Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
This research develops a systematic approach for policy makers to strategically define the national technology policy for emerging technologies. In this approach, a hierarchical decision model is built and qualified expert opinions are used as measurements. There are four levels in the hierarchy: mission, objectives, technological goals, and research strategies. Three panels are formed based on their background and expertise in order to minimize and balance any possible biases among the members. The objectives, technological goals, and research strategies are evaluated and prioritized, according to their contribution to the country’s mission, by quantifying the experts’ judgments. This research also demonstrates several approaches for the validation of results. Inconsistency measure, intraclass correlation coefficient, and statistical test for the reliability of the experts and group agreement are used for that purpose. Finally, HDM sensitivity analysis is brought in to study the robustness of the rankings, especially at the technology level that may be caused by potential changes in the national strategic direction.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Lall, S. (2004). Reinventing industrial strategy: The role of government policy in building industrial competitiveness (United Nations conference on trade and development). Geneva: United Nations.
Turpin, T., Martinez-Fernandez, C., & Brito, H. L. (2002). Riding the waves of policy: The new production of knowledge and implications for developing economies. In Development through knowledge. Geneva, 2002.
M. d Campos, M., & Machado, F. (2000). Renewing technology management and policy: innovation crucial for sustainable industrial development. In P. Conceicao, D. V. Gibson, M. V. Heitor, & S. Shariq (Eds.), Science, technology, and innovation policy. Westport: Quorum Books.
Clinton, W. J., & Gore, A. (1993). Technology for America's economic growth, A new direction to build economic strength, The White House Office of the Press Secretary, Washington D.C.
Dodgson, N., & B. J. (1997). Effective innovation policy: A new approach. International Journal of Strategic Management, 30, 143–143.
Galbraith, J. K. (2000). U.S. industrial competitiveness policy: An update. In P. Conceicao, D. V. Gibson, M. V. Heitor, & S. Shariq (Eds.), Science, technology, and innovation policy. Westport: Quorum Books.
Gann, D. (2000). Technology policy: An international comparison of innovation. In P. Conceicao, D. V. Gibson, M. V. Heitor, & S. Shariq (Eds.), Major capital projects (Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy). Westport: Quorum Books.
Simai, M., Kroo, N., Inotai, A., et al. (2003). Practical guide for active national policy makers – What science and technology policy can and cannot do? Helsinki: Government Institute for Economic Research.
Yuan, B. J. C. (2000). Technological capability, policies, and strategies in Asia. In P. Conceicao, D. V. Gibson, M. V. Heitor, & S. Shariq (Eds.), Science, technology, and innovation policy. Westport: Quorum Books.
Kuhlmann, S. (1998). Moderation of policy-making? Science and technology policy evaluation beyond impact measurement – The case of Germany. Evaluation, 4, 130–148. CrossRef
Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. (1981). Effective policy implementation. Massachusetts: Lexington Books.
Schon, G., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.
Ernst, D., Ganiatsos, T., & Mytelka, L. (1994). Technological capabilities: A conceptual framework. Geneva: UNCTAD.
Hillebrand, W., Messner, D., & Meyer-Stamer, J. (1994). Strengthening technological capability in developing countries: Lessons from German technical cooperation. Berlin: German Development Institute.
Lall, S. (1992). Structural problems of African industry. In F. Stewart, S. Lall, & S. M. Wangwe (Eds.), Alternative development strategies in Sub-Saharan Africa. London: McMillan.
Weiss, C. (1993). Scientific and technological responses to structural: Adjustment. Technology and Society. 15.
Kameoka, A., Yokoo, Y., & Kuwahara, T. (2004). A challenge of integrating technology foresight and assessment in industrial strategy development and policymaking. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71, 579–598. CrossRef
Konnolo, T., Carrillo-Hermosilla, U., & Carrillo-Hermosilla, J. (2004). Prospective voluntary agreement: escaping techno-institutional lock-in. EU–US seminar: New technology foresight, forecasting & assessment methods. Seville, 2004.
Meulen, B. V. D. (2002). Science and technology foresight in Europe: A reaction. In The role of foresight in the selection of research policy priorities. Seville, 2002
Tegart, G., & Johnston, R. (2004). Some advances in the practice of foresight. EU-US seminar: New technology foresight, forecasting & assessment method. Seville, 2004.
Weber, M. (2002). Foresight in a multi-level and multi_domain decision space. In The role of foresight in the selection of research policy priorities. Seville, 2002.
EIRMA. (1997). Technology roadmapping - delivering business vision. Paris: European Industry Research Management Association.
Fleischer, T., Decker, M., & Fiedeler, U. (2005). Assessing emerging technologies - Methodological challenges and the case of nanotechnologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72, 1112–1121. CrossRef
Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J. P., & Probert, D. R. (2001). Characterization of technology roadmaps: Purpose and format. PICMET, Portland, 2001.
Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J. P., & Probert, D. R. (2005). Developing a technology roadmapping system (Portland international conference on management of engineering and technology). Portland: IEEE. CrossRef
Phaal, R., & Probert, D. R. (2001). Fast-start technology roadmapping (Portland international conference on management of engineering and technology). Portland: IEEE.
Gerdsri, N. (2005). An analytical approach on building a Technology Development Envelope (TDE) for roadmapping of emerging technologies (Systems science/engineering and technology management. Vol. Doctor of philosophy). Portland: Portland State University. CrossRef
Gerdsri, N., & Kocaoglu, D. F. (2007). Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to build a strategic framework for technology roadmapping. Mathematical & Computer Modelling, 46, 1071–1080. CrossRef
MOST. (2003). The direction of Thailand science and technology in 10 years. Bangkok: National Science and Technology Development Agency, Ministry of Science and Technology.
NSTC. (2005). National Strategic Plan for Science and Technology (2005–2015). National Science and Technology Development Agency, Ministry of Science and Technology.
NSTDA. (2005). Implementation plan for fiscal year 2006. National Science and Technology Development Agency.
Garcia, M., & Bray, O. (1997). Fundamentals of technology roadmapping. Albuquerque: Sandia National Laboratories. CrossRef
Kajikawa, Y., Usui, O., Hakata, K., et al. (2008). Structure of knowledge in the science and technology roadmaps. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75, 1–11. CrossRef
Lee, S., Kang, S., Park, Y., et al. (2007). Technology roadmapping for R&D planning: The case of the Korean parts and materials industry. Technovation, 27, 433–445. CrossRef
Saaty, T. (2000). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory: . Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publication.
Pandejpong, T. (2002). Strategic decision: Process for technology selection in the petrochemical industry (System Science: Engineering Management, Vol. Doctor of philosophy). Portland: Portland State University.
Harker, P. T., & Vargas, L. G. (1987). The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty’s analytical hierarchy process. Management Science, 33, 1383–1403. CrossRef
Braunschweig, T. (2001). Analytic hierarchy process. In G. Gijsbers, W. Janssen, H. H. Odame, & G. Mejierink (Eds.), Planning agricultural research: A sourcebook. New York: CABI Publishing.
Martino, J. P. (1983). Technological forecasting for decision making (2nd ed.). New York: North-Holland.
Wood, S. C., & Brown, G. S. (1998). Commercializing nascent technology: The case of laser diodes at Sony. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15, 167–183. CrossRef
Adner, R., & Levinthal, D. (2002). The emergence of emerging technologies Insead R&D. Fontainbleau.
Wheatley, K. K., & Wilemon, D. (1999). From emerging technology to competitive advantage (Portland international conference on management of engineering and technology). Portland: IEEE.
Gerdsri, N., & Kocaoglu, D. F. (2004). A quantitative models for the strategic evaluation of emerging technologies (Portland international conference on management of engineering and technology). Seoul: IEEE.
Cetron, M. J. (1969). Technological forecasting; A practical approach. New York: Technology Forecasting Institute.
Porter, A. L. (1991). Forecasting and management of technology. New York: Wiley.
Chamber, J. C., Mollick, S. K., & Smith, D. D. (1971). How to choose the right forecasting technique. Harvard Business Review, vol. July–August, pp. 45–74.
Levary, R. R., & Han, D. (1995). Choosing a technological forecasting method. Industrial Management, 37, 14.
Kocaoglu, D. F. (1983). A participative approach to program evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 30.
Bartko, J. J. (1976). On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 762–765. CrossRef
Sheskin, D. J. (2004). Inferential statistical tests employed with two or more dependent samples (and related measures of association/correlation) (Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures 3rd ed., pp. 797–884). Florida: Chapman & Hall\CRC.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Interclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428. CrossRef
Chen, H. (2007). Sensitivity analysis for hierarchical decision models (Systems science/engineering and technology management, vol. Doctor of philosophy). Portland: Portland State University.
Chen, H., & Kocaoglu, D. F. (2008). A sensitivity analysis algorithm for hierarchical decision models. European Journal of Operation Research, 185, 266–288. CrossRef
Kanji, G. K. (1999). The rank correlation test for agreement in multiple judgments. London: SAGA Publications.
- National Technology Planning: A Case Study of Nanotechnology for Thailand’s Agriculture Industry
- Chapter 10
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta