International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management

Vol. 9, No. 5 (2012) 1250036 (17 pages)

#.c World Scientic Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S0219877012500368

TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT TOOLS AND

TECHNIQUES: FACTORS AFFECTING THEIR USAGE
AND THEIR IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE

DILEK CETINDAMAR*
Faculty of Management Sabanci University, Tuzla 34956 Istanbul, Turkey
dilek@sabanciuniv.edu

NAZLI S. WASTI
Department of Business Administration, Middle East Technical University
Inonu Bulvari 06531 Ankara, Turkey
nazli@metu.edu.tr

BERNA BEYHAN
Science and Technology Policy Studies Research Center, Middle East
Technical University, Inonu Bulvari 06531 Ankara, Turkey
berna.beyhan@gmail.com

Received 20 May 2010

Revised 15 August 2010
Accepted 2 September 2010
Published 31 December 2012

This study investigates which technology management (TM) tools are used in practice, what
determines their usage, and whether they aect the user rms' performance. Based on a survey
of 52 electronics and machinery rms in Turkey, the study shows there are signicant rela-
tionships between the number of TM tools and techniques that a rm uses and (i) the hier-
archical level of the chief technology ocer (CTO) or most senior manager responsible for
technology, (ii) his/her eld of education, and (iii) the size of the rm. The ndings indicate a
signicant and linear relationship between the extent to which the rms have reached their
growth targets and the number of TM tools and techniques used. This relationship is, however,
not observed between rm protability and the number of TM tools and techniques. The
ndings have important implications for the practice of TM.

Keywords: Chief technology ocer; technology management; technology management tools;

performance; Turkey.

1. Introduction
Considering that technological changes are continuously creating new challenges and
opportunities for new products, services, processes, organizational development, and
industrial diversication, these opportunities need to be captured and converted into
value through eective and dynamic technology management (TM). Eective and

*Corresponding author.

1250036-1
D. Cetindamar, N. S. Wasti & B. Beyhan

dynamic management of technologies require a set of skills and knowledge where the
use of TM tools plays a key role. However, the literature is, for the most part, silent
about this key area. The TM discipline has a history of over 50 years [Larson (2007);
Roberts (2004)], however this management sub-discipline is still struggling to con-
verge around a few key pillars forming the body of TM. Among these pillars, this
study chooses to analyze TM tools that are widely used in practice. In particular,
this study aims to investigate three critical questions:

. What are TM practitioners using in their daily operations and what do they
perceive as TM tools?
. What managerial factors determine the use of TM tools in the rm?
. What is the relationship between the use of TM tools and rm performance?

To address the key questions of the study, we used a survey instrument. The survey
was conducted in Turkey for two reasons. Turkey is a developing country with a
majority of its technologies imported from developed countries. If the use of TM
tools and their eectiveness can be measured, it might be possible to develop
strategies for managers on how to improve their skills and knowledge. Managing
boards need to be well-informed and aware of the pitfalls of adopting novel and
unproven methods of decision-making while managing technology. In addition,
policy makers might contribute to the development and adoption of the most useful
tools that will increase the productivity of technology use in companies.
This paper consists of ve parts. After this short introduction, Sec. 2 lays down
the background for the research questions by presenting the results of a literature
survey. Next the methodology of the empirical study is introduced. The results are
presented at length in the following section. The conclusion section oers several
remarks for strategy and policy makers in developing countries and ends with the
limitations of the study.

2. TM Tools and Techniques: Antecedents and Outcomes

TM can be conceived as the development and exploitation of technological capabilities
that are changing continuously [Cetindamar et al. (2009)]. Capabilities might be dy-
namic or operational [Helfat and Peteraf (2003)]. Dynamic capabilities build, inte-
grate, or recongure operational capabilities that are dened as \a high-level routine
(or collection of routines) that, together with its implementing input ows, confers
upon an organization's management a set of decision options for producing signicant
outputs of a particular type" [Winter (2000, p. 983)]. Thus, technological capabilities
consist of both dynamic and operational capabilities that are a collection of routines/
activities to execute and coordinate the variety of tasks required to manage technology.
As the study of Oerlemans et al. [2005] indicates, describing TM as a set of
activities helps technology managers to clarify their contributions to rms. It is
rather important to conceive TM consisting both knowledge and a wide variety of
skills, among which the ability to use managerial tools in practice is a critical one.
The value of management tools is occasionally brought into question since most of
the time they are seen as a form of crutch which managers deploy instead of thinking

1250036-2
 Technology Management Tools and Techniques

creatively [Brady et al. (1997)]. There are many studies investigating what strategic
processes and tools are most often used by boards and senior management in
practice. For example, the consultant rm called as Bain & Company studies
management tools since 1993. In 2005, Bain & Company surveyed 960 global
executives to investigate the use of 25 major management tools. Accordingly, the
most widely used tool to help run the businesses was strategic planning (79% of
respondents), while mission and vision statements were reported as widely used
(72%), and change management programs were reported used by 59% [Ball and
Rigby (2005)].
Even though the management discipline has been developing both general tools
used across sub-disciplines (such as nance and marketing) and specic tools de-
voted to particular sub-disciplines, the TM literature barely oers such a list of tools
relevant to managing technology in companies, even though it has been mentioned
as a necessity [Brady et al. (1997)]. This paper is an attempt to oer a preliminary
list to work on. Identifying the major tools that facilitate the development and
application of technological capabilities is particularly important to oer practical
guidelines to apply and reinforce TM concepts within the business so that managers
can incorporate TM into their daily routines. There are a variety of terms used
interchangeably for this purpose, such as \tools", \techniques", \procedures",
\processes", \models", \maps", and \frameworks". This study will adopt the de-
nition used in Phaal et al.'s study [2006]: \In the broadest sense, tools include devices
for supporting both action/practical application and frameworks for conceptual
understanding."
The literature is quite confusing in terms of supplying TM tool lists. A study
[Cetindamar et al. (2006)] searched eleven of the twelve main TM journals1
for the period of 1995 and 2005 using the ABI Proquest and Elsevier ScienceDirect
databases to nd articles using the phrases \technology management" and \tool"
simultaneously. This search resulted in 122 articles but the analysis of these
articles showed that none of the studies grouped all TM tools; rather a few
studies grouped TM tools developed for a particular purpose. For example, the
study by De Piante Henriksen [1997] classied eight types of tools used in tech-
nology assessment: Economic analysis, information monitoring, technical perfor-
mance assessment, decision analysis, risk assessment, systems engineering/systems
analysis, market analysis, technological forecasting, and externalities/impact
analysis.
A recent study [Liao (2005)] reviews the literature from 1995 to 2003 on the basis
of TM methodologies and applications. Based on 546 TM articles, the paper classies
TM methodologies into eight categories: (1) TM framework, (2) General and policy
research, (3) Information systems, (4) Information and communication technology,
(5) Articial intelligence/expert systems, (6) Database technology, (7) Modeling,

1 These twelve journals (Linton and Thongpapanl, 2004) are Research Policy, Journal of Product Inno-
vation Management, Journal of Business Venturing, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
R&D Management, International Journal of Technology Management, Technology Analysis and Strategic
Management, Journal of Engineering & Technology Management, Research Technology Management,
Journal of High Technology Management Research, and Technovation.

1250036-3
D. Cetindamar, N. S. Wasti & B. Beyhan

and (8) Statistics methodology. These categories are very broad and their connec-
tions with actual applications are hard to establish even though some examples have
been given. To illustrate, the list of applications mentioned for the TM framework
category are the following [Liao (2005)]: Computer integrated manufacturing, con-
struction project management, business process reengineering, project appraisal,
product design, space disaster management, technology assessment, process design,
engineering design, and knowledge management.
The confusion in dening and listing of TM tools also exists in major TM handbooks
[Dorf (1999); Gaynor (1996)]. There is no clear description of and discussion on the
methodologies, tools, and techniques published in these handbooks. The lack of a
systematic gathering of tool lists makes tools dicult to operationalize.
A comprehensive coverage of TM tools was carried out by a European Com-
mission project report published in 1998. The report generated as an outcome of this
project, Temaguide, had an explicit goal of explaining dierent TM tools [Cotec
(1998)] and it therefore grouped the tools under six headings on the basis of their
functions in a company: (1) Tools used for external information analysis, such as
technology forecasting and benchmarking; (2) Tools used for internal information
analysis, such as skills and innovation audits; (3) Tools to calculate workload and
resources needed in projects, such as project management and portfolio manage-
ment; (4) Tools to manage working together, such as interface management and
networking; (5) Idea creation and problem solving techniques, such as creativity and
value analysis; and (6) Tools related to improving eciency and exibility, such as
lean thinking and continuous improvement.
Brown [1997] and Farrukh et al. [1999] list some principles of good practice for
tool design: \founded on an objective best-practice model; simple in concept and use;
exible, allowing `best t' to the current situation and needs of the company; not
mechanistic or prescriptive; capable of integrating with other tools, processes and
systems; result in quantiable improvement; and support communication and buy-
in". The base of delineating a toolkit of TM might be simplicity and exibility of use,
degree of availability, and standardization level. In this study, based on a literature
survey [Cotec (1998); Cetindamar and Ansal (2005); Cetindamar et al. (2006); Phaal
et al. (2006)], a preliminary list of TM tools is identied and given in the Appendix.
As observed in the studies trying to form similar tools lists, such as the list of
innovation management tools [Hidalgo and Albors (2008)], the TM list is also in-
evitably subjective, but we are condent that the broad scope of tools is appropriate
for an initial attempt. There should be a starting point before it becomes possible to
list the core TM tools similar to what Straket [1995] does for quality improvement
and problem solving.2
Measuring the adoption of TM tools listed in this study is one of the two key goals
of this paper. The second task is the observation of the factors determining the usage
of TM tools. The nal task is to nd the impact of the use of these TM tools on rm
performance. Knowing that many tools are used without proper assessment of their

2 Straker (1995) argues that his toolkit consists of seven tools. Interestingly, together they can solve 90%
of all problems. The TM literature is far behind in even accepting a general list of TM tools.

1250036-4
 Technology Management Tools and Techniques

applicability and eectiveness [Pfeer and Sutton (2006)], identifying the right tool
to do a job is a necessity for good TM practice.
Analyzing the usage of TM tools brings another interesting question to mind:
What factors inuence the degree of TM tool use? The management literature is
inundated with analyses of CEO actions, characteristics, and resulting rm perfor-
mance [Finkelstein and Hambrick (1996); Jayaraman et al. (2000); Wood and
Vilkinas (2007)]. However, the performance impact of other executives, such as the
Chief Information Ocers (CIOs) or the Chief Operation Ocers (COOs), is not
generally studied, with a few exceptions [Hambrick and Cannella (2004); Smaltz
et al. (2006)]. To our knowledge, there is no study carried out to observe the rela-
tionship between the characteristics and actions of Chief Technology Ocers
(CTOs) and the degree of TM tool usage. Therefore, using studies analyzing the
outcomes of CEO characteristics, we will draw some analogies for our study.
It has been argued that the eects of top management demographics are likely to
be the strongest under conditions of high uncertainty [Yan et al. (2006)]. This would
be particularly important for technology managers who deal with new and radical
technologies in a dynamic environment. Further, the inuence of executives on their
organizations is assumed to be a product of their experiences and educational
background as well as age, socioeconomic roots, nancial positions, and functional
tracks [Hambrick and Mason (1984)]. In other words, human capital is the key
determinant in generating value to rms [Mayo (2002)].3 This paper concentrates on
the educational background and experiences of a CTO or a CTO-proxy manager as
the main human capital traits [Hitt et al. (2001)]. Higher levels of education are
associated with a manager's ability to generate and implement creative solutions to
complex and new problems in organizations [Kimberly and Evanisko (1981); Yan
et al. (2006)]. The TM necessitates dealing with complex problems demanding in-
novative and highly technical solutions, so a technical education will help improve
the performance. Hence the hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 1: An educational background in technological elds
for the CTO will positively inuence the usage level of TM tools
in the rm.
However, while it is important that a CTO has the requisite skills, his/her use of
TM tools might not aect rm performance unless she/he is inuential at the top
management level, which will help him/her to carry out CTO functions eectively.
Smaltz et al. [2006] particularly note how the hierarchical level of the CTO within
the organization inuences rm performance. Thus,
Hypothesis 2: The hierarchical level of the CTO will positively
inuence the usage level of TM tools in the rm.
Another signicant characteristic is the CTO's (or CTO-proxy manager's)
experience in the company, namely his/her tenure. The years of inside service by a

3 Here human capital is dened as \the knowledge, skills, competencies and other attributes embodied in
individuals that are relevant to economic activity" (OECD, 1998).

1250036-5
D. Cetindamar, N. S. Wasti & B. Beyhan

manager has been found to be negatively related to strategic choices involving new
terrain such as innovation and technology [Hambrick and Mason (1984)]. A number
of studies also suggest that managers tend to make fewer changes in strategy as their
tenures increase because of their commitment to the status quo [Yan et al. (2006)]. In
addition, Carpenter and Fredrickson's study [2001] shows that diversity may help
top management in overcoming information overload, complexity, and myopia. This
is particularly important for technology managers. Maintaining status quo might be
good for a cost-based strategy, but it might not allow pursuing new opportunities
and bringing new technology applications into rm, as is expected from a CTO
[Kathuria and Porth (2003)]. Taking these concerns into consideration, the second
hypothesis related to human capital becomes:
Hypothesis 3: The experience of the CTO in the company will
negatively inuence the usage level of TM tools in the rm.
The nal task of this study has more of an exploratory nature and aims to observe
the relationship between the use of TM tools and performance. TM might be seen as
a managerial sub-eld akin to Total Quality Management (TQM). Both are trying
to increase rm competitiveness, using technology or quality as a resource, respec-
tively. As a study on TQM shows, if a resource produces economic value, rms that
have more of that resource should outperform the rms that have less of that re-
source overall [Powell (1995)]. Therefore, the following hypothesis acts as a pre-
liminary test of the economic value of TM:
Hypothesis 4: Firms engaging in a higher number of TM tools
outperform rms using fewer TM tools.

3. Empirical Study
3.1. Data
Finding the actual number of rms in an industry or the addresses of such companies
is highly dicult in Turkey due to a lack of accurate public sources. Therefore, one
reasonable source of data is business associations that keep track of their members.
The research team approached two business associations: The Association of Ma-
chine Manufacturers and the Turkish Electronics Industrialists' Association, both of
which kindly agreed to share their information with the team. The members of these
two associations were chosen mainly due to their representative power of their in-
dustries and because the directors of these associations argued that their members
accounted for more than 80% of local sales in their respective industries. Thus, the
members of these associations constituted the population, consisting of 267 rms.
The data was collected using a questionnaire developed by the authors based on two
separate instruments: One developed by the European Institute for Technology and
Innovation Team (EITIM) [Herstatt et al. (2007)] and one used in another empirical
study [Cetindamar and Ansal (2005)]. Prior to sending the survey by post, semi-
structured interviews were conducted with 15 rms in order to rene the question-
naire. Six of the pilot rms were from the machinery industry and the remaining nine

1250036-6
 Technology Management Tools and Techniques

were from the electronics industry. While identifying companies to interview, the
two business associations guided the research team towards companies believed to
have superior TM practices.

3.2. Measures
The nal questionnaire, by and large, consisted of questions with 5-point Likert
scales; however, there were a few binary response and open-ended questions. Con-
sidering the fact that the CTO position does not exist in all companies, the ques-
tionnaires were directly sent to the CEOs of the rms, who were asked to direct the
questionnaire to their most senior executive responsible for TM practices within the
company. In cases where no such senior manager existed, the CEO was requested to
ll out the questionnaire. Since 15 rms were interviewed and their responses re-
ceived during this process, the questionnaire was sent to the remaining 252 rms
twice by regular mail with a time interval of a month between the two mailings. The
package sent included both the questionnaire and a prepaid envelope in which the
completed questionnaires could be returned.
Excluding the interviews, there were responses from 37 companies, resulting in a
15% response rate. The 15 interviewed companies were then re-contacted to ll out
the missing questions that were not included in the initial interviews but were later
added to the postal survey instrument. The resulting database thus had 52 com-
panies, increasing the response rate to 20%.
In this study, our objectives are (1) the factors aecting the number of TM tools
and techniques used by rms and (2) the relationship between rm performance and
the number of tools and techniques used by rms. Therefore the primary dependent
variable in this study is the number of TM tools and techniques used by the rm.
This dependent variable, in turn, will be used as the independent variable for two
other dependent variables, namely, the growth and protability performance of the
rms.
About 50 dierent TM tools and techniques are listed for 11 TM activities in the
questionnaire (the list of tools and techniques and their related TM activity is given
in the Appendix). In other words, a particular TM tool may be used to support
multiple TM activities. The average number of TM tools and techniques per rm is
17.13, the TM activities with the highest average number of TM tools and techni-
ques are \R&D management", \technology strategy", and \knowledge management,
organization of technological activities".
This study uses two performance measures, namely, the extent to which the rm
has reached its growth and protability targets in the last ve years, rated by
respondents on a 5-point Likert scale. No actual data was asked since a reluctance to
openly provide protability or growth values was observed during the pilot inter-
views. The study thus relies on the respondents' accuracy, since the majority of rms
are private companies and no secondary data exists to conrm their data.4 In the
original EITIM questionnaire, the rm's success in reaching its protability and
growth targets were rated by the respondent as 5 for \far more than expected", 4 for
4 Subjective performance measures are widely accepted in organizational research (Powell, 1995).

1250036-7
D. Cetindamar, N. S. Wasti & B. Beyhan

\more than expected", 3 for \about what is expected", 2 for \less than expected",
and 1 for \far less than expected". The mean value of the rm growth performance is
3.33 out of 5, and that of rm protability performance is 2.81 out of 5. This
indicates that while rms in our sample performed slightly better than their expected
growth target, their protability performance turned out to be a bit lower than what
they expected.
The independent variables used in this study can be divided into two groups.
The rst group includes variables related directly to the human capital of the CTO
(or most senior technology manager) or, in other words, her/his eld of education
and her/his level of experience in the current rm and in other rms. The second
group of independent variables aim to measure her/his level of hierarchy in the
rm. We use two proxy measures for this: (1) title of highest level manager in
charge of technology issues (CTO or another title) and (2) her/his level in the rm
administration.
Company performance might also depend on the particular context. Many
studies investigating the performance of rms take into consideration size as a
control variable, since large rms are expected to have more resources compared to
small rms, inuencing their range of activities [Hambrick et al., 2004]. Since we
study only two industries and the sample size is small, only one rm-level control
variable, the size of the rm (measured by the number of employees), will be used for
the analyses. Size is measured by a four-point scale, namely \less than 25 employ-
ees", \25
49 employees", \50
249 employees", and \more than 250 employees".

4. Results
4.1. The Use of TM Tools
According to the study, the most frequently used TM tool/technique is \market
analysis". Its frequency is higher than the others because it is listed under four
dierent TM activities and hence can be used for four dierent purposes. For ex-
ample, rms in our sample used the \market analysis" tool/technique mostly under
the activity of \technology strategy", followed by the \technology planning and
forecasting", \new product management", and \technology commercialization,
marketing" activities. The second most frequently used TM tool/technique is
\creativity tools". This tool/technique is also listed under two dierent TM activi-
ties; \R&D management" and \knowledge management, organization of techno-
logical activities". Finally, \benchmarking" is found as the third most frequently
used TM tool/technique. \Benchmarking" is also listed under two dierent TM
activities; \technology strategy" and \technology acquisition, transfer, dis-
semination". Table 1 shows the most frequently used TM tools/techniques, the TM
activities for which they are used, and the tool usage frequencies.

4.2. Factors Aecting the Usage of TM Tools and Techniques

Regression analyses are conducted to investigate the factors determining the number
of total TM tools and techniques. Since the number of TM tools and techniques used

1250036-8
 Technology Management Tools and Techniques

Table 1. TM tools and techniques most frequently used.

TM activities for which TM tool/ TM tool/technique Non-user

TM tool or technique technique is used usage frequency rms

Market analysis . Technology strategy 100 7

. New product management
. Technology planning and forecasting
. Technology commercialization,
marketing
Creativity tools . Knowledge management, organization 52 18
of technological activities
. R&D management
Benchmarking . Technology strategy 45 16
. Technology acquisition, transfer,
dissemination
Continuous improvement . Knowledge management, organization 42 10
of technological activities
Modeling . R&D management 33 33
. New product management
. Technology planning, forecasting
Teamwork . R&D management 31 33
. Project management
Marketing research . Technology acquisition, transfer, 30 22
dissemination
Brainstorming . Technology strategy 30 34
. R&D management
Technology foreseeing . Technology planning, forecasting 29 23
SWOT analysis . Technology strategy 28 24

in a rm is an integer, a Poisson regression technique is preferred for these analyses.

The results derived using the STATA 9.1 program package are given in Table 2.
Model 1 investigates the eects of the respondent's eld of education, her/his level in
the rm management, the length of her/his work experience, rm size, and the
respondent's total work experience in months on the total number of TM tools and
techniques used in the rm. On the other hand, Model 2 considers the same ex-
planatory variables except for the respondent's total work experience. Instead,
Model 2 includes the respondent's work experience in the current rm, also measured
in months. Model 3 diers from the previous two models by investigating the impact
of the title of highest level technology manager instead of her/his level in the rm
administration on the number of TM tools and techniques.
In Models 1, 2, and 3, the signs of the manager's eld of education are signicant
and negative. This sign indicates that if the manager's eld of education is related to
electronics or mechanics, it is expected that the number of TM tools and techniques
used by the rm will increase. This implies that CTOs having deep knowledge on the
core technologies of the sector (electronics and mechanics in our case) is likely to
increase the total number of TM tools and techniques used in the sample rms.
Therefore, our rst hypothesis is supported.

1250036-9
D. Cetindamar, N. S. Wasti & B. Beyhan

Table 2. CTO-related factors determining the total number of TM tools and techniques used.

(1) (2) (3)

Field of education
0:164
0:174
0:125

(3.83)*** (3.90)*** (2.98)***
Level in rm administration 0.206 0.136
(2.48)** (1.81)*
Title of highest level technology manager
0:073
(1.15)
Firm size (control variable) 0.188 0.192 0.172
(1.61) (2.33)** (2.01)**
Respondent's work experience in months (total) 0.322
(1.68)*
Respondent's work experience in months
0:002
0:002
(current rm)
(3.05)*** (3.40)***
Industry
0:052
(1.51)
Constant 2.127 2.789 3.456
(4.13)*** (8.97)*** (8.30)***
Observations 44 44 51
Pseudo R 2 0.2010 0.2502 0.2051

Robust z statistics in parentheses.

*Signicant at 10%; **signicant at 5%; ***signicant at 1%.

The level of the CTO in the rm's hierarchy is also one of the signicant
determinants of the total number of TM tools and techniques used in the rms
(Table 2). Since the values taken by this explanatory variable are getting smaller
while the CTO is getting closer to top management, the positive association
revealed in the table indicates that the CTO's closeness to the top management
decreases the number of total TM tools and techniques in the rms. This might be
because CTOs who are much closer to the top management have a wide range of
responsibilities and therefore they do not allocate enough time for the management
of technological activities. On the other hand, CTOs who are mainly responsible for
technical or operational units and who are at comparatively lower levels in the rm's
hierarchy can be more eager to improve the technological activities in the rm and
be more focused on TM activities. Models 1 and 2 produce signicant and positive
coecients for \the level of the CTO in the rm administration", supporting H2.
The interesting nding in Model 3 is that the use of TM tools is inuenced by power
rather than the actual \title". In other words, whether or not the person who
manages technology-related activities in a rm has a formal title (such as the CTO)
is not important. What determines the use of TM tools is that person's hierarchical
status.
Model 1, 2, and 3 separately measure the impact of the CTO's work experience on
the total number of TM tools and techniques used by the rms. The results indicate
that the CTO's work experience at the current rm has a signicant (p  0:01) but
negative eect on the total number of TM tools and techniques, supporting the
earlier ndings in the literature and H3 in our study. On the other hand, the CTO's
having experience in dierent rms, as shown in Model 1, increases the total number

1250036-10
 Technology Management Tools and Techniques

of TM tools and techniques used. These results imply that CTOs who are less
experienced (and perhaps younger) or have worked for dierent rms might be more
open to using TM tools and techniques. This may also mean that managers who are
new to the rm are more motivated to introduce new TM tools and techniques.
Model 2 seems to have more explanatory power, not only due to its comparatively
higher pseudo R2, but also due to the signicant coecients of all explanatory
variables.
Our control variable, rm size, is also positively and signicantly associated with
the total number of TM tools and techniques used by the sampled rms. This implies
that larger rms (in terms of number of employees) use a higher number of TM tools
and techniques than the smaller ones. This is similar to what is observed for the case
of TQM applications [Powell (1995)].

4.3. Relationship between Performance and the Usage

of TM Tools and Techniques
To analyze the association between the number of TM tools and techniques that a
rm uses and the extent to which this rm has reached its rst performance target,
namely growth, we ran a bivariate correlation analysis using the SPSS 13.0 statis-
tical program package, allowing us to simultaneously see the strength and the di-
rection of the relationships. As given by Table 3, there is a signicant (p  0:01) and
positive relationship between the total number of TM tools and techniques used by a
rm and its success in reaching its growth performance.
As a separate analysis, the rms were clustered into three signicantly dierent
(p  0:01) groups according to the total number of TM tools and techniques they
used with a k-means cluster analysis on the SPSS 13.0 statistical program package.
In the rst cluster, there are 25 rms using less than 15 TM tools and techniques, in
the second group there are 20 rms using between 15 and 28 TM tools and tech-
niques, and in the third group there are 7 rms which use more than 30 tools and
techniques. One way ANOVA (Fig. 1) indicates a signicant dierence
(p < 0:05=0:028) in the mean value of performance between the rms that are
clustered according to the number of TM tools and techniques they use. The
Kruskal
Wallis test produces the same result. On the other hand, Tukey's test,
which is a post-hoc test used in conjunction with ANOVA to nd which means are

Table 3. Correlation between the total number of TM tools and techniques and performance.

Number of TM tools and Firm's growth

techniques used performance

Number of TM tools and Pearson Correlation 1 0.399**

techniques Sig. (2-tailed) 0.003
N 52 52
Firm's growth performance Pearson Correlation 0.399** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.003
N 52 52

**Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

1250036-11
D. Cetindamar, N. S. Wasti & B. Beyhan

Clusters N* Mean Std

Deviation
4 1 25 3 .91
2 20 3.55 .76
Firms growth
performance

3 7 3.86 .90
*Number of firms in the cluster.
3

Cluster1 Cluster2 Cluster3

Clusters

Fig. 1. Growth performance and rm clusters.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for clusters (std. deviations in parentheses).

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3

Firm has a formal CTO title 0.13 0.3 0.29 ns

(0.34) (0.47) (0.49)
Respondent's work experience in months (current rm) 176.79 148,45 74,71 ns
(130.49) (114.38) (66.45)
Respondent's work experience in months (total) 0.79 0.85 0.86 ns
0.41 0.37 0.38
University degree of CTO 1 1.39 1.6 1.57 ns
(0.58) (0.60) (0.79)
CTO's level in the rm hierarchy 1.38 1.72 2 **
(0.86) (0.75) 0
Size (number of employees) 2.64 3.05 3 ns
0.86 0.89 1.15
Firm income in 2006 2 1.96 2.7 2.3 *
0.79 1.17 1.37
R&D/total budget ratio 0.13 0.13 0.15 ns
0.23 0.2 0.19

*Signicant at 10%; ** signicant at 5%.

1
(1): Undergraduate, (2): M.S./M.B.A., (3): Ph.D.
2
(1) Less than 5 million TL; (2): between 5
25 million TL; (3): 25
50 million TL; (4): More than 50
million TL (1 USD1.4311 TL in 2006).

signicantly dierent from one another, presents signicant dierences (p  0:1)

between clusters 1 and 2 and clusters 1 and 3. Furthermore, the Kruskal
Wallis test
produces signicant dierences (p  0:05) between the median values of the same
clusters. What this says is that there are signicant performance dierences with
respect to reaching growth targets between the high TM tool user and low TM user
groups.

1250036-12
 Technology Management Tools and Techniques

In addition, the Kruskal
Wallis and t-tests for independent samples are used to
compare the number of TM tools and techniques that are used by rms clustered
into three groups according to their success in reaching prot targets. These tests
produce identical results, which demonstrate that there is no signicant prot target
success dierence across rm groups with respect to the number of TM tools/tech-
niques they use. Therefore we can conclude that there is no association between the
extent to which the rm reaches its protability target and the number of TM tools and
techniques used by the rm. Hence we can say that we have partial support for H4.

5. Concluding Remarks
This paper is a rst attempt to develop a comprehensive list of TM tools. The TM is
an area populated by policy makers, practitioners, and academics, the latter being
further divided and spanning disciplines such as engineering, basic sciences, eco-
nomics, industrial design, management, and information sciences. This breadth
makes it hard to reach a consensus as to what the foundations of this area are or
should be, creating an obstacle in the full legitimization of TM as an independent
study area. Therefore, it is our hope that the renement of our list of TM tools and
techniques will result in a common jargon for researchers, which will also aid cross-
disciplinary collaborations.
In addition, the study tries to understand both the antecedents and outcomes of
the usage of TM tools. We nd that the characteristics of the CTO (or most senior
technology manager in the rm) are important determinants of TM usage in the
rm. Firms with CTOs familiar with the relevant technologies, who focus more on
technology (rather than general management) issues in their present position, and
those who have former experience in other companies enhance the utilization of TM
tools and techniques in their rm. These ndings clearly have major implications in
terms of internal processes and senior manager recruitment. However, we think that
top managers will probably be more interested in the positive relationship between
TM tool usage and success in reaching growth targets; a key result indicated by this
study.
We hope that both the better denition of what tools comprise TM and their
antecedents and outcomes will be of interest to policy makers, particularly in de-
veloping countries. Technology-related incentives can be distributed based on a
clearer picture of what actually constitutes technology management, and rms can
be scrutinized to see if they actually have the requisite managerial infrastructure.
This way, the limited technology resources of developing rms can be put to more
eective use.
As with most research projects, this study is not without limitations. While we
nd that rms using TM tools to a higher degree outperform rms that do not, due
to the cross-sectional nature of the data, we could not check whether the perfor-
mance outcomes of the respondent rms were indeed outcomes of the TM tools used.
Longitudinal data with higher sample sizes would help in determining the precise
causality relations. The study is primarily based on existing survey instruments.
While this allows data collected by dierent researchers to be directly compared, it

1250036-13
D. Cetindamar, N. S. Wasti & B. Beyhan

limited our ability to rene certain measures. Also our data primarily depends on
respondent testimony rather than objective data, which was a necessity for the type
of study being conducted; nonetheless, the possibility of social acceptability bias
should be kept in mind. While the present study was undertaken in two important
manufacturing sectors, it could be replicated in dierent industries to further
generalization.

Appendix

Table A1. The TM tools/techniques and TM activities for which they are used.

TM Tools/Techniques TM Activities

Expected value-success matrix Technology evaluation and assessment

Brainstorming Technology strategy
R&D management
Copyright Technology protection, license/patent acquisition
Critical path method (CPM) Project management
Electronic Data interchange Knowledge management, organization of
(EDI) technological activities
Training Technology utilization and integration
Excel Project management
Utility model Technology protection, license/patent acquisition
Intellectual property rights Technology commercialization, marketing
(IPR) Knowledge management, organization of
technological activities
Observation, tracking Technology acquisition, transfer, dissemination
Hierarchical decision trees Technology evaluation and assessment
Relationship management Knowledge management, organization of
technological activities
Statistical decision models Technology acquisition, transfer, dissemination
Technology planning and forecasting
Quality circles Technology utilization and integration
Decision trees Technology strategy
Cost-prot analysis Technology acquisition, transfer, dissemination
Resource planning R&D management
Benchmarking Technology acquisition, transfer, dissemination
Technology strategy
Licensing Technology protection, license/patent acquisition
Brand registration Technology protection, license/patent acquisition
Mathematical programming Technology planning and forecasting
Matrix analysis R&D management
Modeling R&D management
New product management
Technology planning and forecasting
Customer reports Technology utilization and integration
Patenting Technology protection, license/patent acquisition
Patent analysis R&D management
Market analysis New product management
Technology commercialization, marketing
Technology strategy
Technology planning and forecasting

1250036-14
 Technology Management Tools and Techniques

Table A1. (Continued )

TM Tools/Techniques TM Activities

Marketing research Technology acquisition, transfer, dissemination

Project Review and Evaluation
Technique (PERT)
Portfolio management
Project assessment
Competition analysis
Competitive position-industry
maturity matrix
Risk-return analysis
After sales services
Scenarios
Intuitive method
Continuous improvement
SWOT analysis (Strengths/
weaknesses/opportunities/
threats)
Organizational culture
Teamwork
Technology foreseeing
Technology acquaintance
techniques
Technology eciency analysis
Technological portfolio
management
Reverse engineering
Expert opinion (such as Delphi)
Product-technology matrix
Creativity tools
Roadmaps
Project management
New product management
Technology utilization and integration
Technology evaluation and assessment
New product management
Technology strategy
New product management
Technology evaluation and assessment
Technology commercialization, marketing
Technology planning and forecasting
Technology acquisition, transfer, dissemination
Knowledge management, organization of
technological activities
Technology strategy
Knowledge management, organization of
technological activities
R&D management
Project management
Technology planning and forecasting
Technology acquisition, transfer, dissemination
Technology utilization and integration
R&D management
R&D management
Technology planning and forecasting
Technology evaluation and assessment
Technology strategy
Knowledge management, organization of
technological activities
R&D management
Technology planning and forecasting

References
Allen, T. (2004). 50 years of engineering management through the lens of the IEEE Trans-
actions. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., 51, 4: 391
395.
Ball, D. F. and Rigby, J. (2005). Disseminating research in management of technology:
Journals and authors. R&D Manage., 36, 2: 205
216.
Brady, T., Rush, H., Hobday, M., Davies, A., Probert, D. and Banerjee, S. (1997). Tools for
technology management: An academic perspective. Technovation, 17, 8: 417
426.
Brown, D. (1997). Innovation Management Tools: A Review of Selected Methodologies.,
European Commission. EUR 17018.
Carpenter, M. A. and Fredrickson, J. W. (2001). Top management teams, global strategic
posture, and the moderating role of uncertainty. Acad. Manage. J., 44, 3: 533
545.

1250036-15
D. Cetindamar, N. S. Wasti & B. Beyhan

Cetindamar, D. and Ansal, H. (2005). Technology management through partnerships. Paper

Presented at the 13th International Forum on Technology Management Conference,
22
23 September. Istanbul, Turkey.
Cetindamar, D., Phaal, R. and Probert, D. (2009). Understanding technology management as
a dynamic capability: A framework for technology management activities. Technovation,
29, 4: 237
246.
Cetindamar, D., Okan, P. and Can, O. (2006). Technology management activities and tools:
The practice in Turkey. Paper presented at the PICMET06 Conference, 8
13 July, 2006.
Istanbul, Turkey.
Cotec. (1998). Temaguide: A Guide to Technology Management and Innovation for Compa-
nies., EC funded project, Brussels.
De Piante Henriksen, A. (1997). Technology assessment primer for management of technol-
ogy. Int. J. Technol. Manage., 13, 5
6: 615
638.
Dorf, R. C. (1999). The Technology Management Handbook. CRC Press & IEEE Press,
Florida.
Farrukh, C. J. P., Phaal, R. and Probert, D. R. (1999). Tools for technology management:
Dimensions and issues. Paper Presented at the PICMET Conference, 25
29th June.
Portland, OR, USA.
Finkelstein S. and Hambrick D. C. (1996). Strategic Leadership: Top Executives and Their
Eects on Organizations. West Publishing Company, St Paul, MN.
Gaynor, G. H. (1996). Handbook of Technology Management, McGraw Hill, New York.
Hambrick, D. C. and Cannella, Jr., A. A. (2004). CEOs who have COOs: Contingency
analysis of an unexplored structural form. Strat. Manage. J., 25, 10: 959
979.
Hambrick D. C. and Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reection of
its top managers. Acad. Manage. Rev., 9, 2: 193
206.
Helfat, C. E. and Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability life-
cycles. Strat. Manage. J., 24, 10: 997
1010.
Herstatt, C., Tietz, F., Nagahira, A. and Probert, D. (2007). The chief technology ocer
(CTO) in literature and practice


A review and results from eld research in Japan. Int.
J. Innov. Technol. Manage., 4, 3: 323
350.
Hidalgo, A. and Albors, J. (2008). Innovation management techniques and tools: A review
from theory and practice. R&D Manage., 38, 2: 113
127.
Hitt, M. A., Bierman, L., Schimizu, K. and Kochhar, R. (2001). Direct and moderating eects
of human capital on strategy and performance in professional service rms: A resource-
based perspective. Acad. Manage. J., 44, 1: 1
28.
Kathuria, R. and Porth, S. J. (2003). Strategy-managerial characteristics alignment and
performance: A manufacturing perspective. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage., 23, 3/4:
255
276.
Kimberly, J. R. and Evanisko, M. J. (1981). Organizational innovation: The inuence of
individual organizational and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technical and
administrative innovations. Acad. Manage. J., 24, 4: 689
713.
Jayaraman, N., Khorana, A., Nelling, E. and Covin, J. (2000). CEO founder status and rm
nancial performance. Strat. Manage. J., 21, 12: 1215
1224.
Larson, C. F. (2007). 50 years of change in industrial research and technology management.
Res. Technol. Manage., 50, 1: 26
31.
Liao, S. (2005). Technology management methodologies and applications: A literature review
from 1995
2003. Technovation, 25, 4: 381
393.
Linton, J. D. and Thongpapanl, N. (2004). Ranking the technology innovation management
journals. J. Prod. Innov. Manage., 21, 2: 123
139.
Mayo, A. (2002). The Human Value of the Enterprise: Valuing People as Assets


Moni-
toring, Measuring, Managing., Nicholas Brealey, London.
OECD. (1998). Human Capital Investment: An International Comparison. OECD, Paris.

1250036-16
 Technology Management Tools and Techniques

Oerlemans, l., Rooks, G. and Pretorius, T. (2005). Does technology and innovation man-
agement improve market position? Empirical evidence from innovating rms in South
Africa. Knowl. Technol. Policy, 18, 3: 38
55.
Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J. P. and Probert, D. R. (2006). Technology management tools:
Concept, development and application. Technovation, 26, 3: 336
344.
Pfeer, J. and Sutton, R. I. (2006). Evidence-based management. Harvard Bus. Rev., 84,
1: 62
75.
Powell, T. C. (1995). Total quality management as competitive advantage: A review and
empirical study. Strat. Manage. J., 16, 1: 15
37.
Roberts, E. B. (2004). A perspective on 50 years of the engineering management eld. IEEE
Trans. Eng. Manage., 51, 4: 398
403.
Smaltz, D. H., Sambamurthy, V. and Agarwal, R. (2006). The antecedents of CIO role
eectiveness in organizations: An empirical study in the healthcare sector. IEEE Trans.
Eng. Manage., 53, 2: 207
222.
Straker, D. (1997). Toolbook for Quality Improvement and Problem Solving., Prentice Hall,
New York.
Winter, S. G. (2000). The satiscing principle in capability learning. Strat. Manage. J., 21,
10
11: 981
996.
Wood, J. and Vilkinas, T. (2007). Characteristics associated with CEO success: Perceptions of
CEOs and their sta. J. Manage. Develop., 26, 3/4: 213
227.
Yan, L., Chuan-Hoo, T., Hock-Hai T. and Tan, B. C. Y. (2006). Innovative usage of infor-
mation technology in Singapore organizations: Do CIO characteristics make a dierence?
IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., 53, 2: 177
190.

Biography
Dilek Cetindamar is professor at the Faculty of Management at Sabanci Uni-
versity, Turkey. She received her B. S. degree from the Industrial Engineering
Department and her M.A degree from the Economics Department at Boazii
University, and later completed her Ph.D. degree at the Management Department of
Istanbul Technical University. Her main interest and research topics are Technology
Management and Entrepreneurship.

Nazli S. Wasti is professor of Business Administration at the Middle East Tech-

nical University, Turkey. Her Ph.D. is from the Industrial and Operations Engi-
neering Department at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor. Her research interests
include buyer-supplier relationships and technology/innovation management.

Berna Beyhan is a Ph.D. candidate in Science and Technology Policy Studies

Research Center at the Middle East Technical University, Turkey. She received her
B.A. degree from the Business Administration Department at Boazii University
and her M.A. degree in Science, Technology and Society from Istanbul Technical
University. For her dissertation, she is investigating university-industry collabora-
tions in emerging nanotechnologies.

1250036-17
Copyright of International Journal of Innovation & Technology Management is the property
of World Scientific Publishing Company and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.