Swipe to navigate through the chapters of this book
This chapter presents a quantitative model used for evaluating the impact of emerging technologies on a company’s objective. The hierarchical model with four levels (objective–criteria–factors–technology alternatives) is structured to decompose the complex decision problems and incorporate quantitative and qualitative aspects into the evaluation process. A new approach on applying a semi-absolute scale to quantify the values of technologies is proposed in conjunction with the determination of criteria priorities and the relative importance of factors under each criterion. The impact of technologies on a company’s objective is calculated as a composite index called technology value. The improvement gap and improvement priority of each technology are also determined to identify the characteristics of the emerging technologies on which technology-driven companies would focus in order to maximize the impact of those technologies on the company’s strategic objectives. A case study is included in this chapter to illustrate the applicability and computations of the proposed model.
Please log in to get access to this content
To get access to this content you need the following product:
Betz, F. (1998). Managing technological innovation (p. 369). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sugiura, H. (1990, Fall). How Honda localizes its global strategy . Sloan Management Review, 32(1), 77–82.
Schmitt, R. W. (1985, May–June). Successful corporate R&D. Harvard Business Review, 124–129.
Radhakrishna, A. V., & Vardarajan, A. (1991, November/December). Maximizing innovation in industry and adopting to change. Industrial Management, 19–21.
Kokubo, A. (1992, January-February). Japanese competitive intelligence for R&D . Research-Technology Management, 33–34.
Wheatley, K. K., & Wilemon, D. (1999). From emerging technology to competitive advantage. In Portland International Conference on the Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET). Portland, OR.
Saaty, T. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting resource allocation (p. 287). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Vargas, L. G. (1990). An overview of the AHP and its applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 2–9. CrossRef
Ramanujam, V., & Saaty, T. L. (1981). Technological choice in the less developed countries: An analytical hierarchy approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 19, 81–98. CrossRef
Prasad, A. V. S., & Somasekhara, N. (1990). The analytic hierarchy process for choice of technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 38, 151–158. CrossRef
Melachrinoudis, E., & Rice, K. (1991). The prioritization of technologies in a research laboratory. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 38(3), 269–278. CrossRef
Suh, C.-K., Suh, E.-H., & Baek, K.-C. (1994). Prioritizing telecommunications technologies for long-range R&D planning to the year 2006. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 41(3), 264–275. CrossRef
Albayrakoglu, M. M. (1996). Justification of new manufacturing technology: A strategic approach using the AHP. Production and Invention Management Journal, 37(1), 71–77.
Sharif, M. N., & Sundararajan, V. (1983). A quantitative model for the evaluation of technological alternatives. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 24(1), 15–29. CrossRef
Gerdsri, N., & Kocaoglu, D. F. (2003). An analytical approach to building a technology development envelope (TDE) for roadmapping of emerging technologies. In Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET). Portland, OR.
Kocaoglu, D. (1983). A participative approach to program evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. EM-30(3), 112–118.
Ra, J. W. (1987). Analysis of the column-row approach for pairwise comparison, Unpublished dissertation, University of Pittsburgh
Azar, K. (2001). The future of thermal management in the unstable technology market. In Electronics cooling (p. 1).
Khrustalev, D. (2001). Loop thermosyphons for cooling of electronics. Lancaster, PA: Thermacore, Inc.
Intel, Moore's Law. (2001). www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.htm
Montgomery, S., et al. (2002). High-density architecture meets electrical and thermal challenges. In Intel Developer Update Magazine, 1–8.
Viswanath, R., et al. (2000). Thermal performance challenges from silicon to systems. Intel Technology Journal, Q3, 1–16.
Bailey, B. (1990) PCM User Manual, Unpublished report, Portland State University.
Christensen, C. M. (2001, Winter). The past and future of competitive advantage . MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(2), 105–109.
- Strategic Planning: A Quantitative Model for the Strategic Evaluation of Emerging Technologies
- Springer International Publishing
- Sequence number
- Chapter number
- Chapter 5
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta