Top management commitment to create a learning organization

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

1. Introduction

Delton1in the book "Organizational Learning and Effectiveness" developed a model for creating a learning organization which is given in Figure 1 below. According to Delton there are some of the important characteristics that a required for creation of learning and successful organization which are as follows:

Commitment of top management: Creating of any learning organization depends on the commitment of top management because it ensures that everyone in the organization participates in change process and resources required for implementing changes.

New Techniques/Structures/Processes: Any learning organization requires aligning of new techniques with the existing processes. Also new technology/processes/innovation will help to create core competency to gain large market share as compared to their competitors.

Knowledge management: Knowledge transfer either in terms of innovation or Research & Development (R&D) has been recognized as the fundamental source of wealth creation for any type of company.


External Environment

Desire to explore the opportunities

New Techniques




Knowledge management

Top management commitment to create a learning organization

Figure 1

Figure : Creation of a learning organization model by John Delton

Therefore in this report we will look into the types of strategies adopted by companies in different sector in areas of technology and innovation and what strategic framework is applicable in each of the strategy.


1John Delton, Organizational Learning and Effectiveness, Minneapolis: Lackwood books, 1998

2. Literature Overview of Strategy Frameworks

Here is the literature overview of some of the strategy frameworks that have been used to link technology, innovation and strategy which is related to either developing the technology portfolio of the company or matching business and technology portfolios which help in enhancing firm's value chain.

1. Technology Portfolio:Harris, Shaw and Somers2 suggest that once the various technologies have been identified, they can be classifies in terms of their importance for competitive advantage. Technology importance is strongly affected by where it is situated in technology life cycle as shown in Figure 2. Relative technology position should be expresses in reference to competitors.

Requires firm's full commitment

Ambiguity in technology, should firm continue?

Technology Importance

Relative Technology Position





Bet Draw

Cash in Fold

Requires firm's examination of technology

Requires firm's reconsideration its investment

Figure : Developing the Technology Portfolio

Bet quadrant

It is characterized by high technological importance and high relative technological position. Such a position warrants full commitment towards investing and developing the technology. Leading R&D effort rallies to push the limits of its product development process while the firm invests in the newest equipment

Cash in quadrant

It is characterized by low technological importance and high relative technological position. The technology under question might have been important once, but its importance is reduced by successful development of rival technologies. Under the circumstances, it is suggested that no further investment is made in the technology while continuing to reap current benefits.

Draw quadrant

It is characterized by high technological importance and low relative technological position. Such a technology is positioned rather ambiguously making it difficult to decide further course of action. It is important to find why and how of this change occurred. Reaction to the situation could be either: investing more in the technology or disengaging and withdrawing the technology.

Fold quadrant

It is characterized by low technological importance and low relative technological position. Such a legacy technology id being carried on because of the inertial forces that often led to continued investment in R&D against a fair expectation of a reasonable ROI. Reconsideration of future investments is highly advised.













2.Technology Portfolio and Business Portfolio:Many companies have multiple businesses in their corporate portfolio each with its own technologies. Harris, Shaw and Somers1 suggest examining the relationship between the traditional portfolio planning matrix and technology portfolio matrix to check for match (mismatch).

Competitive Position






Figure : Matching Business and Technology Portfolio







Information System




Information System


Material Handling


Information System


Machine Tool


Maintenance3.Technology and Value chain:Figure 4 shows an example of various technologies in a firm's value chain. As Porter3 points out any of these technologies can affect the industry structure or a firm's differentiation or cost position and hence its competitive advantage.

Figure : Representative Technologies in a firm value chain

Importance of Technologies for competitive advantage

Lifecycle4.Technology Lifecycle and Competitive advantage:Arthur D. Little4 suggests that integrating technology and strategy should be a dynamic process and it requires that firm understand the dynamics of the life cycle of the various technologies it employs.

Figure :Technology Lifecycle and Competitive Advantage

5.Innovative Capabilities at Business Unit Level:There are various categories of influence the innovation strategies of a business depend upon which are as shown in Figure 6. The combination of the five categories determines the relative strength of the business unit for formulation and implements innovative strategiesFigure : Innovative Capabilities at business unit level


2J.M. Harris, R.W. Shaw Jr. and W.P. Somers. The Strategic Management of Technology, Booz Allen Hamilton, 1981

3Porter, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, New York Free Press, 1985

4Arthur D Little, "The Strategic Management of Technology", European Management Forum, 1981

3. Innovation Strategy

What is an innovation strategy?

An innovation strategy guides decisions on how resources are to be used to meet a firm'sobjectives for innovation and thereby deliver value and build competitive advantage. Its crafting is supported by a number of innovative capabilities that steer the configurationand reconfiguration of a firm's resources.

An innovation strategy identifies the technologies andmarkets the firm should best develop and exploit to create and capture value. It doesso within the limits of the resources available to the firm to support current and futureinnovation efforts and its evolving corporate strategy, organization, and culture

Innovation StrategyBasic framework of Innovation strategy

Innovation capabilities

Innovation Process

Resources for Innovation

Figure : A simple model for innovation strategy

Figure shows a simple model of four interrelated elements involved in innovationstrategy, including:

The enacted strategy itself, including its targets and 'fit' with overall company

strategy, existing innovation efforts, and the context in which it operates. The

identified targets are the technologies and markets that managers believe will create

and deliver best value for their firms.

The resources available for innovation: the assets a firm owns and to which it has

preferential and secured access.

The innovative capabilities that guide and enable those resources to be assessed,

configured, and reconfigured

The innovation processes used to deliver results: the combinations of management

and organization aroundR&D, newproduct and service development, operations,

and commercialization that deliver innovation.

Innovation strategy helps to focus attention on how these resources, capabilities, andprocesses are best developed and deployed to meet corporate objectives.

Innovation Diffusion:Innovation diffusion involves adoption of innovation. Rogers5(refer to figure 8 and 96) has defined innovation diffusion as a process of spreading a new idea from its source of invention or creation to its ultimate users or adopters. It involves the following steps:

Awareness about the innovation if it has taken place outside the organization, for example, Intel created Red X, Intel Inside campaign to create awareness about its innovation in new technology

Evaluation of appropriateness of innovation, that is to find out whether the innovation adoption contributes positively

Trial of adoption to check its feasibility

Adoption of innovation as the part of the organization

S-Curve 1

S-Curve 2



Figure : Roger's Innovation curve for growth of revenues against time

Figure : Some ideal type of innovation strategies

Case Study for Innovation Strategy (Real life example)

Company: McLaren Formula 1 Technology Centre

Top Management Vision7:"Our Company is all about people, we all want the company to win - and I'm not just talking about winning grand prix. I'm talking about everything we are involved in. We need highly-motivated, dedicated people, and such people can only exist if you provide them with an environment in which they can aspire to be the best. Quite simply, great facilities attract great people. That's where the story of this project really has its roots"

Innovation in Formula 1: Vodafone McLaren Mercedes has a fully enclosed wind tunnel at the McLaren Technology Centre, which has been built exclusively for the team's use and has been operational since 2001

Facts and Figures: Using 400 tons of steel between 8-10mm thick, the wind tunnel's construction was the equivalent of building a fairly large ship. It is 145 meters long and six meters square at its widest point. The air is driven round by a giant fan, four meters in diameter, which rotates at up to 600rpm.

The fan sucks in air from outside in such volume and at such a rate (15 cubic meters per second) that if the building were sealed, the walls would implode. Detailing through the 200-metre long factory promises to be a fusion of Foster's architecture and Dennis's cars. The serpentine lakeside facade of the building, for example, which appears in some lights to touch the water, is composed of glass supported by aluminum wind blades and slim stainless-steel tie rods. The 12-metre perforated blades are modeled on the rear-wing support struts of the 1995 Le Mans-winning McLaren F1 GTR and manufactured by a process similar, says McLaren, to that employed in the production of wing frames on Airbus jets by BAE Systems, one of the Working firm's "technology partners".

Figure : McLaren Technology Centre: Example of Adoption of new innovation in Formula 1


5Everett M.Rogers, Diffusion of Innovation, Simon and Schuster Technology and Engineering, 1995

6Diffusion of Innovation Theory Resources, Web link :

7McLaren Technology Centre, Web link :

Delivering Value From Technology And Innovation

Positioning in the value chain

A major challenge for firms is to decide where to position them in the value chain. The value chain comprises of all those activities that add value in a productive system which includes research & development, design, production etc. Through innovation firms move both up and down the value chain. Intel has been supplying components to the computing industry for the last thirty years while Dell has focused on distribution and marketing of PC's. Both firms have long histories of success. Profits in a value chain may migrate over time as elements become standardized as well as specialized. Thus, firms need to continuously reassess their positions, seeking opportunities to move to where they can extract the greatest value from their capabilities.

Sega case: Value chain movement (Real life example)

Sega started as a jukebox manufacturer. Over time, it built up its capabilities in games development and manufactured a number of products for a bestselling games console of the 1980s. In 1989, Sega launched its own games console: the Sega Genesis. This console became the industry leader and remained the dominant player for the next five years. In 1995, at the time when Sony Playstation was introduced, Sega launched the Saturn. The Saturn allowed players to play over the Internet. But Sega lacked support from 3rd party games developers for its new console & saw a steep decline in market share. It introduced the 'Dreamcast' in 1998 but failed to catch on and its market share continued to decline. In 2001, Sega decided to exit the console industry & focus on developing games. This allowed it to exploit its competencies in games design and develop its popular titles for a variety of platforms, including Microsoft's Xbox and Sony's various Playstation as well as mobile phones. Sega's decision to focus solely on game development represented a major shift in its position in the value chain, moving it from competitor to collaborator and supplier reliant on other firms' platforms to sell its product.

Regardless of their position in the value chain, innovators often fail to reap the returns from their innovative efforts. Successful commercialization commonly requires people and organizations with skills different from those of the developers of the innovation. It also requires knowledge of the commercialization process and of how best to manage it.

Private and social returns to innovation

The failure of many organizations to appropriate the value of their innovations raises an important social point. There is a need to strike the right balance between allowing innovators to capture value from their risk-taking efforts, and society's desire to increase the diffusion of innovation for public good. If all ideas and methods are freely available, there may not be much incentives for firms to invest in creating new ideas. On the other hand, if governments allow innovators to protect all the value of their innovations access to an innovation would be controlled by the innovator who would be able to set the price for its products or services. This would have the effect of rewarding innovators increasing the incentives to innovate. Along with the increase in rate of innovation, the cost of access to these innovations would also increase as firms could charge monopoly prices. The scale and rate of diffusion of these innovations would be in the control of a few. This increase in innovation may lead to a decline in the level of their diffusion. This tension between social and private returns is best described by Kenneth Arrow, a Nobel Prize winning economist, who suggested the imperfect nature of innovations may give rise to an under investment in private efforts to innovate (Arrow 1962). To overcome this it is argued that there is a need to provide innovators with a degree of protection for their efforts, through things like patents, or increase social investment by subsidizing the costs of private innovative efforts through tax credits. These two objectives need to be very carefully balanced

Selecting paths to market

Different types of innovation confer varying levels of protection for the innovator. All innovations rely on information and knowledge that is only partly protectable. Once a person knows something, it is possible for someone else to know it as well. Some innovations are very easily copied while others require detailed knowledge to be made effective.

Appropriability Regimes

Differences in the character of knowledge shape the ability of firms to appropriate the benefits of their innovations across different industries which can be thought of as different appropriability regimes.

Industries where innovators can effectively capture returns for innovations are associated with tight appropriability regime. In these industries, innovations can be patented, for example, new drug in the pharmaceutical sector. Given the character of technology, it is possible to gain effective and enforceable IPR. The technology itself may be very hard to reproduce and knowledge is in the hands of the maker. However, there are industries with loose appropriability regimes. In these industries, knowledge about product & services can be easily obtained & reproduced. There is little IPR protection and any that exists is difficult to enforce.

Managers' choices about how best to appropriate returns to innovation are strongly shaped or bounded by the nature of the appropriability regime within their industry. The decision to use different approaches to capture value from innovation must be made with an awareness of the appropriability regime surrounding the firm.

Complementary Assets

A problem faced by innovators is that the resources & capabilities required for developing an innovation can be very different from those needed for exploitation. Ability of the firm to access complementary assets is of prime importance in determining who is able to capture value from an innovation. Complementary assets are bundles of activities that surround the successful commercialization of a technological innovation. Any innovation requires the integration of a range of activities along the value chain. Mobilizing complementary assets requires considerable effort on the part of the innovating firm. Firms have to make choices about whether to work with incumbents or even competitors to commercialize an idea. Such collaborations can be difficult to manage. They may require the firm to build new links with actors beyond their usual partners and markets

Combining complementary assets: IBM and Aviva

A major challenge for technology providers, like IBM, is to integrate their capabilities with the skills of their customers. An example of how firms can combine assets to deliver new services can be seen in the UK car insurance market. Aviva is a large UK-based insurance firm and long-time IBM customer. It faces fierce competition in its UK car insurance division. To gain advantage in this market, it sought to develop a new type of insurance based on the 'pay as you drive' philosophy. Instead of paying a yearly fee typical of car insurance, drivers pay for each mile they drive in the course of the year. This product would be attractive to intermittent car users, who would also be the least likely to have an accident, partly because they would likely be within an age group that had fewer accidents. Working with technologists at IBM, Aviva piloted an electronic system to measure the position, speed, and direction of over 5,000 private cars over a two-year period. This system logged the position of each car every second of the journey and the information was plotted on a map. This information was used to calculate the premium for customers based on usage. By combining Aviva's know-how of insurance and IBM's technical ability, Aviva was able to create a new distinctive service. The added advantage of this system is that it allows Aviva to target its offering to the part of the market that is least likely to make a claim, thereby attracting valuable customers and reducing the market of low-risk individuals for competitors.

Figure 8: Representative complementary assets needed to commercialize an innovation

Being open to collaboration is important for both technology entrepreneur as well as established firms.

The Market For Ideas

The decision over whether to cooperate or compete with established firms has significant implications for what managers need to do to profit from innovation. One option for the new firm is to proceed through the market for ideas. Here the goal of the new firm is to sell its innovations by directly licensing technology or ideas, selling consultancy or know-how, making alliances, or attracting a firm to acquire the new venture. The market for ideas is primarily an activity that involves selling for the highest possible price.


8Management of Technological Innovation, Mark Dodgson, David M. Gann & Ammon Salter

The Market For Products

A common route for the new firm to enter is through the market for product. This involves the new firm deciding whether to compete with existing products or to complement them. To go through this market, a novel proposition that is significantly distinct from what is on offer from potential competitors is needed. Firms with new products often need manage a range of activities along the value chain. They have to move quickly to establish a market presence before detection by incumbents. This involves selling the distinctiveness of the product in comparison to what is already on offer in the market.

Marketing technology products/downstream support

There are three major roles for marketing in the commercialization of technological investments through technology products & services. First, market definition, or what to make? The marketing function has an important role to play in defining what R & D to undertake, what new products and services to develop, and what sorts of operations are required. Customers, both industrial and individual consumers, can often be segmented into groups with specific requirements, and marketing can assist in articulating, defining, and measuring these requirements.

Second, marketing plays an important role in facilitating internal and external communications. Firms market not just a product, but a collection of values such as the ability to perform tasks, enhance appearance, and augment or reinforceperceived self-image. When it comes to technology products, where there is an increasing commodification of technical product features, it is the non-technical features, such as design, service quality and technical support, which add the greatest value. There is a temptation for technology producing firms to concentrate too much on the features of the technology, and it is the role of marketing to ensure that new products satisfy the basic criterion of presenting the customers with something that they regard as having some differentiating benefits, such as ease of use.

Third, there is a well-established field of marketing that concentrates on relationshipsbetween firms and management. We have seen that close customer-supplier relationships are important in the development of new products. The loss of a major relationship with a customer in such circumstances can be very difficult, so it is important in such cases for the marketing department to be involved in the conduct of the relationship.

Case - Netafim: A case of successful international technology marketing

Netafim, an Israeli firm, is the largest low-volume irrigation company in the world. The company was set up by agronomist farmers in a kibbutz, and its drip-irrigation product was developed to deal with problems kibbutz members faced in irrigating their own crops. Netafim has a range of products including drippers and dripper lines for varying topographies and climates; high-precision mini-sprinklers and sprinklers; computerized irrigation systems including wireless monitoring from sensors, and weather stations for real-time data analysis and control; and greenhouse technology, including turnkey systems. The company's strategy is to expand its business of providing total systems solutions.

Netafim's international marketing and service operations include a worldwide network of 30 subsidiaries and distributors in 110 countries.

The company invests over 5 per cent of annual sales in R & D, with a focus on improved system efficiency and broadened applications. New products are designed by the Product Research and Development Department in Tel Aviv, while production R & D is the responsibility of R & D departments at each production centre. Its production lines are fully computerized, and capable of producing many billions of drippers each year. The company actively cooperates with renowned agricultural research centres and it has created the Netafim Irrigation University (NIU), which it claims is gaining recognition as a principal source of advanced irrigation technology

The effort and resources the company invests in technology are matched by its commitment to marketing. Its marketing network also sells the products and services of Netafim's affiliated companies. It provides comprehensive technical and agronomic support services to export customers, and to agricultural and landscape experts. Company agronomists, geologists, soil and plant experts, water engineers, and other support personnel are frequently sent out from Israel, and local agents participate in regular updating and training sessions. Each country is served by a desk of specialists that regularly visit customers and understand local conditions. The company operates Training Centres in Greece, Brazil, and the Philippines, as well as Israel.

Netafim has embarked on a $40 million agreement in China to build an irrigation systems plant, and to undertake various projects. One project will install advanced irrigation systems in high-tech greenhouses in a desert region of China, and will be overseen by China-based Netafim employees. The Israeli agency has worked with Netafim to establish a model farm near Beijing to demonstrate products and technologies. Netafim provides an excellent example of a company whose growth has resulted from a combination of substantial investments in product and process innovations with extensive technological marketing and support activities.

Technology transfer

Technology transfer is the movement of technological capability, typically a package of artifacts, information, and services, from suppliers to prospective users. It is a much broader concept than IPR sale. These transfers can occur internally between two organizations under the same financial control, between JVs and alliance partners, and externally between independent buyers and sellers. Here we focus on a simple means by which firms and research organizations can analyze and manage the transfer of their technology and some methods by which firms can import technology from international sources.

Jolly's Commercialization Map9

Jolly's 'Commercialization Map' is a technique used to assist firms and research organizations in analyzing and managing the process of technology transfer for commercialization .This illustrates some important principles, suggesting that there are 5 key stages in the commercialization of technologies - imagining, incubating, demonstrating, promoting, and sustaining.

Each of these has a transfer gap - in interest, technology transfer, market, and diffusion - through which the technology must pass to be commercialized.

Figure : Jolly's Commercialization Map

Imagining - A vision is created, a concept is proved and patent protection is sought. If there is sufficient interest in the idea, the technology progresses through the interest gap.

Incubating - The idea is fully demonstrated, in technical and business sense, often with customer involvement. If the process is complete, it moves to a product development process, and has progressed through the technology transfer gap.

Demonstrating - The first commercial production takes place, suppliers and customers involved in the development are integrated into supply lines and marketing channels. After this the product moves through the market transfer gap.

Promoting - Careful market positioning and targeting is done so that the product quickly gains a profitable share of the market. After success of this, product moves through the diffusion gap.

Sustaining - Aim is to entrench the product in the market so as to ensure continuing long-term income streams.

This approach reveals several principles:

Commercialization can fail at any one of the stages or gaps in the process and hence is highly uncertain and risky.

The commercialization process is continuing. Sustained income streams depend not only on careful market entry strategies, but also on continuing market development activities. Technology commercialization requires high degree of organizational integration, in which human factors, such as teamwork, are important.

Integration with external organizations is also important. Early feedback from customers, sound links with suppliers and procurement of external funds, if not self-funded, are required.

Accessing International Technology

Apart from actual purchase, firms can access international technology in a number of ways:

Reverse engineering


Original equipment manufacturer (OEM)

Turnkey plants

Personnel transfer is a key aspect of technology transfer, domestically or internationally.


9Management of Technological Innovation, Mark Dodgson, David M. Gann & Ammon Salter

Case10: Innovative Capability Audits of University Research Centers

Theoretical Framework:

Innovation capabilities audit addresses the following questions:

How has the firm been innovative in the areas of product and service offering and/or production and delivery systems?

How good is the fit between the firm's current business and corporate strategies and its innovative capabilities?

What are the firm's needs in terms of innovative capabilities to support its long-term business and corporate competitive strategies?

Innovation Capabilities exist at two levels

Business Unit Level

Corporate Level

Business Unit Level Audit

The focus of the audit at this level is on new products and services and/or new production and delivery systems. The innovative strategies at the business unit level can be characterized in terms of:

Timing of market entry with new products/services

Technological leadership/followership in new products/services

Scope of innovativeness in the portfolio

Rate of innovativeness in specific categories of products/services

Five important categories of variables influence theinnovation strategies of a business:

Important for formulation of business unit innovation strategies

Resources available for innovative activities

Level of R&D funding and evolution:

In absolute terms

As percentage of sales

A percentage of total firm R&D funding

As compared to main competitors

As compared to leading competitors

Breadth and depth skills at business unit level R&D, engineering, and market research

Distinctive competences in technology relevant to business unit

Allocation of R&D to

Existing product/market combinations New product development for existing product categories Development of new product categories

Capacity to understand competitors' strategies and industry evolution with respect to innovation

Intelligence systems and data available

Capacity to identify, analyze, and predict competitors' innovative strategies

Capacity to identify, analyze, and predict industry evolution

Capacity to anticipate facilitating/impeding external forces relevant to business unit's innovative strategies

Understanding the Business Unit's Technological Environment

Capacity for technological forecasting relevant to business unit's technologies

Capacity to assess technologies relevant to business unit

Capacity to identify technological opportunities for business unit

Business Unit Structural and Cultural Context

Mechanisms for managing R&D efforts

Mechanisms for transferring technology from research to development

Mechanisms for integrating different functional groups (R&D, engineering, marketing, manufacturing) in the new product development process

Mechanisms for funding unplanned new product initiatives

Mechanisms for eliciting new ideas from employees

Evaluation and award systems for entrepreneurial behavior

Dominant values and definition of success

Strategic management capacity to deal with internal entrepreneurial initiatives

Business unit level management capacity to define a substantive development strategy

Business unit level management capacity to assess strategic importance of entrepreneurial initiatives

Business unit level management capacity to assess relatedness of entrepreneurial initiatives to unit's core capabilities

Capacity of business unit level management to coach product champions

Quality and availability of product champions in the business unit

Analysis of Case:

When the Centre for Infrastructure Engineering Studies at the University of Missouri-Rolla created a new research centre on their campus, the director agreed that technology had to have a major stake on the way forward. This was an opportunity for professional technology managers to start a project of such a scale from scratch.

Klein, 1995 identified four key elements in the management of intellectual capital that

provide some direction. These are:

1) Understanding the relevant strategic and operational roles in the organization, what is needed today and tomorrow;

2) Creating an infrastructure for cultivating and sharing it;

3) Creating the culture that encourages it;

4) Monitoring, valuing and reporting it.

An assessment of current conditions was the first logical step in the development of an effective technology management program. For the organization to prioritize resources to invest in the areas of development that are most critical, it first assessed its current condition with some form of technology audit.

Assessment of the centre technologies to allow for technology forecasts and technology roadmaps originally seemed to be an attractive approach. However, as methods were investigated it became clear that effective measurements of technologies would be extremely difficult to design and implement. In this application they had limited resources and historical information, which made the situation even more constrained. In addition it became clear that detailed assessments along with the forecasts and roadmaps often become instruments for management control that stifle creativity in the research efforts. As a result some research organizations make explicit efforts to avoid detailed assessments to

avoid the bureaucracy that stifles the creativity that is so critical to R&D success

Assessment methods sought were used as a diagnostic tool to assess the centre's strengths and weaknesses. The focus shifted to the conditions available to empower the research efforts instead of the specific technologies being utilized. Burgelman and Maidique (1988) presented the Innovative Capabilities Audit Framework, which included a business level audit that addressed these needs. They defined innovative capabilities as "the comprehensive set of characteristics of an organization that facilitate and support its innovation strategies"

These assessment criteria were used for five phases of the innovation process. Within the

Spectrum of activity from basic research to applied research and development, CIES focused

heavily on activities in applied research and development. Therefore the phases of innovation

were customized for this specific centre so that the descriptions of the phases would include most

of the centre's activities.

The centre executed a survey to garner the response to its proposed activities and the public perception about where it stood. The Centre's participants emphasized on process validation and that a needs analysis is performed. On the other hand the customers expected an emphasis on technology transfer and process validation. The largest discrepancy was in the emphasis on technology transfer, which showed that it would be valuable for each of the project teams to directly communicate with their customers and explicitly discuss the type and level of technology transfer that would be utilized to avoid unrealized expectations. Most of the projects are to be in the early stages of innovation and have not given much effort to implementing effective technology transfer, generating relatively low emphasis on technology transfer.


10Nystrom, H. "Innovative Capability Audits of University Research Centers," Proceedings - 9th International Conference on Management of Technology, Miami, FL, Feb. 2 2000, CD-ROM. (See Appendix for full paper)

On the other hand the customers' objective is to gain the benefit from the technology transfer and would rank this as the most important. Therefore, the emphasis on technology transfer does not necessarily reflect a major misalignment of effort, but a potential problems area if it were not addressed.

The application of the framework provided useful information that was used in the self-assessment session to generate clear direction for improvement. It provided opportunities for learning and team building within the Centre, as the members were forced to reflect on what worked well or poorly. Comparison of their own views with others and discussions on their differences during the session did not require external subject matter experts to provide the assessment, so was executed using limited resources. The results were obtained and analyzed easily and allowed for customization for the specific circumstances of a centre. The results opened new gates for the centre participants and leaders to reflect on the performance of the centre and the activities that could make it more effective, and build team commitment on activities.


Appropriability 2, 12

Aviva 13

Business Portfolio 6

Business Unit Level 7

complementary assets 13

Complementary Assets 2, 12

Demonstrating 16

enacted strategy 8

Formula 1: 10

Harris, Shaw and Somers2 5

IBM 13

Imagining 16

Incubating 16

Innovation Diffusion 9

innovative capabilities 8

Israeli 15

John Delton 4

Jolly's Commercialization Map9 16

Knowledge management 4

McLaren Formula 1 10

Netafim 15

Playstation 11

Promoting 16

Research & Development 4

Sega 11

Technology Lifecycle 3, 7

Technology Portfolio 5

value chain 11

Value chain 2, 6, 11