Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

Journal of High Technology Management Research 24 (2013) 130137

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of High Technology Management Research

General framework for management of technology evolution


Song-Kyoo Kim
W. Sycip Graduate School of Business, Asian Institute of Management, 123 Paseo de Roxas, Makati 1230, Philippines

a r t i c l e
Available online xxxx

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Rapid changes in the business environment and the risks of new technologies are critical in the current technology-driven industries. In the perspective of Management of Technology (MOT), analysis of current technology trends is one of the most important factors for business success. This paper introduces the alternative framework for the evolution of Technology Roadmapping (TRM) methodology. Even though this alternative framework is aligned with the existing methodology of technology evolution, its development was based on a totally different approach than that of the general framework of technology evolution, thus providing an alternative practical tool for analyzing the current technology trends. In addition, the strategic decision points can be provided by the same approach in various business areas. 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Management of technology Hype-Cycle Mobile technologies Technology roadmap Technology based decision making

1. Introduction Global competition and rapid changes in the business environment force companies to understand the business opportunities and risks of new technologies which include the importance of technological innovations for survival of industrial competitiveness (Mogee, 1993; Moore, 1999; Xu, Chen, & Guo, 1998). Technological innovations can involve changes in products and services or changes in the process of operations (i.e., process innovation) (Dodgson, 2000; Steele, 1989). On the other hand, technology management is composed of three major factors: leadership, motivation of employees and appropriate management of technology (Alan & Thorsten, 2006; Khalil, 2000; Li-Hua & Khalil, 2006; Matthews, 1991; Research Council, 1987). In this regard, companies are under constant pressure to be innovative hence introducing new products and services to make a difference in the market, and implementing process innovations to improve business performance (Christensen, 1997; Schilling, 2008). Many companies are faced with fierce competition, as product and technology lifecycles, among others, are shortened. Moreover, customers increasingly demand products and services that can be customized to serve their specific needs (Garcia & Bray, 1997; Stark, 2005). These issues call for processes that align the required technological resources (Li-Hua & Khalil, 2006). Technology Road mapping (TRM) is a process that when applied appropriately, capacitates companies to align technologies with their overall strategy that will enable them to make sound investment decisions (Wells, Phaal, Farrukh, & Probert, 2004). The goal of Technology Management (TM) is to synergize all the factors (i.e. research, development, planning, engineering, machines, software, production, and communication) and make them work together in the most efficient way to produce profit for the company in the long-term (Hamilton, 1997; Li-Hua & Khalil, 2006). Upon closer evaluation of the importance of different TM functions, it became clear that some are not quite relevant in certain types of companies. In high-tech companies, the most valued functions of TM would be product development, technology development, and technology utilization. The scope and area of the study was very wide and during the research, it became clear that the terms and concepts were understood in various ways. This raised a challenge for the analysis. This study was not intended to be all-inclusive, but rather to create a better understanding of the current status of TM in practice.

Tel.: +63 2 465 2835. E-mail address: SKim@aim.edu. 1047-8310/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2013.09.008

S.-K. Kim / Journal of High Technology Management Research 24 (2013) 130137

131

Fig. 1. Hype-Cycle and phases.

2. Hype-Cycle summary The Hype-Cycle curve has been invented by Gartner to analyze the various technologies of all industries (Jackie, 2007; Jackie & Mark, 2008). There are six phases (see Fig. 1) (originally, there were only five phases and the additional phase was added by author) of technology evolution and it has been widely applied for TM (Schemaker, 1995). The details and explanation for each phase are as follows (Jackie, 2007; Jackie & Mark, 2008): Innovation Trigger: It is the time when an announcement about a technological development drives sudden interest. Typically at this phase, only research and laboratory prototypes are available and there exist no usable products. Venture capitalists may provide some early funding just after this phase if they expect the technology to be a fast runner. Peak of Inflated Expectations: Publicized stories capture the excitement around the innovation and reinforce the need to become a part of it. This results in an increase in number of vendors offering the technology. However, these vendors are primarily startup companies and small vendors that are trying to use the increasing amount of hype for their marketing benefits. The Trough of Disillusionment: With the passing of time, impatience in getting results begins to replace the original excitement on the potential value of the technology. The media, with their constant need to keep their readers interested, switch to a fresh news angle that features the challenges rather than the opportunities of the innovation. In this phase, the technology is rapidly discredited because it does not live up to the overinflated expectations of enterprises and the media. Some of the early trials end in highly publicized failures. Moreover, a significant amount of vendor consolidation and failure occurs. Later-stage investors may be interested in funding vendors during this phase because equality is fairly inexpensive after the microtubule has burst at the Peak of Inflated Expectations. The Slope of Enlightenment: Based on the experience of early adopters, understanding grows on where the innovation can be used effectively to produce beneficial effects. Over time, the innovation itself matures as suppliers improve their products on the basis of early feedback. As 2nd or 3rd generation products are launched, and methodologies and tools are added to ease the development process, the technology begins to ascend towards the early stage of maturity. The service component declines in the percentage of the sale. This will grow to around 20% as the technology enters the Plateau of Productivity. The Plateau of Productivity: This time frame represents the beginning of mainstream adaptation. The real-world benefits of the technology are demonstrated and accepted. Furthermore, a growing number of organizations feel comfortable towards the technology with the greatly reduced level of risk. As the technology matures, it becomes increasingly embedded in solutions that are out of the box with decreasing service elements.

132

S.-K. Kim / Journal of High Technology Management Research 24 (2013) 130137

Sudden Death: The concept of Sudden Death is not included in the original Hype-Cycle curve and has been introduced as obsolete before plateau on the 2008 release version of Hype-Cycle curve. It does not follow the typical time frame as it can occur anytime in the Hype-Cycle curve. Some technologies in the real-world suddenly disappear or jump to a new level of technology under the same name, at times, with the same features. It is comparable to real life. Birth has an order while death has not. Creating new technologies always begins at the Innovative Trigger phase but death can suddenly occur at any given time. Some of the technologies may not be fully deployed in the real world. Technically well-developed technologies do not always succeed in the market. Conversely, factors like financial investment and politics have more influence on real-world expansion of technologies. Some technologies have disappeared even before they were widely deployed. At times, their features are merely replaced by similar technologies. Basically, technologies in the Hype-Cycle curve may evolve as new technologies or may suddenly disappear at any given time. Since 1995, Gartner has used hype cycles to characterize the over-enthusiasm or hype and subsequent disappointment that typically occur with the introduction of new technologies. In addition, Hype cycles also show how and when technologies move beyond the hype, offer practical benefits and become widely accepted. On the other hand, technology evolution can be analyzed in different aspects based on the Hype-Cycle curve. There are seven steps for this alternative technology evolution methodology. Even though the Hype-Cycle theory is very practical, the way of gathering and analyzing data are basically hidden. In addition, the technology trends are too broad to concentrate on certain specific technologies such as technologies in mobile industries. It is difficult to apply the Hype-Cycle curve to analyze the technologies of other companies except for Gartner because of the above mentioned reasons. The paper introduces the alternative framework for the evolution of Technology Roadmapping (TRM) methodology. This alternative framework was developed from a totally different approach even though it is aligned with the current existing Hype-Cycle curve. 3. New framework for technology evolution Instead of applying the methodologies by Gartner, an alternative approach for technology analysis is proposed. This is a new framework for technology evolution methodology and can be applied to many fields such as IT (Information Technology), Finance, and Health care. The phases of technology evolution in this paper start with concept innovation. Some feasible concepts are evolving into theories and models. The core structure of new technologies is generated during this Theory and model phase. During this phase, the technologies are not clear enough to evaluate business models as they are still an academic position. Each phase has the related operation tools to achieve the development (see Table 1.) of the products. Table 1 shows the recommendations of practical tools for breakthrough on each phase. This alternative framework can be aligned with Hype-Cycle methodologies. Each one of the seven phases has a related position within Hype-Cycle. For instance, a certain technology is in the Technology Trend phase and the classic Hype-Cycle analysis along with Requirement Management (RM), and Technical System Evolution which is one of the techniques in the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TIPS/TRIZ), are the practical tools needed to break through the current situation and move on to the next phase. There are no general tools in the Implementation and Product phases because achievement tools depend on the industries or fields of target business (see Table 2). 3.1. Concept innovation Primarily, it involves developing the concept design and adaptation of the technologies from other fields. In the Hype-Cycle viewpoint, the phase is similar to the Innovation Trigger stage. The typical KPO (Key Performance Output) are the research papers produced for journals and conferences. 3.2. Theory and modeling In this phase, the technologies are evolved as a theory or model. Although the technologies are introduced, there is no actual product (or service) that applies the technologies. But even if the actual products do not exist, numerous researches are ongoing especially in universities. The author's theoretical model is proposed in this phase.
Table 1 General framework of technology evolution. General 1 Concept innovation, adaptations 2 Theory, thought experiment, modeling 3 Technology trend 4 Standards 5 Customer requirements (VOC) 6 Implementation 7 Products Achieving tools Mathematical modeling, queueing theory, numerical analysis Hype Cycle curve, innovation trends (TRIZ), RM TRIZ, knowledge management 6-sigma, RM

S.-K. Kim / Journal of High Technology Management Research 24 (2013) 130137 Table 2 Technology evolution for mobile industries. Mobile general 1 Concept innovation, adaptations 2 Theory, thought experiment, modeling 3 Technology trend 4 Standards 5 Customer requirements (VOC) 6 Implementation 7 Products Mobile communication technologies Engineering, natural sciences, other fields Traffic engineering, network planning, architecture design Market report, survey (Gartner) OMA, 3GPP, 3GPP2, RCS, OMTP Carrier requirements (TCD, TPD, MTR, OGDR, SoC and so on) Coding (software, firmware), HW design Mobile phones

133

3.3. Technology trend After the Theory and Modeling phase, the technologies are getting attention and are becoming popular in the market. In this phase, the companies that are the main drivers of technologies are interested and have started investigating. Moreover, the technologies are plotted on the roadmap of well-known companies. 3.4. Standard activities It is the follow-up after the Technology Trend phase and the companies are involved with the standard organizations. ISO in engineering technologies and 3GPP in mobile technologies are some of the major standard organizations. General requirements of the technologies are developed in this phase but most of the requirements are mature enough to be adapted for commercial launches. Furthermore, patent development is usually activated at this phase. This phase has a similar behavior to the Peak of Inflated Expectation in Hype-Cycle curve (Jackie, 2007). 3.5. Requirements This phase is basically adapting the requirement into the development conditions based on the company's benefits. In this phase, most companies have started to invest for launches. Likewise, some of the companies are starting Small Experiment in this phase. 3.6. Implementation The companies are actually putting in their financial investments in this phase. Pilot testing and limited launching of services (or products) are already being done. 3.7. Product execution Products (or Services) are commercially launched during this phase. Not all of the technologies (or features) are applied to the launched products (or services). 4. Application of technology framework for mobile industries The framework in this research can be applied to several industry fields including mobile industries. Before mapping the technologies using the alternative framework, the technologies must first be analyzed well. Although, the mapping is aligned with the Hype-Cycle curve, it is based on the alternative framework analysis and the technology mapping on each phase is based on the knowledge of the technology by itself. The purpose of this session is to provide the practical approach of TM method on mobile communication industries. Main mobile operators in the European regions are the targets for this investigation. 4.1. Concept innovation It is the first step for mobile technology and the technologies at this point may not have originated from mobile industries. Mobile telecommunications, traffic engineering, network planning, architecture design are also included in this phase. 4.2. Standard activities The technology is mature enough to open the discussion for protocols and common parts in standard bodies. 3rd Generation Partnership Projects 1 and 2 (3GPP/3GPP2), Global System for Mobile Communications Association (GSMA), and Open Mobile Appliance (OMA) are the major standard organizations of mobile technologies. General requirements of the technologies are developed in this phase but most of the requirements are mature enough to be adapted for commercial launches. Major operators

134

S.-K. Kim / Journal of High Technology Management Research 24 (2013) 130137

such as AT&T, Vodafone, Orange and DTAG are involved in the standard activities. Business modeling is being discussed in this stage, along with ongoing financial investigations. Actual funding is still very rare at this moment for reasons of risk management. 4.3. Requirements Actual implementation has less than the original requirements during the standard and customer requirement (or also called voice of customers) phases. Each operator has a different requirement format though the technologies in certain engineering industries are the same. RFP (Request for Proposal) and detailed requirements are typical formats of customer requirements. As mentioned, each operator has different requirement templates for mobile industries and also different names. As examples, Vodafone, DTAG (Dutch Telecom., AG) and Orange are operators in European markets with varying requirements. TPD (Terminal Profile Document) and TCD (Terminal Capability Document) are the requirements from Vodafone (2010) and DTAG has the requirements called MTR (Mobile Terminal Requirement) (DTAG, 2010). On the other hand, OGDR (Orange Group Device Requirement) is regularly released four times a year by Orange (2010). These requirement packages are covering all of the latest technologies that are related to mobile communications. The requirement templates in the package are usually used for product proposal and gathering of information for an over-all view of the mobile devices. These requirements in the packages elucidate the current technologies in mobile industries. 4.4. Implementation and product execution Not all of the technologies are actually launched (or piloted). In the past three years, software platform has been one of the main technologies in the mobile industries. Google Android (Samsung Galaxy series) and Apple iOS (iPhone series) are the current major software platform technologies. To note, software platform technology is a base technology and does not directly appeal to the launch of products or services in mobile industries. The general phases in the technology framework can be extended not only to different industry fields such as finance, health-care, and marketing but also to smaller or larger scales such as Information Technology (i.e., more broader) or software platform technology (i.e., more narrow down). 5. Selected mobile technology analysis Based on the analysis of the requirement documents from various operators, technologies were mapped on the Hype-Cycle using the alternative framework. This new technology evolution framework was applied to mobile communication technology in this research to study as a sample case and for purposes of evaluation. Data gathering was done by the author given that he has been involved in management of technology roles for mobile industries. 5.1. Distributed computing The word distributed in terms such as distributed system, distributed programming, and distributed algorithm originally referred to computer networks where individual computers were physically distributed within some geographical area. The terms are presently used in a much wider sense, even referring to autonomous processes that run on the same physical computer and interact with each other by message passing. 5.2. Ad hoc network A wireless ad hoc network is a decentralized type of wireless network. The network is termed ad hoc because it does not rely on a pre-existing infrastructure such as routers in wired networks or access points in managed (infrastructure) wireless networks. Instead, each node participates in routing by forwarding data to other nodes. Determination of which nodes will forward the data is made dynamically which is based on the network connectivity. 5.3. WAC 2.0 (Web based technology) The Wholesale Applications Community (WAC) is an organization that creates unified and open platform to allow mobile software developers to easily write more applications that are usable on a variety of devices, operating systems and networks. On the other hand, Web based Application technology (different from WAC) is getting popular in Internet industries but it is beyond the scope of mobile industries. WAC 2.0 has been standardized by GSMA (Global System for Mobile Communications Association). 5.4. Converged IP Messaging (CPM) 1.0 The CPM Enabler provides common building blocks by reusing existing blocks and by defining new ones. This allows the consolidation of present and the creation of future interpersonal interactive multimedia communication services which accommodate different user experiences such as Deferred and Immediate Messaging, session-based messaging, and half duplex/ full duplex conferencing. CPM 1.0 has been standardized by Open Mobile Alliance (OMA).

S.-K. Kim / Journal of High Technology Management Research 24 (2013) 130137

135

5.5. Smart Card Web Server (SCWS) 1.2 The SCWS enables Smart Card issuers to offer static or dynamic web pages. One network operator-centric example could be pages generated by applications running in the Smart Card (e.g. SIM, UICC or R-UIM) and enabling access to content or security-oriented services requiring keys that are stored in the Smart Card. All these services will be accessible via a web browser in the device. SCWS 1.2 has been standardized by OMA.

5.6. Long Term Evolution 3GPP Long Term Evolution (LTE) is the latest standard in the mobile network technology tree that produced the Global System for Global communications/Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution (GSM/EDGE) and Universal Mobile Telecommunications Service/high-speed packet access (UMTS/HSPA) network technologies. It is a project of the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), operating under a name trademarked by one of the associations within the partnership, the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).

5.7. Near Field Communication (NFC) NFC is a set of short-range wireless technologies, typically requiring a distance of 4 cm or less. NFC operates at 13.56 MHz and at rates ranging from 106 kbit/s to 848 kbit/s. NFC communication always involves an initiator and a target: the initiator actively generates an RF field that can power a passive target. NFC has been standardized by various standard organizations.

5.8. Device management OMA Device Management (DM) is a device management protocol specified by the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) Device Management (DM) Working Group and the Data Synchronization (DS) Working Group. The current specification of OMA DM is version 1.2, with the latest modifications to this version released in April 2006. OMA DM specification is designed for management of small mobile devices such as mobile phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs) and palm top computers. The device management is intended to support the following typical uses: Provisioning (Configuration of the device including first time use, enabling and disabling features. Configuration of Device-Allow changes to settings and parameters of the device) and Software Upgrades (provide for new software and/or bug fixes to be loaded on the device, including applications and system software. Fault Management-Report errors from the device and query about status of device). Even though the technology has been developed by OMA, it has been expanded to the other standard activities such as the Internet Protocol television (IPTV) and wireless local area network (WLAN).

Fig. 2. Technology framework aligned with Hype-Cycle curve.

136

S.-K. Kim / Journal of High Technology Management Research 24 (2013) 130137

5.9. Digital Rights Management Version 2.0 was drafted in July 2004 and approved in March 2006. Its primary new feature is the extension of DRM 1.0's Separate Delivery mechanism. Each participating device in OMA DRM 2.0 has an individual DRM Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) certificate, with a public key and the corresponding private key. Each Rights Object (RO) is individually protected for one receiving device by encrypting it with the device public key. The RO in turn contains the key that is used to decrypt the media object. Delivery of Rights Objects requires a registration with the Rights Issuer (the entity distributing Rights Objects). During this registration, the device certificate is usually validated against a device blacklist by means of Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) verification. Thus, devices known to be hacked can be excluded once they try to register with the Rights Issuer in order to receive new Rights Objects so they can access the content. DRM 2.0 has been standardized by Open Mobile Alliance (OMA). Based on the technology analysis, the technologies in the mobile industry can be mapped on the Hype-Cycle curve with the expected launch periods. Even though the technologies are located in the same slope of the graph, it does not mean that the technologies are having the same evolution periods. Some technologies will be on The Plateau of Productivity (same as Product phase in the General Framework) within 1 to 3 years and some will be within 3 to 5 years. Some of the technologies will take longer time periods than others (within 5 to 10 years). By using the reverse engineering method, the technology time frames can be generated as statistical distribution (basically, Gaussian Distribution). 6. Conclusions and future studies The implications that can be found in this paper are twofold. First, the analysis of mobile technologies can be applied as the guideline for future strategy in the mobile industries. The information of technologies is based on the real industry observations. For instance, the analysis in 2009 (Fig. 3) has shown that DRM 2.0 (Digital Rights Management) is on Production Execution phase but it was indicated as Sudden Death (i.e., disappeared before market deployment). It is actually out of markets in 2012. In the other hand, LET (Long Term Evolution) was in Implementations phase but it was indicated that it would launch within 2 years from 2009. Currently, LTE is launched and it keeps expanding these days (2012). The analysis indicates that AdHoc Networks expects to be launched on the market around 5 to 10 years later when will be around year 2016 (between 2014 and 2019). Second, even though this technology evolution framework was studied in high-tech industries, it can be extended to other industries as well with the same procedure. In other words, the technology evolution roadmap can be applied to any industry with identification of the key technologies. Likewise, the general concept of this technology evolution methodology can be applied to important decision making points as the company strategies. Every phase has the different indications and technologies that are required to be analyzed based on this phase approach (see Table 1). First step to analyze the technologies in the certain field is listing up the key technologies and mapping the key technologies into the phases. Each phase has its corresponding position in the Hype-Cycle curve (Fig. 2). Eventually the status of key technologies is visualized aligned with the Hype-Cycle curve. As an example, it will be better to put marketing funding if the certain key technology is right after

Fig. 3. General framework aligned with Hype-Cycle curve.

S.-K. Kim / Journal of High Technology Management Research 24 (2013) 130137

137

Requirements phase (equivalent with The Plateau of Productivity phase in the Hype-Cycle curve) in the viewpoint of strategic decision making. The present research relies on the specific industry area because the technologies in the mobile industry have been well analyzed by the author during his industry involvement. Even though the framework can be adapted into other industries, it still requires a lot of investigation of the technologies by themselves and brings up the key technologies which reflect the industry field. In addition, mapping the key technologies into the right phase should be also handled carefully. With the mobile industry case, general terms for key concepts of technologies had been introduced as the starter and were used as a demonstration for building up the technology roadmap. Future studies, therefore, could provide the technology roadmap in a different industry field rather than in a similar industry by adapting the technology evolution framework and analyzing the differences between fields when it is applied. It will give more detailed guidelines to those who need to make the strategic decisions for expanding their business to other industrial fields. References
Alan, P., & Thorsten, T. (2006). Management of Technology: Themes, Concepts and Relationships. Technovation, 26(3), 288299. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma. When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, Massachusetts: Harward Business School Press. Dodgson, M. (2000). The management of technological innovation. An international and strategic approach. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. DTAG (2010). Mobile terminal requirement. Dutch Telecom. AG. Garcia, M. L., & Bray, O. H. (1997). Fundamentals of technology roadmapping. Sandia National Laboratories: Strategic Business Development Department, 334. Hamilton, W. F. (1997). Managing technology as a strategic asset. International Journal of Technology Management, 14(2/3/4), 163176. Jackie, F. (2007). Understanding Gartner's hype cycles 2007. Stanford, CT: Gartner Inc. Jackie, F., & Mark, R. (2008). Mastering the Hype Cycle. Boston, MA: Havard Business School Publishing. Khalil, T. (2000). Management of technology: The key to competitiveness and wealth creation. McGraw-Hill. Li-Hua, R., & Khalil, T. (2006). Technology management in China: A global perspective and challenging issues. Journal of Technology Management in China, 1(1), 926. Matthews, W. H. (1991). Kissing technological frogs: Managing technology as a strategic resource. European Management Journal, 9(2), 145148. Mogee, M. E. (1993). Educating innovation managers: Strategic issues for business and higher education. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 40(4), 410417. Moore, G. A. (1999). Crossing the chasm. Marketing and selling technology products to main stream customers. Oxford, United Kingdom: Capstone Publishing Limited. National Research Council (1987). Management of technology. The hidden competitive advantage. Washington DC, U.S.A.: National Science Foundation. Orange (2010). Orange global device requirement. France: Orange Co. Schemaker, P. (1995). Scenario planning: A tool for strategic thinking. Sloan Management Review, 36(2). Schilling, M. A. (2008). Strategic management of technological innovation (2nd ed.)New York: McGraw & Hill. Stark, J. (2005). Product lifecycle management: 21st Century paradigm for product realisation (3rd ed.)London: Springer-Verlag London Limited. Steele, L. W. (1989). Managing technology. The strategic view. New York: McGraw-Hill. Vodafone (2010). Terminal capability documents. Vodafone. Wells, R., Phaal, R., Farrukh, C., & Probert, D. (2004). Technology roadmapping for a service organization. Research-Technology Management, 47(2), 4651. Xu, Q., Chen, J., & Guo, B. (1998). Perspective of technological innovation and technology management in China. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 45(4), 381387.

Вам также может понравиться