DBA 1731 - STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGY PLANNING

DBA 1731 - STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGY PLANNING
ASSIGNMENT – I
1. Explain the role of Analogy and Delphi Method in technology forecasting.
Making strategic decisions for product development is one of the most difficult challenges for the research and development (R&D) staff of a business. As Ralph Lenz, U.S. Air Force technology forecasting pioneer once said, "Technology forecasting may be defined as the prediction of the invention, characteristics, dimensions, or performance of a machine serving some useful purpose." [4] How to decide between the optimization of existing technologies and the development of a new core technology? There is a high uncertainty related to these decisions and although many decision tools are available, and have been implemented successfully to various degrees, the decision-maker's intuition is sometimes the only element for directing the company's line of development.
Assessment of a company's current technology should drive the direction of the R&D planning process. There needs to be a systematic process for assessing technology. [2, 5] There are eight (non-TRIZ) forecasting methods to aid assessment:
Delphi Method
To improve on the intuitive and consensus methods, the Rand Corporation developed the "Delphi Procedure" in which a panel of experts (like the consensus method) arrive at a consensus but eliminate the regulating of committee bias by employing a series of questionnaires. The first phase asks for the panel's forecasts. The replies are compounded. The second phase requests comments on the Phase I compound forecast. Phase III is a derivative of Phase I based on the results of Phase II. A typical process includes five or six phases. The goal of this multi-phase process is a forecast convergence. Figure 1 shows the convergence of a hypothetical date for a certain even based on a multi-phase Delphi process.
The objective of most Delphi applications is the reliable and creative exploration of ideas or the production of suitable information for decision making. The Delphi Method is based on a structured process for collecting and distilling knowledge from a group of experts by means of a series of questionnaires interspersed with controlled opinion feedback (Adler and Ziglio, 1996). According to Helmer (1977) Delphi represents a useful communication device among a group of experts and thus facilitates the formation of a group judgement. Wissema (1982) underlines the importance of the Delphi Method as a monovariable exploration technique for technology forecasting. He further states that the Delphi method has been developed in order to make discussion between experts possible without permitting a certain social interactive behavior as happens during a normal group discussion and hampers opinion forming. Baldwin (1975) asserts that lacking full scientific knowledge, decision-makers have to rely on their own intuition or on expert opinion. The Delphi method has been widely used to generate forecasts in technology, education, and other fields (Cornish, 1977).
The technology forecasting studies which eventually led to the development of the Delphi method started in 1944. At that time General Arnold asked Theodor von Karman to prepare a forecast of future technological capabilities that might be of interest to the military (Cornish, 1977). Arnold got the Douglas Aircraft company to establish in 1946 a Project RAND (an acronym for Research and Development) to study the "broad subject of inter-continental warfare other then surface." In 1959 Helmer and fellow RAND researcher Rescher published a paper on "The Epistemology of the Inexact Sciences," which provide a philosophical base for forecasting (Fowles, 1978). The paper argued that in fields that have not yet developed to the point of having scientific laws, the testimony of experts is permissible. The problem is how to use this testimony and, specifically, how to combine the testimony of a number of experts into a single useful statement. The Delphi method recognizes human judgement as legitimate and useful inputs in generating forecasts. Single experts sometimes suffer biases; group meetings suffer from "follow the leader" tendencies and reluctance to abandon previously stated opinions (Gatewood and Gatewood, 1983, Fowles, 1978). In order to overcome these shortcomings the basic notion of the Delphi method, theoretical assumptions and methodological procedures developed in the 1950s and 1960s at the RAND Corporation. Forecasts about various aspect of the future are often derived through the collation of expert judgement. Dalkey and Helmer developed the method for the collection of judgement for such studies (Gordon and Hayward, 1968).


Analogy Method
This method utilizes analogies between the phenomenon to be forecast and some historical event, or popular physical or biological process. To the extent that the analogy is valid (all analogies become invalid at a certain level), the initial event or process can be used to wake a prediction about future developments of a technology. (See Figure 5.) The technological forecaster uses the analogy method consciously and deliberately, examining the model situation and the situation to be forecast in considerable detail to determine the extent to which the analogy is valid. An example of this approach is delineated in the book The Railroads and the Space Program: An Exploration in Historical Analogy edited by Bruce Mazlish. The forecasters used 19th century railroad development as an analogous system to the U.S. space program. The utilization of growth curves is used to predict the advance of some technologies (analogous to biological or physical processes – the "'S"
is an attempt to develop a mathematical or analytical model of a technology-generation process. As with mathematical models of any process, the purpose for model construction is to identify certain key elements, identify the functional aspects of those elements and express these functional aspects symbolically or mathematically. Structural models tend to be abstract and reductionist in their approach in removing what are denied to be non-essential functions.





Figure 5: Making Predictions
(If a foreign system consisting of
elements A, B and C produces
elements D and E, an analogous
system with elements A', B' and
C' can be predicted to produce
elements D' and E', where A', B',
C', D' and E' are elements in the
system to be predicted.)







2. Discuss the role of organization reengineering in manufacturing company.
Business process reengineering (BPR) is, in computer science and management, an approach aiming at improvements by means of elevating efficiency and effectiveness of the business process that exist within and across organizations. The key to BPR is for organizations to look at their business processes from a "clean slate" perspective and determine how they can best construct these processes to improve how they conduct business.
Business Process Reengineering Cycle.
Business process reengineering is also known as BPR, Business Process Redesign, Business Transformation, or Business Process Change Management. Reengineering is a fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in cost, quality, speed, and service. BPR combines a strategy of promoting business innovation with a strategy of making major improvements to business processes so that a company can become a much stronger and more successful competitor in the marketplace.
The main proponents of reengineering were Michael Hammer and James A. Champy. In a series of books including Reengineering the Corporation, Reengineering Management, and The Agenda, they argue that far too much time is wasted passing-on tasks from one department to another. They claim that it is far more efficient to appoint a team who are responsible for all the tasks in the process. In The Agenda they extend the argument to include suppliers, distributors, and other business partners.
Re-engineering is the basis for many recent developments in management. The cross-functional team, for example, has become popular because of the desire to re-engineer separate functional tasks into complete cross-functional processes. Also, many recent management information systems developments aim to integrate a wide number of business functions. Enterprise resource planning, supply chain management, knowledge management systems, groupware and collaborative systems, Human Resource Management Systems and customer relationship management systems all owe a debt to
Business process reengineering (BPR) began as a private sector technique to help organizations fundamentally rethink how they do their work in order to dramatically improve customer service, cut operational costs, and become world-class competitors. A key stimulus for reengineering has been the continuing development and deployment of sophisticated information systems and networks. Leading organizations are becoming bolder in using this technology to support innovative business processes, rather than refining current ways of doing work.

Reengineering guidance and relationship of Mission and Work Processes to Information Technology.
Business process reengineering is one approach for redesigning the way work is done to better support the organization's mission and reduce costs. Reengineering starts with a high-level assessment of the organization's mission, strategic goals, and customer needs. Basic questions are asked, such as "Does our mission need to be redefined? Are our strategic goals aligned with our mission? Who are our customers?" An organization may find that it is operating on questionable assumptions, particularly in terms of the wants and needs of its customers. Only after the organization rethinks what it should be doing, does it go on to decide how best to do it.
Within the framework of this basic assessment of mission and goals, reengineering focuses on the organization's business processes--the steps and procedures that govern how resources are used to create products and services that meet the needs of particular customers or markets. As a structured ordering of work steps across time and place, a business process can be decomposed into specific activities, measured, modeled, and improved. It can also be completely redesigned or eliminated altogether. Reengineering identifies, analyzes, and redesigns an organization's core business processes with the aim of achieving dramatic improvements in critical performance measures, such as cost, quality, service, and speed.
Reengineering recognizes that an organization's business processes are usually fragmented into subprocesses and tasks that are carried out by several specialized functional areas within the organization. Often, no one is responsible for the overall performance of the entire process. Reengineering maintains that optimizing the performance of subprocesses can result in some benefits, but cannot yield dramatic improvements if the process itself is fundamentally inefficient and outmoded. For that reason, reengineering focuses on redesigning the process as a whole in order to achieve the greatest possible benefits to the organization and their customers. This drive for realizing dramatic improvements by fundamentally rethinking how the organization's work should be done distinguishes reengineering from process improvement efforts that focus on functional or incremental improvement.
ASSIGNMENT- II

1. Explain the IPR considerations and issues involved in Technology Development.
Technology is a bundle of inventions, which are increasingly protected by intellectual property rights. Typically, these rights are owned by multiple different entities, operating in different industries and countries. Moreover, once an invention protected by intellectual property right is incorporated in a product, it becomes very difficult to substitute it with an alternative technology, especially when the product has been widely adopted. Thus, technology creators must coordinate the disparate interests of various intellectual property owners in order to create useful technology. In this paper we introduce a new theory as an extension of transaction cost economics to explain the relative merits of different governance forms vis-à-vis the creation of technology that is a bundle of inventions. From this theoretical extension, we derive a number of testable hypotheses.
the private sector plays an increasingly important role in international investment and technology development. This growing role has been supported by various domestic and international developments, including liberalisation of markets, development of stronger domestic legal and financial systems, and tariff reductions under the Uruguay Round of the GATT. In the context of technology transfer, a particularly important - and complex - set of issues are those relating to intellectual property rights (IPRs). IPRs may play an important role in ensuring economic returns to investors (including R&D resources they have devoted to developing and improving technologies), and to an extent enabling the transfer of and availability of protected technologies nternational development of IPRs and the TRIP agreement
IPRs were originally regulated exclusively at the national level and subject to national legislation. Regimes for IPR tended to vary widely, especially between developed and developing countries, due to differing interests, cultures and administrative capacities. Industrialised countries tend to see IPRs as a primary means for promoting technology development by offering inventors protection to reap profits from their labours. Developing countries tended to be more concerned to access existing technologies at affordable costs, and to make them more widely available. Not surprisingly, developing countries tended to have far weaker IPR laws than industrialised countries. The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) sought to foster and harmonise IPR protection and disseminate information. Its mandate includes, subject to the competence of other organisations, promoting creative intellectual activity and facilitating the transfer of technology related to industrial property.
Continuing differences in IPR treatment became a source of considerable international dispute in the 1980s, and the US especially threatened some developing countries with retaliatory trade action if they did not improve IPRs protection (Doane, 1994). At the same time, developing countries began to believe that stronger IPRs regulation could help them to attract more foreign technology and to develop stronger markets (Kwon, 1995). These developments have led to more common international standards for IPR protection during the 1990s.
In particular, the 1994 Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIP), negotiated in the context of the Uruguay Round, is leading to increased homogeneity of laws around the world in accordance with minimum standards. According to Worthy (1994) the agreement "is a major breakthrough in the international protection of intellectual property rights, because of its substance and because of the wide measure of international acceptance it achieved". TRIP was adopted in the context of a trade negotiation and therefore was accepted as part of a "package". The main provisions are:
1. The establishment of minimum standards for the protection and enforcement of a wide variety of intellectual property rights, including the extension of copyright principles to computer code and certain kinds of databases;
2. A principle of "national treatment", preventing IPR discrimination in favour of domestic industries;
3. A principle of "most favoured nation", preventing IPR discrimination between investors from different signatories to the TRIP agreement.
The TRIP regime on patents is particularly relevant to technology transfer; it sets a minimum of 20 years for patent protection, it sets minimums for patentable subject matter, and it sets minimum standards as to the conditions that must be met for patents to be issued. It also establishes agreement on procedures that must be followed before countries can grant compulsory licences.
The TRIP agreement allowed developing countries four years (from January 1996) in which to make necessary changes, with an additional five years for least developed countries or others facing serious implementation difficulties.
Effects of stronger IPR protection
The benefits that may derive from legal systems having strong intellectual property rights include the following: an increase in innovation due to the incentive and reward that IPRs provide; fair treatment of innovators who can own the creative "sweat of the brow" and exert influence over how their technology is used; public disclosures of patented technologies, sharing of secrets under confidentiality agreements; ease of purchase, sale, or license; and enhanced investment due to the assurance that investors can recapture their investment in a technology subject to such protection.
Great IPR protection should give greater confidence for R&D investment in new technologies and processes. It should also lead to greater investment, including with new technology by western companies in developing countries, although empirical research suggests this may not be as significant as hoped for (Kwon, 1995). Trebilcock and Howse (1995), in a survey of foreign investors, note that intellectual property protection was rated the least important of five factors affecting investment decisions in Thailand. Certainly, although in theory strong IPR systems should promote foreign investment, in the case of certain technologies it is not enough to have these systems in place. There is a need for the planning of technological development and better identification of technological needs. Furthermore, all countries do not necessarily need cutting edge technology to satisfy specific needs, particularly with respect to clean technologies.
In other respects, stronger IPR systems can impede technology development and transfer. The World Bank's 1998 World Development Report cautions that "there is now a risk of excessively strict IPRs adversely affecting follow-on innovations and actually slowing down the pace (of technological development)". The report goes on to identify patents which cover "not just products but broad areas of technology" as a particular concern. Concerning international transfer, a country that seeks to obtain a beneficial new technology for its inhabitants may find that the owner of the technology is unwilling to provide it on terms that the country (or host companies involved) can afford, whether or not there is IPR protection.
Thus, there is no absolute "right" degree of IPR protection, and notwithstanding the TRIP agreement, IPR regimes differ according to national circumstances and the agreements that governments have entered into, the technologies involved, and their national objectives. In addition, the appropriate response might be to negotiate specific guarantees with investors, rather than increasing intellectual property protection across the board (Trebilcock and Howse, 1995). In certain sectors and markets, including some energy and environmental sectors, the main advantages to investors may accrue simply from continued technological innovation and managerial expertise, in which case IPR issues may not be very important to them, and rigorous application of IPR may simply impede valuable technology transfer with little compensating benefit (Trumpy, 1997). In other cases, the reverse may be true.
International law recognises the right of a country to take legislative measures to provide for the granting of compulsory licenses to prevent the abuses that might result from the exercise of the exclusive rights conferred by the patent. While the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of 1883, and WTO through TRIP referred above deal with the subject broadly, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1993 and OECD's proposal for a Multinational Agreement on Investments (MAI) severely restrict the use of compulsory licensing of patents. This issue has been addressed in several international fora, including UNCTAD, the Rio Summit, UNGASS and discussions within CSD. A survey conducted in 1999 indicated that a number of countries both among the Annex I and non - Annex I countries have legislation listing the circumstances under which provisions for compulsory licensing could be invoked (Health Care and IP, 1999).
IPRs and developing countries
As noted in the context of TRIP negotiations, developing countries have particular concerns about IPRs. The great majority of patents are owned and continue to be generated from the industrialised world; developing countries and their companies tend to have fewer resources to purchase licences and fear that stronger IPRs impede their access to such technologies. Indigenous companies or communities may find that traditional approaches are not familiar to investors, and will have difficulty competing with larger companies that have extensive experience obtaining and dealing with IPRs. The culture of competition may also make it difficult to obtain relevant data in the short term.In other words, it is probable that stronger IPR protection may to some degree enhance vertical technology transfer through foreign investment, but may in some circumstances impede horizontal dissemination of protected technologies through developing country societies. Forsyth (1999) emphasises this distinction, but argues that the climate change debate on technology transfer has tended to undervalue the potential contribution of vertical technology investment in its own right. Besides, international financial assistance could be made available where market-driven licensing is not feasible.
Ultimately, the impediments in any single case must be weighed against the overall societal advantages of IPR in promoting investment and innovation. Technology transfer is necessary to reach certain development goals, but developing countries argue that the balance of IPR weighs to the advantage of developed countries. In practice the incentive effects of IPR, weighed against the impediments they may raise to technology transfer, will differ according to the technology, sector, and country. While trade theory provides little basis for mandating uniform standards of intellectual property protection across all countries, intellectual property rights is an issue that is here to stay on the international trade agenda (Trebilcock and Howse, 1995).
Finally, in some circumstances, inadequate access or abuse of IPRs may be addressed through compulsory licensing procedures. Under Articles 30 and 31 of TRIP, member countries may provide for compulsory licensing of patented inventions, i.e. use of the invention without permission. Generally, compulsory licensing programmes require the user first to seek a license, and if no license is given, then a limited non-exclusive right to practice the invention domestically may be awarded by the government, with an obligation to pay reasonable compensation to the patent owner.
IPRs and the promotion of ESTs
The importance of IPRs needs to be set in context. Many of the technologies for addressing climate change may not be protected anyway. This may apply both to "soft" technologies, such as better energy management or agricultural practices, and "hard" technologies such as building insulation. Where there is no patent in force in the country seeking to acquire technology, the main barriers to technology transfer will be (1) inadequate technical expertise and know-how in the country, (2) the absence of professionals in the country able to negotiate a suitable transfer agreement, and (3) the willingness of the technology owner to transfer the technology. Training and education are necessary to overcome the first two barriers. The third barrier may be overcome with financial support and encouragement by the technology owner's country, the technology recipient's country, or through bilateral or multilateral arrangements (e.g. the GEF).
In other cases, relevant technologies may indeed be protected. What steps can governments take to use IPRs to improve transfer and development of ESTs? IPR systems can be harnessed specifically towards environmental objectives in some circumstances (Gollin, 1991). Patents on environmentally friendly technologies have been increasingly common since before the main environmental statutes were implemented in the 1970s. In the US, patent regulations were amended in 1982 (37 C.F.R. q.102-c) to provide for faster processing of environmental patents there. The practical impact of such provisions is uncertain.
In certain circumstances, existing patents may affect ability to comply with domestic regulations. The US Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 USC 7608) permits compulsory licensing in such circumstances: if the Attorney General identifies that a patented technology is needed by others to comply and there are not reasonable alternatives, then the US Courts are authorised to order licensing, "on such reasonable terms and conditions as the courts, after hearing, may determine."
For some developing countries seeking access to patented technologies in connection with international environmental treaties, one option might be for license fees to be paid for by an international funding source such as the GEF and/or through bilateral or multilateral arrangements.
Another way a country may address the concern for an unlicensed patent is to charge increasing annual maintenance fees. If the fee becomes high enough by 5 to 10 years after patent issuance, the owner will let an uncommercialised patent lapse (Sherwood, 1990). It will then become part of public domain.
Trademarks for environmental products can be crucial to their success and help facilitate widespread acceptance of a product. So-called "green labelling" programmes employ trademark or related principles (e.g. A not-for-profit organisation allows a vendor to use an environmental seal of approval if certain requirements are satisfied).
This section has highlighted the complexity and specificity of the issues, so that generalisations may not be helpful. Governments can support the exchange of public domain information. And governments can provide incentives for private parties to implement technology transfer programmes or joint ventures. Under extraordinary cases of IPR abuse, compulsory licensing can be considered.
Quite apart from legal and IPR issues, cooperation plays a critical role in promoting technology transfer. Likewise, national planning and specifically identifying national needs becomes a pre-condition to any IPR-related discussion as it is only when the type of technology or expertise needed has been identified and the specific circumstance assessed that the IPR question becomes relevant.
2. “Technology and Society are interrelated” -comment
Science is the systematic study of the physical world. Science uses the scientific method which includes observing the world through experiments and coming to conclusions based on these observations. Scientists are typically more theorists who are testing their theories through experimentation.

Technology is the creation of new useful items based on the knowledge of engineering and mechanics. Technologists are often people who tinker with objects to try to make them do new things. Many technologists have a strong knowledge of certain sciences, but their approach to creating new items is more practical than theoretical.

Often times, there are needs that develop within a society that are being addressed by either scientists or by technology. For example, there is currently a need for new fuel and energy sources because the current energy sources are dirty, expensive, and becoming less available. People who work with technology are trying to develop new machines that will work with different energies, like water, natural gas, corn based fuels, or hydrogen. They are also working to develop better batteries to store energy that can be used for cars or other machines. Scientists are also trying to address the societal needs by examining the impact of the current fuels on the environment and trying to determine how future fuels might affect the environment.

This is just one example of how science and technology are used together to help address the needs of society, and how society often motivates scientists and inventors in their research and development.
There are an extraordinary number of examples how science and technology has helped us that can be seen in society today. One great example is the mobile phone. Ever since the invention of the telephone society was in need of a more portable device that they could use to talk to people. This high demand for a new product led to the invention of the mobile phone, which did, and still does, greatly influence society and the way people live their lives. Now many people are accessible to talk to whoever they want no matter where any of the two people are. All these little changes in mobile phones, like Internet access, are further examples of the cycle of co-production. Society's need for being able to call on people and be available everywhere resulted in the research and development of mobile phones. They in turn influenced the way we live our lives. As the populace relies more and more on mobile phones, additional features were requested. This is also true with today's modern media player.
Society also determined the changes that were made to the previous generation media player that the manufactures developed. Take for example, today's media players. At the beginning, cassettes were being used to store data. However, that method was large and cumbersome so the manufactures developed compact disks, which were smaller and could hold more data. Later, compact disks were again too large and did not hold enough data that forced today's manufactures to create MP3 players which are small and holds large amount of data. Today's society determined the course of events that many manufactures took to improving their products so today's consumers will purchase their
Looking back into ancient history, economics can be said to have arrived on the scene when the occasional, spontaneous exchange of goods and services began to occur on a less occasional, less spontaneous basis. It probably did not take long for the maker of arrowheads to realize that he could probably do a lot better by concentrating on the making of arrowheads and barter for his other needs. Clearly, regardless of the goods and services bartered, some amount of technology was involved—if no more than in the making of shell and bead jewelry. Even the shaman's potions and sacred objects can be said to have involved some technology. So, from the very beginnings, technology can be said to have spurred the development of more elaborate economies.
In the modern world, superior technologies, resources, geography, and history give rise to robust economies; and in a well-functioning, robust economy, economic excess naturally flows into greater use of technology. Moreover, because technology is such an inseparable part of human society, especially in its economic aspects, funding sources for (new) technological endeavors are virtually illimitable. However, while in the beginning, technological investment involved little more than the time, efforts, and skills of one or a few men, today, such investment may involve the collective labor and skills of many millions.
Funding
Consequently, the sources of funding for large technological efforts have dramatically narrowed, since few have ready access to the collective labor of a whole society, or even a large part. It is conventional to divide up funding sources into governmental (involving whole, or nearly whole, social enterprises) and private (involving more limited, but generally more sharply focused) business or individual enterprises.
Government funding for new technology
The government is a major contributor to the development of new technology in many ways. In the United States alone, many government agencies specifically invest billions of dollars in new technology.
[In 1980, the UK government invested just over 6-million pounds in a four-year program, later extended to six years, called the Microelectronics Education Programme (MEP), which was intended to give every school in Britain at least one computer, software, training materials, and extensive teacher training. Similar programs have been instituted by governments around the world.]
Technology has frequently been driven by the military, with many modern applications being developed for the military before being adapted for civilian use. However, this has always been a two-way flow, with industry often taking the lead in developing and adopting a technology which is only later adopted by the military.
Entire government agencies are specifically dedicated to research, such as America's National Science Foundation, the United Kingdom's scientific research institutes, America's Small Business Innovative Research effort. Many other government agencies dedicate a major portion of their budget to research and development.
Private funding
Research and development is one of the biggest areas of investments made by corporations toward new and innovative technology.
foundations and other nonprofit organizations contribute to the development of technology. In the OECD, about two-thirds of research and development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by industry, and 20 percent and 10 percent respectively by universities and government. But in poorer countries such as Portugal and Mexico the industry contribution is significantly less. The U.S. government spends more than other countries on military research and development, although the proportion has fallen from about 30 percent in the 1980s to less than 10 percent.