Istanbul Business Research

SUBMITINFORMATION
EnglishTürkçe

Research Article


DOI :10.26650/ibr.2024.53.1338316   IUP :10.26650/ibr.2024.53.1338316    Full Text (PDF)

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

Fethi Aslan

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

PDF View

References

  • 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
  • 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
  • Association for Project Management (Ed.). (2013). Earned value management handbook. Princes Risboro-ugh, Buckinghamshire: Association for Project Management. google scholar
  • 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
  • Bolger, J. (2000). Capacity Development: Why, What And How. Canadian International Development Agency, Vol. 1 (No. 1), 1-9. google scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Catlin, T., Scanlan, J., & Willmott, P. (2015). Raising your Digital Quotient. McKinsey & Company, 13. google scholar
  • Çetindamar, D., Phaal, R., & Probert, D. (2016). Technology management: Activities and tools (Second edi-tion). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Day, G. S. (2008). Is It Real? Can We Win? Is It Worth Doing? Harvard Business Review, 85(12), 110-146. google scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Gallardo, V. G. O. (2013). Technology acquısıtıon: Sourcıng technology from ındustry partners (Dissertati-on). University of Cambridge, London. google scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • Griffin, A. (1993). Metrics for Measuring Product Development Cycle Time. Journal of Product Innovation Management, (10), 112-125. google scholar
  • Griner, C., Keegan, B. W., & Goldin, D., S. (2000). Enhancing Mission Success - A Framework for the Fu-ture. NASA Integrated Action Team. google scholar
  • 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
  • Günday, G. (2007). Innovation models and implementations atfirm level in manufacturing industry (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Sabancı University, İstanbul. google scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Kausch, C. (2007). A risk-benefit perspective on early customer integration. New York: Physica-Verlag He-idelberg. google scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Richardson, J. M. (2017). Naval Research And Development.pdf. Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/ pdfs/AD1091630.pdf google scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Sun, S. (2012). Marketing and Design In Organisational New Product Development (Master Thesis). Victoria University of Wellington. google scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • Turkishtime. (2021). 2020 Yılı Ar-Ge harcamalarına göre en büyük 250 şirket. Retrieved from https://tur-kishtimedergi.com/ google scholar
  • United Nations Development Programme. (2008). Capacity Development Practice Note. UNDP Practice Note: Capacity Development. Retrieved from www.capacity.undp.org google scholar
  • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC. (2017). Enhancing financingfor the research, development and demonstration of climate technologies. google scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Wobig, E. (2015). PwC Perspective:Unlocking product development value in M&A. PricewaterhouseCooper. Retrieved from http://www.pwc.co.uk/innovation google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Aslan, F. (2024). Model Proposal for Evaluation of Technology Development Process: Conceptualisation and Scale Development. Istanbul Business Research, 53(2), 161-183. https://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2024.53.1338316


AMA

Aslan F. Model Proposal for Evaluation of Technology Development Process: Conceptualisation and Scale Development. Istanbul Business Research. 2024;53(2):161-183. https://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2024.53.1338316


ABNT

Aslan, F. Model Proposal for Evaluation of Technology Development Process: Conceptualisation and Scale Development. Istanbul Business Research, [Publisher Location], v. 53, n. 2, p. 161-183, 2024.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Aslan, Fethi,. 2024. “Model Proposal for Evaluation of Technology Development Process: Conceptualisation and Scale Development.” Istanbul Business Research 53, no. 2: 161-183. https://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2024.53.1338316


Chicago: Humanities Style

Aslan, Fethi,. “Model Proposal for Evaluation of Technology Development Process: Conceptualisation and Scale Development.” Istanbul Business Research 53, no. 2 (Dec. 2024): 161-183. https://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2024.53.1338316


Harvard: Australian Style

Aslan, F 2024, 'Model Proposal for Evaluation of Technology Development Process: Conceptualisation and Scale Development', Istanbul Business Research, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 161-183, viewed 4 Dec. 2024, https://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2024.53.1338316


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Aslan, F. (2024) ‘Model Proposal for Evaluation of Technology Development Process: Conceptualisation and Scale Development’, Istanbul Business Research, 53(2), pp. 161-183. https://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2024.53.1338316 (4 Dec. 2024).


MLA

Aslan, Fethi,. “Model Proposal for Evaluation of Technology Development Process: Conceptualisation and Scale Development.” Istanbul Business Research, vol. 53, no. 2, 2024, pp. 161-183. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2024.53.1338316


Vancouver

Aslan F. Model Proposal for Evaluation of Technology Development Process: Conceptualisation and Scale Development. Istanbul Business Research [Internet]. 4 Dec. 2024 [cited 4 Dec. 2024];53(2):161-183. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2024.53.1338316 doi: 10.26650/ibr.2024.53.1338316


ISNAD

Aslan, Fethi. “Model Proposal for Evaluation of Technology Development Process: Conceptualisation and Scale Development”. Istanbul Business Research 53/2 (Dec. 2024): 161-183. https://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2024.53.1338316



TIMELINE


Submitted05.08.2023
Accepted19.07.2024
Published Online30.09.2024

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.