Model Proposal for Evaluation of Technology Development Process: Conceptualisation and Scale Development

Abstract

Traditional approaches based on intuitive decisions of executivies, teams, or individuals often prove inadequate in managing complex technology development processes. Theoretical models proposed for successful technology development processes emphasize the necessity of standardized processes. However, empirical evidence regarding the applications and results of these models is limited. In this context, a model has been developed to examine how standardized technology development processes are implemented at the organizational level in companies. This model is defined by a scale that includes dimensions of technical research, business research, development, and performance. The proposed model is based on data obtained from companies with the highest R&D expenditure in Turkey. The findings provide evidence that a structured technology development process at the corporate level is necessary for success. It has been revealed that technical and business research phases are particularly determining factors in the development process. Additionally, it has been determined that the correct implementation of these processes has a positive impact on the performance of the process.

Keywords

• Technology development
• Standardised process
• Exploratory factor analysis
• Confirmatory factor analysis
• Scale development

References

1. Ajamian, G. M., & Koen, P. A. (2002). The PDMA toolbook for new product development (P. Belliveau, A. Griffin, & S. Somermeyer, Eds.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. google scholar
2. Arnold, E., Aström, T., Glass, C., & Scalzi, M. D. (2018). How should we evaluate complexprogrammes for innovation and socio-technical transitions? Brighton: Technopolis. Retrieved from Technopolis website: https://www.technopolis-group.com/how-should-we-evaluate-complex-programmes-for-innovation-and-socio-technical-transitions/ google scholar
3. Association for Project Management (Ed.). (2013). Earned value management handbook. Princes Risboro-ugh, Buckinghamshire: Association for Project Management. google scholar
4. Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quinonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149 google scholar
5. Bolger, J. (2000). Capacity Development: Why, What And How. Canadian International Development Agency, Vol. 1 (No. 1), 1-9. google scholar
6. Branscomb, L. M., & Auerswald, P. E. (2002). An Analysis of Funding for Early-Stage Technology Develop-ment (No. NIST GCR 02-841; p. 153). National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved from National Institute of Standards and Technology website: https://www.nist.gov/document/gcr02-841pdf. google scholar
7. Bronzino J. D. (1992). Management of medical technology: A primer for clinical engineers. Boston: Butter-worth-Heinemann. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=NOJbAwAAQBAJ&printsec =frontcover&dq=MEDICAL+TECHNOLOGY:+ASSESSMENT+AND+ACQUISITION&hl=tr&sa=X &redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=MEDICAL%20TECHNOLOGY%3A%20ASSESSMENT%20AND%20 ACQUISITION&f=false google scholar
8. Caetano, M., Araujo, C. S., Amaral, D. C., & Guerrini, F. M. (2011). Open innovation and technology deve-lopment: process: The gap on partnership adoption from a case study perspective. Product Management & Development, 9(2), 111-120. https://doi.org/10.4322/pmd.2012.003 google scholar

9. Canez, L., Puig, L., Quintero, R., & Garfias, M. (2007). Linking Technology Acquisition to a Gated NPD Process. Research-Technology Management, 50(4), 49-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2007.1165 7451 google scholar
10. Carbonell, P., Rodriguez Escudero, A. I., & Munuera Aleman, J. L. (2004). Technology Newness and of Go/No-Go Criteria on New Product Success. Marketing Letters, 15(2/3), 81-97. https://doi.org/10.1023/ B:MARK.0000047386.33282.51 google scholar
11. Carpenter, S. (2018). Ten Steps in Scale Development and Reporting: A Guide for Researchers. Communica-tion Methods and Measures, 12(1), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1396583 google scholar
12. Catlin, T., Scanlan, J., & Willmott, P. (2015). Raising your Digital Quotient. McKinsey & Company, 13. google scholar
13. Çetindamar, D., Phaal, R., & Probert, D. (2016). Technology management: Activities and tools (Second edi-tion). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
14. Chiesa, V., Frattin, F., Lazzarotti, V., & Manzini, R. (2009). Performance measurement in R&D: Exploring the interplay between measurement objectives, dimensions of performance and contextual factors. R&D Management, 39(5), 487-519. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00554.x google scholar
15. Cooper, R. G. (2006). Managing technology development projects. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 35(1), 67-67. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2007.329141 google scholar
16. Crill, B. P., & Siegler, N. (2017). Exoplanet Exploration Program, Program Technology Development Plan. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Retrieved from National Aeronautics and Space Admi-nistration website: https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/exep/technology/gap-lists google scholar
17. Day, G. S. (2008). Is It Real? Can We Win? Is It Worth Doing? Harvard Business Review, 85(12), 110-146. google scholar
18. DiStefano, C., & Hess, B. (2005). Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis For Construct Validati-on: An Empirical Review. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23(3), 225-241. https://doi. org/10.1177/073428290502300303 google scholar
19. Dobni, C. B., & Luffman, G. (2003). Determining the scope and impact of market orientation profiles on strategy implementation and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24(6), 577-585. https://doi. org/10.1002/smj.322 google scholar
20. Doerry, N. (2010). Transitioning Technology to Naval Ships (No. Ser 05T/017). Washington: National Aca-demy of Sciences. Retrieved from National Academy of Sciences website: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citati-ons/ADA525441 google scholar
21. Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., & Reijers, H. A. (2018). Fundamentals of Business Process Mana-gement (Second). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-56509-4. google scholar
22. Ernst, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Rübsaamen, C. (2010). Sales, Marketing, and Research-and-Development Coo-peration across New Product Development Stages: Implications for Success. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 80-92. https://doi.Org/10.1509/jmkg.74.5.080 google scholar
23. Frishammar, J. (2005). Towards a Theory of Managing Information in New Product Development (Disserta-tion, Luleâ Tekniska Universitet). Luleâ Tekniska Universitet. Retrieved from https://www.avhandlingar. se/avhandling/abfa7587e1/ google scholar
24. Gallardo, V. G. O. (2013). Technology acquısıtıon: Sourcıng technology from ındustry partners (Dissertati-on). University of Cambridge, London. google scholar
25. Gaskin, J., Godfrey, S., & Vance, A. (2018). Successful System: It’s Not Just Who You Are, But What You Do. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 10(2), 57-81. https://doi.org/10.17705/1thci.00104 google scholar
26. Gaubinger, K., & Rabl, M. (2014). Structuring the Front End of Innovation. In O. Gassmann & F. Schweitzer (Eds.). Management of the Fuzzy Front End of Innovation (pp. 15-30). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01056-4_2 google scholar
27. Griffin, A. (1993). Metrics for Measuring Product Development Cycle Time. Journal of Product Innovation Management, (10), 112-125. google scholar
28. Griner, C., Keegan, B. W., & Goldin, D., S. (2000). Enhancing Mission Success - A Framework for the Fu-ture. NASA Integrated Action Team. google scholar
29. Guimaraes, T., Paranjape, K., & Walton, M. (2019). Model of Success Factors for NPD Performance. Inter-national Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 16(07), 1950054. https://doi.org/10.1142/ S0219877019500548 google scholar
30. Günday, G. (2007). Innovation models and implementations atfirm level in manufacturing industry (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Sabancı University, İstanbul. google scholar
31. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (Eighth edition). Andover, Hampshire: Cengage Learning EMEA. Retrieved from www.cengage.co.uk google scholar
32. Harmancioglu, N., McNally, R. C., Calantone, R. J., & Durmusoglu, S. S. (2007). Your new product deve-lopment (NPD) is only as good as your process: An exploratory analysis of new NPD process design and implementation. R&D Management, 37(5), 399-424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2007.00486.x google scholar
33. Iansiti, M. (1995). Technology development and integration: An empirical study of the interaction betwe-en applied science and product development. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42(3), 259-269. https://doi.org/10.1109/17.403744 google scholar
34. Kausch, C. (2007). A risk-benefit perspective on early customer integration. New York: Physica-Verlag He-idelberg. google scholar
35. Kolossovski, E. (2019). What Makes a Great High-Tech Product? Retrieved September 7, 2022, from https:// uxdesign.cc/what-makes-a-great-high-tech-product-9f7197e5bda3#:~:text=A%20high%2Dtech%20 product%20is%20a%20subset%20of%20product%20that,often%20requires%20high%20R%26D%20 investments. google scholar
36. Krishnan, V. (2013). Operations Management Opportunities in Technology Commercialization and Entrep-reneurship. Production and Operations Management, 22(6). https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12012 google scholar
37. Lind, J. (2006). Boeing’s Global Enterprise Technology Process. Research-Technology Management, 49(5), 36-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2006.11657396 google scholar
38. Loutfy, R., & Belkhir, L. (2001). Managing Innovation at Xerox. Research-Technology Management, 44(4), 15-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2001.11671436 google scholar
39. Lusthaus, C., Adrien, M.-H., Anderson, G., Carden, F., & Montalvan, G. P (2002). Organizational assess-ment: A framework for improving performance. Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank. Retrieved from http://www.iadb.org google scholar
40. Meier, A., Kock, A. (2022). Agile R&D Units’ Organization Beyond Software—Developing and Validating a Multidimensional Scale in an Engineering Context. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(6), 3476-3488. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3108343 google scholar
41. Milbergs, E., & Vonortas, N. (2006). Innovation Metrics: Measurement to Insight. Center for Accelerating Innovation and George Washington University. Retrieved from www.innovationecosystems.com google scholar
42. Miller, M., Bustamante, C., Roesch, R., Boshell, F., & Ayuso, M. (2015). Renewable Energy Technology In-novation Policy (p. 60). The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA),. Retrieved from The In-ternational Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), website: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/ Agency/Publication/2015/IRENA_RETIP_2015.pdf google scholar
43. Möller, K., Menninger, J., & Rober, D. (2011). Innovationscontrolling: Erfolgreiche Steuerung und Bewer-tung von Innovationen. Stuttgart: Schafler-Poeschel. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.tr/books ?id=NSTRDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Innovationscontrolling:+Erfolgreiche+Steuerung+u nd+Bewertung+von+Innovationen&hl=tr&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Innovationscontrolling% 3A%20Erfolgreiche%20Steuerung%20und%20Bewertung%20von%20Innovationen&f=false google scholar
44. Moser, M. R. (1985). Measuring Performance in R&D Settings. Research Management, 28(5), 31-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00345334.1985.11756920 google scholar
45. Myers, S., & Marquis, D. G. (1969). Successful Industrial Innovations (No. NSF 69-17). Washington Nati-onal Sicence Foundation. Retrieved from National Sicence Foundation website: https://play.google.com/ store/books/details?id=umKyAAAAIAAJ&rdid=bookumKyAAAAIAAJ&rdot=1 google scholar
46. O’brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance ınflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673-690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6 google scholar
47. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (1982). Technology and Handicapped People (No. NTIS order #PB83-172056). U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,. Retrieved from https://www.princeton. edu > ~ota > disk3 google scholar
48. Pleschak, F. (1997). Development Problems of Small Technology-Based Firms and Ways of Overcoming Them. In K. Koschatzky (Ed.), Technology-Based Firms in the Innovation Process. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag HD. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-52135-5 google scholar
49. Richardson, J. M. (2017). Naval Research And Development.pdf. Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/ pdfs/AD1091630.pdf google scholar
50. Richrath, S., Plano, C., & Nesbitt, M. (2016). Transportation Performance Management Capability Maturity Model (No. OMB No. 0704-0188; p. 70). Spy Pond Partners. google scholar
51. Robbins, S. P., & Barnwell, N. (2006). Organisational Structures and their Discourses. In Dimensions of organisation structure. In Organisation theory: Concepts and cases (5th ed.). Australia: Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education. google scholar
52. Romasanta, A. K. S., Van der Sijde, P., & Van Muijlwijk-Koezen, J. (2020). Innovation in pharmaceuti-cal R&D: Mapping the research landscape. Scientometrics, 125(3), 1801-1832. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11192-020-03707-y google scholar
53. Safiih, M. L., & Azreen, N. M. A. (2016). Confirmatory Factor Analysis Approach: A Case Study of Mathe-matics Students’ Achievement in TIMSS. 41-51. Malaysian Journal of Mathematical Sciences. Retrieved from http://einspem.upm.edu.my/journal google scholar
54. Schulz, A. P., Clausing, D. P., Fricke, E., & Negele, H. (2000). Development and integration of win-ning technologies as key to competitive advantage. Systems Engineering, 3(4), 180-211. https://doi. org/10.1002/1520-6858(2000)3:4<180::AID-SYS2>3.0.CO;2-H google scholar
55. Sheasley, W. D. (1999). Leading the Technology Development Process. Research-Technology Management, 42(3), 49-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.1999.11671284 google scholar
56. Song, M., & Montoya-Weiss, M. M. (2001). The effect of perceived technological uncertainty on Japanese new product development. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 61-80. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069337 google scholar
57. Stern, P. (2008). Vinnova's focus on impact: A Joint Approach for Logic Assessment, Monitoring, Evaluati-on and Impact Analysis. Vinnova - Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems. https://doi. org/10.22163/fteval.2008.146. google scholar
58. Sun, S. (2012). Marketing and Design In Organisational New Product Development (Master Thesis). Victoria University of Wellington. google scholar
59. Sweeney, M. (1990, September 10). Determining a technology strategy for competitive advantage. Presen-ted at the 4th annual conference of the British Academy of Management, Glasgow, Scotland. Glasgow, Scotland. google scholar
60. Tatikonda, M. V., & Rosenthal, S. R. (2000). Technology novelty, project complexity, and product develop-ment project execution success: A deeper look at task uncertainty in product innovation. IEEE Transacti-ons on Engineering Management, 47(1), 74-87. https://doi.org/10.1109/17.820727 google scholar
61. Turkishtime. (2021). 2020 Yılı Ar-Ge harcamalarına göre en büyük 250 şirket. Retrieved from https://tur-kishtimedergi.com/ google scholar
62. United Nations Development Programme. (2008). Capacity Development Practice Note. UNDP Practice Note: Capacity Development. Retrieved from www.capacity.undp.org google scholar
63. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC. (2017). Enhancing financingfor the research, development and demonstration of climate technologies. google scholar
64. United States Department Of Energy. (2007). Stage-Gate Innovation Management Guidelines. U.S. Depart-ment Of Energy. Retrieved from U.S. Department Of Energy website: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/ manufacturing/financial/pdfs/itp_stage_gate_overview.pdf google scholar
65. United States Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2006). Stronger Practices Needed to Improve DOD Technology Transition Processes (No. GAO-06-883). Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/assets/ a251503.html google scholar
66. Walwyn, D., & Chan, A. (2019). Research guide for masters and doctoral students in the Graduate School of Technology Management. University Of Pretoria Graduate School Of Technology Management. Ret-rieved from https://www.up.ac.za/media/shared/26/2022/research-guide-for-post-grad-students-issue-26-of-january-2019.zp166976.pdf google scholar
67. Whitney, D. E. (2007). Assemble A Technology Development Toolkit. Research-Technology Management, 50(5), 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2007.11657462 google scholar
68. Wobig, E. (2015). PwC Perspective:Unlocking product development value in M&A. PricewaterhouseCooper. Retrieved from http://www.pwc.co.uk/innovation google scholar