seek competitive advantage through core management of technology throughout its lifecycle,
manufacturing technology capabilities. As some of the through better informed decision-making and tactical
tools were specifically designed for Rolls-Royce, other TM tools, integrated as a knowledge-building sequence
organizations might adopt alternative methodologies, so of activities.
long as the alternative tool-sets cover the TM functions
set out in Table 2. Similarly, while the integration mech- References
anisms are essential for efficient and effective practices, 1. Levin, D. Z. and Barnard, H. 2008. Technology management
timing and ownership structures need to be tailored to routines that matter to technology managers. International Journal
the individual firm. of Technology Management 41–1/2, pp. 22–37.
2. Farrukh, C. et al. 2004. Developing an integrated technology
management process. Research-Technology Management 47–4, pp.
A number of limitations do exist. Organizations must 39–46.
be prepared to release and support staff for the execu- 3. Tschirky, H. P. 1994. The role of technology forecasting and
tion of TM activities, even under operational pressures. assessment in technology management. R&D Management 24–2, pp.
121–129.
Culture could present a barrier to the described prac- 4. Gregory, M. J. 1995. Technology management: a process approach.
tices, manifesting itself as resistance to change and Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers 209, pp.
scepticism over future technology promises. This could 347–356.
5. Sumanth, D. J. and Sumanth, J. J. 1996. The “ Technology Cycle”
particularly affect the preliminary stages of the frame- approach. In Handbook of Technology Management (International
work by favoring short-term solutions at the expense Edition), edited by G. H. Gaynor. New York: McGraw-Hill.
of technology foresight, especially during times of 6. Yin, R. K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd
Edition). UK: SAGE Publications.
economic stress. Furthermore, the coordination of ac- 7. Iansiti, M. 1995. Technology integration: Managing technological
tivities in large organizations, in which departments evolution in a complex environment. Research Policy 24, pp. 521–
have different strategic objectives and interests, may 542.
8. Huergo, E. 2006. The role of technological management as a
not be straightforward. source of innovation: Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms.
Research Policy 35, pp. 1377–1388.
In conclusion, rather than just another business process, 9. Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge
TM can indeed be a value-adding route to technology creation. Organization Science 5–1, pp. 14–37.

Reprints
IMPROVING PRODUCT-DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES
Fifty-one RESEARCH • TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT articles on this subject are now available in
paperback. To order, see inside back cover.
Learning from the Best New Product New Problems, New Solutions: Making
Developers Portfolio Management More Effective
Best Practices for Managing R&D Portfolios . . . AND MORE

42 Research . Technology Management

View publication stats