Technovation, 17(8) (1997) 417--426

Pergamon © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain
PIh S0166.4972(97)00017-5 0166-4972/97 $17.00 + 0.00

Tools for technologymanagement:

an academic perspective
T. Brady and H. Rush*
University of Brighton, Brighton, UK

M. Hobday and A. Davies

University of Sussex, Brighton, UK

D. Probert
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

S. Banerjee
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

Abstract
The value of management tools is occasionally brought into question. The}'
are sometimes seen as some form of crutch which managers deploy instead
of thinking creatively. This paper attempts to clarify the nature of
management tools and argues a case for their appropriate use. The paper
distinguishes between tools and company procedures or systems and explores
some new categorisations. Focusing specifically on technology management
tools, the paper looks at where different tools have come from, and provides
examples from industry, government and consultancy companies. The role
academics can play in their development is explored, with the paper arguing
that they are in a rare position to impartially scrutinise and evaluate existing
tools as well as contribute to the development of new tools to solve unusual
and complex problems. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

1. INTRODUC'IION tration, sales, distribution etc. Research has shown a

F e w p e o p l e doubt the i m p o r t a n c e o f t e c h n o l o g y to
businesses and organisations. Their products and ser-
vices are often t e c h n o l o g y b a s e d and t e c h n o l o g y is
used in their processes in manufacturing, adminis-
*Author for correspondence,at: University of Brighton, Falmer, Brigh-
ton BN1 9PH, UK.
t This is a joint paper between researchers at the Universities of Brigh-
ton, Sussex, Cambridge and Strathclyde, all of whom are participants
in the ESPRC's Technology Management Initiative.
clear correlation between investment in technological
development and competitive performance (Freeman,
1994; G e r o s k i et al., 1993; Franko, 1989; Fagerberg,
1988). But merely devoting resources to innovation-
related activities such as R & D is not s u f f i c i e n t - -
m a n y that do still fail to innovate successfully. Those
that have been successful have not only d e v o t e d
resources to technology; they have also learned to
manage innovation.

TedmvatJonVol.17No.8 417
T. Bradyet al.
There is a plethora of research into success and fail-
ure of innovations which can at least offer some poin-
ters to how innovation or technology management can
be improved. 2 From this large body of research one
can draw together a long list of factors, capabilities,
characteristics and mechanisms which firms may need
in place to be successful innovators. But, according
to Mogee (1993), organisations often do not recognise
the management of innovation as a specific issue or
one that they should address systematically. She
remarks that:
"There are no standard accepted practices for
managing technological innovation today... [and-
]...much work remains to be done in applying
existing knowledge to innovation management
practice, building and strengthening that body of
knowledge, and [our emphasis] developing
reliable innovation management tools."
(Mogee, 1993)
On the other hand, some commentators have
recently argued that what is needed is not more tools
but more thought. Ketelholm (1996), for example,
suggests that the use of tools and the following of
procedures can lead to wrong decisions as they are
frequently used as a substitute for thinking. Clearly
he has a point. But a poor carpenter shouldn't blame
his tools!
This paper is a collaboration between individuals
from four partner research groups in the E P S R C ' s
Technology Management Initiative (TMI). It is an
effort to clarify the nature and importance o f manage-
ment tools and, in particular, to examine the role aca-
demics can play in their development and dissemi-
nation to industry. It was not intended that this work
should provide a definitive method of assessing tools,
nor comprehensively list those available on the mar-
ket. Rather, we hope to shed some light on issues and
ideas in an area where there appears to be more con-
fusion than clarity.
The paper begins by trying to define what is meant
by a management tool and how tools are related to
and differ from c o m p a n y procedures and systems. We
explore ways o f categorising tools before embarking
on an examination of technology management tools
in particular. W h o develops tools and what criteria
govern the choice o f tools are addressed, and we end
with a discussion on why academics have an
-' See, for example, Rothwell et al. (1974). Cooper (1979). Lilien and
Yoon (1989) for reviews of this work.
418 TecltmiovaSonVoi.17 No.8
important contribution to make in the development of
technology management tools.
2. WHATAREMANAGEMEHTTOOLS,ANDCANTHEYBE
CATEGORISED?
It may seem to be a relatively straightforward ques-
tion but, upon closer scutiny, a precise definition of
what constitutes a management tool proves to be
rather difficult. Tools, techniques, methods, systems,
procedures and methodologies are all terms which
have been applied to various means of assisting
organisations to achieve particular objectives. Dic-
tionary definitions are not particularly useful in that
there is considerable overlap between these terms. 3 In
general usage one might expect to differentiate
between specific tools, methods and techniques and
the broader concepts o f c o m p a n y systems, models,
frameworks and procedures. In practice, however, we
find that their usage appears to overlap considerably
and, for the purposes of this paper, we deliberately
adopt a loose definition in which a management tool
could be a document, a framework, procedure, system
or method which enables a c o m p a n y to achieve or
clarify an objective. The objective may be a make-
or-buy decision, a forecast, an analysis or one of
many other tasks. A tool may be used by specific indi-
viduals or groups within a c o m p a n y or may be appli-
cable across the entire company.
Within the definition suggested above, however, we
can identify a number of dimensions or characteristics
by which tools can be differentiated. For example, we
have already implied that there are differences
between specific and generic tools. C o m p a n y pro-
cedures and systems will tend to overlap with generic
tools, rather than specialised tools. However, once a
general c o m p a n y procedure is tailored to meet the
needs of a group it may well be classified as a spe-
cific tool.
It might also be of interest to categorise tools by
degree of formality. While many c o m p a n y procedures
are likely to have been instituted via a top-down
approach, some tools might also be described as being
bottom-up, or informal tools generated and used by
3 For example, accordingto Chambers' Dictionary a tool is something
you need to pursue a particular activity, while a technique is the knack
of doing something (i.e. achieving a particular activity), or it can be
a method or a procedure. A method can be the mode or rule used in
carrying out a task (achieving a particular activity) or it can be a sys-
tem or a procedure. A system can be a method or a full and connected
view of some department of knowledge (e.g. how to accomplish a
particular task or activity); a procedure is a method of conductingbusi-
ness.

individuals and small groups. These may not be cap-
tured within the formal procedures and systems of a
company but, nevertheless, may be extremely
important for getting a job done.
Clearly, there is no single or best way of classifying
management tools. Categorisations will depend on the
task at hand. One potentially useful means of categ-
orising tools is according to the type of work the tool
is meant to assist. For example:
• positioning--those tools which help to clarify a
company's relation to a sector, other firms or a
new technology;
• diagnostic--those tools for assessing how well the
company performs against a particular aim; and
• intervention--or improvement; tools which are
used to perform activities with a particular aim
in mind.
Most management tools provide support for
decision making at various levels in the organisation.
Tools in the first category above can be used by senior
management to help provide direction to strategic
questions such as which markets should be attacked,
what technologies should be used etc. Those in the
second category can be used to benchmark perform-
ance and to identify areas where attention needs to be
placed. The final category includes the tools which
help specify the nature and causes of specific prob-
lems and how they might be alleviated; plus the tools
needed to perform specific activities such as planning,
monitoring etc.
While we perceive uses in differentiating between
types of tools as described above, there are other ways
of categorising and contrasting tools. As a general
starting point we found it helpful to categorise tools
according to two basic dimensions which describe
many of the key features of tools. These dimensions
are degree of hardness and degree of task specificity.
Degree of hardness relates to how well defined is the
problem, the solution and the link between the two.
'Hard' means a problem is well defined, there is a
well defined solution and the link between them is
also well defined. 'Soft' relates to an inability to pre-
cisely define a problem, the number of solutions, and
the indirectness of the link between the problem and
the solution.
Figure 1 sets out a simple matrix in order to dem-
onstrate this dichotomy. For purposes of illustration
we have found it useful to contrast management tools
with a more immediately recognisable set of engin-
eering or craft tools. Most engineering tools and craft
Toolsfor technologymanagement
tools would tend to fall in the hard quadrants. They
have been designed with particular problems in mind
and in terms of a predetermined solution. With many
management tools the degree of hardness tends to be
lower and they are more likely to be found in the soft
quadrants where the task and solution are often less
well defined. However, in both cases there are dif-
fering degrees of task specificity so that tools can
occupy both quadrants irrespective of their degree
of hardness.
Let us look at few examples to illustrate this. If the
task is to fix some beading onto a door, it is a well
defined problem. One well defined solution is to fix
it with a panel pin. The tool to knock the panel pin
in is a hammer--in particular, a panel pin hammer.
The link between the solution and the problem is well
defined. Here is an example of a tool with a high
degree of hardness and a high degree of task speci-
ficity. In Fig. 1 'panel pin hammer' appears in the
extreme top right-hand part of the top right quadrant.
A claw hammer is as hard as a panel pin hammer (it
has a limited number of ways in which it can be used),
but it is much more generic in task specificity than a
panel pin hammer. It can be used on a wider range
of fixing tasks, it can accommodate more variation in
nail size, and furthermore, it can also be used to pull
out nails and in combination with chisels etc. For this
reason 'claw hammer' does not appear in the same
quadrant as the panel pin hammer in Fig. 1 despite it
being a hard tool.
Setting aside our analogy with engineering or craft-
based tools, let us focus on some technology manage-
ment tools. The Capability Maturity Model (CMM),
for example, is designed to provide software organis-
ations with guidance on how to gain control of their
software development processes and move towards a
culture of software engineering and management
excellence 4. It is soft in that it is difficult to define
the precise problem being faced. It is also fairly task
specific in that it relates to the software development
process. A similar model, called Trillium, provides a
benchmark of the best industry practices for the
development of telecommunications software pro-
ducts--particularly those that include embedded
software. The model is essentially an extensive
checklist that enables organisations to rate and select
suppliers of complex telecommunications products.
Thus it can be considered both softer and more task
4 S o m e might reasonably argue that the C M M provides a g o o d case
for w h y we should not adopt such a broad definition o f tools as we
do in this paper. The C M M has been described as the foundation for
systematically building a set of tools, including a maturity question-
naire, which are used in the software improvement process.
TechnovatJonVol. 17 No. 8 419
T. Bradyet al.

Specific

Degree of task spec(['icity

J
Simple Checklist Panel pin h a m m e r

Citroen socket set

÷ Trillium

* CMM
~, E n g i n e e r i n g
math. f o r m u l a

Very Hard
Very Soft

*- J I T
~
*, S i m u l a t i o n Degree of 'hardness'
P a c k a g e for
Workshops
BPR
* Cambridge MRP
University's ~- S p a n n e r
Workbooks
"~ C l a w
Facilitation/ hammer
OD Intervention

Generic

Notes:

MRP - Materials Requirements Planning

JIT - Just-in-Time
OD - Organisation Development
BPR - B u s i n e s s P r o c e s s R e - e n g i n e e r i n g
C M M - C a p a b i l i t y M a t u r i t y Model ( o f the S o f t w a r e E n g i n e e r i n g Institute)
T r i l l i u m - M a t u r i t y Model for T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s S o f t w a r e f o c u s i n g on s u b - c o n t r a c t i n g

Fig. 1. A simple classification of management and engineering tools (including selected examples)

specific than the CMM and, in Fig. 1, appears farther issues into a process which can be adapted to individ-
to the left and higher up in the top left-hand quadrant ual company circumstances.
than the CMM.
Precisely positioning tools in a quadrant is difficult,
Another example is MRP (Material Requirements especially where the tools are applied to different
Planning). This appears in the south-east quadrant problems. What is more important is the quadrant a
because it is relatively hard--the tool has to be used tool appears in. Whatever system of categorisation
in a fairly rigid way, with particular data being one might wish to use, some observations about the
entered in specific ways--but it can be used for a use of tools spring to mind from the above:
number of tasks within manufacturing (and is appli-
cable in a range of different manufacturing sectors). • firstly, the tool selected must be appropriate to
Compare this to the use of Organisational Develop- the problem;
ment (OD) intervention methods (sometimes referred • secondly, the person selecting the tool must know
to as facilitation), which appears in the bottom left of which tools are appropriate;
the south-west quadrant. OD intervention is very soft • thirdly, the person(s) using the tool must know how
because there is a lot of scope for manoeuvre in the to use it and the limitations of the tool in relation
way it is applied; it is a generic activity applicable to to the problem.
any organisation in any sector.

The workbook products which have resulted from

a number of Cambridge University Manufacturing
Group research projects are typical of the south-west
3. WHATARETECHNOLOGYMANAGEMENTTOOLS?
quadrant. Designed to address generic manufacturing From the above discussion we can surmise that
management decisions, they integrate soft and hard technology management tools are a subset of manage-

420 TedmvdionVd. 17No.8

 Toolsfor technologymanagement

ment tools related to decision making and support
around activities associated with innovation.
There is a wide range of tools for assisting with
technology and innovation management (Brady,
1995) and, in Table 1, we provide a list of references
which give overviews and assessments of some of the
tools on offer. The tools range from those which aim
to increase the general understanding of the process
of technological innovation--such as conceptual
models of the innovation process--to those intended
to help manage specific parts of the process. These
latter typically provide assistance:
• in strategic decision making about in which techno-
logies to invest,
• m R&D project selection,
• m new product selection,
• m capturing customers' needs,
• in designing new products,
• m promoting creativity, and
• in monitoring and controlling development pro-
jects.
cation, acquisition, absorption and market exploi-
tation. In addition to these are numerous tools, both
simple and complex, for intervening in particular situ-
ations in order to improve a company's technological
performance. The different tools are often used in
combination to aid in the location of problems, identi-
fication of solutions and implementation of decisions.
Technology audit tools often focus on artefacts and
other readily measurable facets of technology, includ-
ing machinery, skilled people, patents and research
and development facilities. However, increasingly,
analysts realise that less tangible forms of technology
(e.g. knowledge, skills and competences) are perhaps
even more important to a company's long-term suc-
cess. Performance in acquiring and improving such
intangible assets through continuous learning and
innovation often underpins company success and fail-
ure in fast changing technology and market fields
(Stata, 1989; Senge, 1990; Garvin, 1993). Within the
field of technology management it is these more
intangible aspects to which designers and developers
of tools have increasingly been turning their attention.

More recently, attention has also been placed on 4. HOWWIDESPREADIS THEUSEOFTECHNOLOGY

quality and improvement tools and methods such as
Total Quality Management and Continuous Improve-
ment which bring together a variety of tools and tech-
niques to bear upon issues which could include tech-
nology management aspects.
Technology management tools can be classified
into the same three categories (positioning, diagnostic
or intervention) as suggested above. For example,
there exists a wide range of technology assessment
tools for diagnosing how well a company performs
against a particular technological aim, or for assessing
a company's location in relation to a new technology
(e.g. opportunities and threats). Some are used for
technological forecasting (e.g. Delphi methods or
scenario building), while others are used for mapping
and improving the processes of technology identifi-
MANAGEMENTTOOLS?
While a variety of project management tools
appears to have been employed by many firms, evi-
dence of the use of others is more patchy. Much of
our knowledge concerning the diffusion of tools is
anecdotal, s As might be expected, the degree of com-
plexity of use appears to be a major determinant in
their application. Simple benefit measuring techniques
such as checklists and scoring models are widely used
(Liberatore and Stylianou, 1994). However, more
s Some tools, such as PERT and CPM and their derivatives, appear to
have been widely adopted. In product development areas, however,
the use of R&D project selection tools varies. Even Newprod, which
is claimed to be one of the more successful product screening and
selection models, only numbers its users in dozens on a world-wide
basis.

TABLE I. Information sources on technology management tools: a selection

Abetti (1989) examines the link between technology and business strategy.
Brady (1995) provides a broad overview of technology and innovation management tools, and discusses many important tools in some detail.
Burgleman et al. 11995) provides a good overview of strategic management of technology.
Cruickshank <1995) provides a review of tools and techniques for integrating technology into the business.
DTI/IFS (1994), based on the work of the CMEG, lotuses on manufacturing and provides a bibliography on tools and techniques (p. 97).
Dussuage et al. (1992) gives a broad account of technology management tools and techniques.
Hill (1994) provides a critical analysis of manufacturing tools and strategies (e.g. MRP)
McGrath et al. (1992) examines a stage/gate product development process--PACE.
Mills (1995) is a valuable workbot)k (a tool in its own right) on unanufacturing strategy, developed by the Cambridge Manufacturing Engineering Group (CMEG).
Proben (1997) provides a way of integrating manufacturing technology choices into a make or buy strategy.
Roussel et al. (1991) examines how best to manage R&D within a business context.

TechnovatJonVoL]7 No.8 421

T.Bradyetal.
complex models have, according to Schmidt and
Freeland (1992), been virtually ignored by industry.
Technological forecasting techniques provide a
good example. Some scenario development tools
involve vastly complex frameworks incorporating
multiple analyses (Fusfield and Spital, 1980). While
these may be appropriate to large corporations with
a substantial knowledge base in technology planning,
they are probably over-refined and too complex for
the immediate needs and resources of most managers.
Initial research in the Technology Management
Initiative supports the idea that the more complex and
difficult a tool is to use, the less likely it is to be
applied. Some of the most powerful tools are simple
methods for promoting structured communication
among people. For a simple or complex tool to work
effectively there is a need for understanding, commit-
ment and willingness on the part of users. To be effec-
tive, people have to 'buy-in' to a new tool. If users
are alienated from the introduction of a tool or
method, then it is much less likely to work than one
fully supported. Furthermore, training is often
required, especially for more complex and wide rang-
ing tools.
The importance of developing the right conditions
and capabilities for a tool to work explains why the
same tool may fail in one firm and work in another.
For example, for a new JIT tool to work effectively
it may be necessary to introduce it as part of a wider
set of tools (a toolkit) which promotes motivation,
training, communications and ownership. It may be
necessary for the organisation to conduct structured
workshops for potential users to give their views on
whether the new tool is appropriate and how best it
can be introduced.
Many tools require the availability of appropriate
data and documentation to support their application,
and this must be geared to the level of use. Most
importantly, they have to be relevant to the purpose
of the business in which the tools are to be applied.
Unless technology management tools are seen as use-
ful to the practitioner and/or the company, the likeli-
hood is that they will be ineffective. An obvious
implication is that the people charged with deciding
which tools to use have to be knowledgeable about
the tools themselves, their appropriateness to parti-
cular problems and the situation in which they will
be used in their company.
422 TechnovatJonVoi.17No. S
5. WHEREDOTHEYCOMEFROM?
Technology management tools can originate from
a number of different sources including industry, con-
sultants, government organisations and academic
empirical research. Many of the conceptual inno-
vation models have been derived from academia.
Frameworks for linking strategy and technology have
been developed for all three types. The audit and
diagnostic tools have been developed both by compa-
nies themselves and by consultants and academics
working in industry. Many of the internally developed
tools remain internal to the company, but others may
be exploited in the market place either directly or by
licensing to consultants and other potential users.
Examples of tools emanating from a variety of
sources include the following:
• Tools which have been developed in industry
include the techniques in Value Analysis (VA) and
Value Engineering (VE). These are aimed at pro-
viding companies with a systematic approach to
improving products at reduced costs while taking
into account customer considerations. VA/VE orig-
inated in the US at the General Electric Company
and was promoted by the US Government which
encouraged or obliged its suppliers to use the
method.
• Network planning methods such as PERT
(Program Evaluation and Review Technique) and
CPM (Critical Path Method) were introduced in the
late 1950s to assist in planning and control of pro-
jects. PERT was originally developed by the US
Navy Special Projects Office and Lockheed Air-
craft Corporation in cooperation with the consult-
ants Booz, Allen & Hamilton to try to reduce the
time taken to develop the Polaris missile, while
CPM was developed by engineers at Du Pont to
help with the scheduling of maintenance in chemi-
cal plants. The use of these tools has spread to
many project-based organisations.
• BP's Project Characterisation System is another
example of a tool developed by one company
which later gained wide acceptance outside. This
is a software-based tool for analysis and improve-
ment of individual technology projects; it is now
available as a commercial tool that can be used
across a wide range of industries. 6
• One tool developed by Canadian academics is
Sometimes companies work together to develop generic tools. The
Trillium model referred to earlier was developed by engineers at three
companies--Bell Canada, Bell-Northern Research and Norlel--but is
available for use outside these companies. Other companies develop
tools purely for their own use without thought of commercial exploi-
tation.

Newprod, a software-based new product screening,
evaluation and diagnostic tool. The tool is based
on research into hundreds of new product launches
carried out during the late 1970s and 1980s. The
tool involves up to a dozen evaluators assessing a
project on each of 30 key questions collapsed into
nine key success factors (product
superiority/quality; economic advantage to the
user; overall company/project fit; technological
compatibility; familiarity to the company; market
need, growth and size; competitive situation;
defined opportunity; and project definition). The
answers are used to create a profile which is com-
pared to that generated by the scoring of hundreds
of other projects in the database (Cooper, 1992). 7
• Sometimes government departments or quasi-
governmental organisations take a lead in the
development of generic technology management
tools. For example, the UK National Economic
Development Organisation (NEDO) was respon-
sible for the development of the Innovation Man-
agement Tool Kit (IMTK), a diagnostic package
consisting originally of 13 handbooks designed to
be used by companies to assist them in becoming
more competitive. Based on identification of best
practice in some 50 UK manufacturing companies,
the IMTK involved managers and employees run-
ning through a series of tests to assess their per-
formance against a set of ten key characteristics of
companies which manage innovation successfully.
6. WHATCANACADEMICSCONTRIBUTETO
CHNOLOGY
"I MANAGEMENTTOOLS?
We have already referred to the fact that academia
is one of the sources of new tool development. There
are at least two important areas where high quality
academic research can make a distinctive contribution
to tools:
• analytical and theoretical advances; and
• practical tools for complex problem solving.
First, at the analytical level, academics are in a pos-
ition to be able to impartially scrutinise and evaluate
existing tools. Unlike many user firms, academic
research groups have (or should have) the competence
v This is an example of a stage/gate model, and there are others which
have been developed by consultants. These include Booz, Allen &
Hamilton's (1982) seven-stage product development process and Pitti-
glio, Rabin & McGrath's PACE (Product And Cycle-time Excellence)
tool which provides a blueprint for the management of the new product
development process (Jenkins et al., 1995).
Toolsfor technologymanagement
to critically examine the claims, costs and benefits of
tools currently used in the market place. Most firms
do not have the time to assess all the competing
claims. Also, unlike consultancy companies, academ-
ics (should) have no special interest in selling or pro-
moting one particular tool over another. Academics
can, therefore, test and validate tools (independently
and impartially) and tend to be more detailed in speci-
fying their data requirements. In other words, aca-
demic researchers are in a rare position to bring a high
degree of impartiality and objectivity to the assess-
ment of tools, showing not only the advantages but
also the disadvantages of particular tools and
methods. This can be taken a step further in that, hav-
ing identified such strengths and weaknesses (not just
through the formal evaluation of specific tools but
also by identifying managerial hot spots observed in
empirical research), academics should be well placed
to identify gaps in the tools portfolio or market.
Second, at the practical level, there is the question
whether academics should be involved, not just in the
evaluation of tools, but also in the development of
new tools. Why should firms seek their participation
rather then solving their own tools problems in house
or looking to the consultancy sector?
In today's fast changing business environments,
leading companies often need to reach outside their
organisational boundaries. Indeed, knowledge-inten-
sive business or producer services have become one
of the growth sectors of the economy. Firms are often
too busy or lack knowledge of state-of-the-art tools
and have increasingly sought assistance with hard and
soft technologies (Garvin, 1993). Aside from the time
and resources issues, outside intervention can also
bring a useful comparative industry perspective. Out-
siders may also bring new challenging ideas for facili-
tating and diffusing new methods and tools (Stata,
1989; French and Bell, 1990).
Given some need for outside assistance with tools,
when should firms consider involving academics,
rather than business consultants? Consultancy compa-
nies can be very effective at applying and adapting
current knowledge and tools for problem solving--
and are important agents in the dissemination of best
practice. However, few aim to generate new tools
based on new research data. Consultants, especially
larger ones, may be able to resolve a wide range of
standard problems using tried and tested method-
ologies. However, most are less well positioned to
develop new tools to solve unusual and complex
problems, particularly those which involve research.
As implied above, academics tend to be good at or
TedmovatJonVol.17No.8 423
 T. Brady et al.
have the right culture for absorbing, observing and
scanning the relevant area with a view to developing
new or novel application tools. Academics, parti-
cularly those involved in applied or strategic research,
may well be in a position to help solve complex prob-
lems within their research domains more effectively
than consultants. Unlike consultants, they have a
long-term interest in generating data to develop new
tools for emerging and complex problems. Further-
more, regarding the choice of technology manage-
ment tools--an area fraught with difficulties for many
companies--in their particular areas academic groups
can help guide companies through the labyrinth of
competing claims and help firms to avoid expensive
mistakes. 8
To sum up, the potential contribution of academia
to tools lies in the areas of:
• critical, impartial assessment of existing tools;
• identification of gaps in the field;
• generation of new technology data to deepen
understanding;
• using new data to develop new tools;
• engaging in specialist, complex problem solving
with specific companies.
However, the ability of academic groups to deliver
their distinctive (potential) contribution depends on
their ability, outward-lookingness and willingness to
work with companies to understand and resolve prac-
tical problems. Only when research excellence is
coupled with close and effective company collabor-
ation can academic groups fully exploit their special
position in the development and diffusion of best-
practice tools.
7. CONCLUSIONS
This paper has raised a number of issues ranging
from the definition and classification of management
tools to the role that different actors within the inno-
vation system can play in the development of such
tools. Our discussion has highlighted the fact that
there are no consistent definitions, and that concepts
such as tools, techniques, methods, procedures,
frameworks etc. are often used interchangeably. This
has led to considerable confusion which, we believe,
could be alleviated through the development of more
sophisticated classification systems than are currently
s Academic groups may well be less expensive to use than private
consultancy companies, but a more flexible development time may
be required.
424. TechnovafionVoL17 No. 8
in use. Towards this end, a number of factors were
identified which could usefully be developed further
as a means of differentiating between types and uses
of technology management tools. These included:
• degree of formality;
• extent to which the tool is for positioning, diagnos-
tic or intervention;
• degree of hardness;
• degree of task specificity;
• source;
• extent of diffusion;
• intensity of use.
No doubt there are other factors which should be
added to this list, and a more systematic approach
to evaluating the impact of management tools is also
required. In line with our examination of the role
which the academic community might play in this
field, the design and development of a new system
of classification and the objective application of the
widespread assessment of tools would be a valuable
activity. Some of the projects within the EPSRC's
Technology Management Initiative are actively
attempting to contribute towards these ends.
REFERENCES
Abetti, P.A. (1989) Linking Technology and Business
Strategy. The President's Association, American
Management Association, New York.
Booz, Allen & Hamilton (1982) New Product Man-
agement for the 1980s. Booz, Allen & Hamilton
Inc., New York.
Brady, T. (1995) Tools, management of innovation
and complex product systems. Working Paper pre-
pared for CENTRIM/SPRU Project on Complex
Product Systems, funded by the EPSRC, Univer-
sity of Brighton, CENTRIM.
Burgleman, R.A., Maidaque, M.A. and Wheelwright,
S.C. (1995) Strategic Management of Technology
and Innovation. Irwin.
Cooper, R. (1979) The dimensions of industrial new
product success and failure. Journal of Marketing
43, 93-103.
Cooper, R.G. (1992) The NewProd system: the indus-
trial experience. Journal of Product Innovation
Management 9, 113-127.
Cruickshank, C.M. (1995) Technology management:
Tools and techniques for integrating technology
into the business. Working Paper prepared for the
Cambridge University project on 'Technology
Management, a process approach', funded by
the EPSRC.

D T I / I F S (1994) Competitive Manufacturing: a Practi-
cal Approach to the Development of a Manufac-
turing Strategy. Department o f Trade and Indus-
try, IFS International Ltd, UK.
Dussuage, P., Hart, S. and Ramanantsa, B. (1992)
Strategic Technology Management. W i l e y , New
York.
Fagerberg, J. (1988) International Competitiveness.
Economic Journal 98.
Franko, L. (1989) G l o b a l corporate competition:
w h o ' s winning, w h o ' s losing, and the R & D factor
as one reason why. Strategic Management Jour-
nal 10.
Freeman, C. (1994) Innovation and growth. In: D o d g -
son M. and Rothwell, R. (Eds.), The Handbook of
Industrial Innovation. pp. 78-93.
French, W. L. and Bell, C. H. (1990) Organizational
Development: Behavioral Science Interventions
for Organisation Improvements. Prentice Hall
International, New Jersey.
Fusfield, A. and Spital, F. (1980) T e c h n o l o g y fore-
casting and planning in the corporate environ-
ment: Survey and Comment. In Management of
Research and Innovation, eds B. Bean and J.
G o l d h a m , pp. 151-162. North Holland, A m s t e r d -
am.
Garvin, D. A. (1993) Building a learning organization.
Harvard Business Review J u l y - A u g u s t , 78-92.
Geroski, P., Machin, S. and van Reenen, J. (1993) The
profitability o f innovating firms. Rand Journal of
Economics 24.
Hill, T. (1994) Manufacturing Strategy: The Strategic
Management of the Manufacturing Function.
Open University, Macmillan, London.
Jenkins, S., Forbes, S., Durrani, T.S. and Banerjee,
S.K. (1995) M a n a g i n g the product d e v e l o p m e n t
process. British Academy of Managment Annual
Conferences Sheffield.
Ketelholm, W. (1996) T o o l b o x e s are out: thinking is
in. Financial Times Mastering Management Sup-
plement, Part 20.
Liberatore, M. and Stylianou, A. (1994) The develop-
ment m a n a g e r ' s advisory system: a k n o w l e d g e -
based DSS tool for project assessment. Decision
Sciences 24, 953-976.
Lilien, G. and Yoon, E. (1989) Determinants o f new
industrial product performance: a strategic
reexamination o f the empirical literature. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management 36(1).
McGrath, M.E., Anthony, M.T. and Shapiro, A.R.
(1992) Product Development: Success through
Product and Cycle-time Excellence. P R T M , But-
terworth-Heinemann.
Mills, J. (1995) Manufacturing Strategy Formulation.
University o f C a m b r i d g e Manufacturing Engin-
eering Group, Cambridge.
Toolsfor technologymanagement
Mogee, M. (1993) Educating innovation managers:
strategic issues for business and higher education.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
40, 4 1 0 - 4 1 7 .
Probert, D.R. (1997) Developing a Make or Buy Strat-
egy for Manufacturing Business. Institution o f
Electrical Engineers, Stevenage.
Rothwell, R., Freeman, C., Jervis, P., Robertson, A.
and Townsend, J. (1974) Sappho u p d a t e d - - P r o -
j e c t S A P P H O Phase 2. Research Policy 3, 2 5 8 -
291.
Roussel, P.A., Saad, K.N. and Erickson, T.J. (1991)
Third Generation R&D: Managing the Link to
Corporate Strategy. Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, M A .
Schmidt, R. and Freeland, J. (1992) Recent progress in
m o d e l i n g R & D project-selection processes. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management 39,
189-201.
Senge, P. M. (1990) The l e a d e r ' s new work: building
learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review 7, 7 - 2 3 .
Stata, R. (1989) Organisational l e a r n i n g - - t h e key to
m a n a g e m e n t innovation. Sloan Management
Review 63, 63-74.
Tim Brady is a Senior Fellow working on the management of inno-
vation in complex products/systems within the Centre for Research in
Innovation Management at the University of Brighton. Previously he
was a Research Fellow at the Science Policy Research Unit, University
of Sussex, and at the School of Management at Bath University. His
research interests have included the implications of technological
change for skills and the management and strategic implications of
information technology.
Dr Howard Rush is co-Director of the Complex Product Systems
Innovation Centre and Professor of Innovation Management at the
Centre for Research in Innovation Management. He was previously
employed at the Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex,
and the National Economic DevelopmentOffice. His research interests
have included forecasting the social and economic implications of
microelectronicsand information technologies, and evaluating govern-
ment technology policies.
Dr Mike Hol~lay is Director of Innovation and a Senior Fellow at the
Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, and co-Director of
the Complex Product Systems Innovation Centre. Prior to his training
as an economist he worked for the US semiconductor corporation
Texas Instruments in planning, production and marketing management.
His research interests and publications have focused on the semicond-
uctor and telecommunications industries, public policies for infor-
mation technology, network innovation theories. East Asian innovation
and complex product systems.
Dr Andrew Davies is a Research Fellow at the Science Policy
Research Unit, University of Sussex. Previously he worked as
Research Fellow in the Department of Science and Technology
Dynamics, University of Amsterdam. He has undertaken several tele-
communications projects for the OECD, the European Commission
and the Rathenau Institute and has worked as a consultant to the South
African Government and the Swiss Research Council. Current research
interests are in the management of innovation and policy in infrastruc-
tural systems such as telecommunications, air traffic control and rail-
ways.
TedtimvaUonVol.17No.8 425
T. Brady etal.

Dr David Probert pursued an industrial career with Marks and Spen-

cer and Philips for some 18 years before returning to Cambridge in
1991. His experience covers a wide range of industrial engineering
and management disciplines in the UK and overseas. He joined the
Manufacturing Engineering Group at Cambridge University as Royal
Academy of Engineering/Lucas Industries Research Fellow to develop
a practical approach to the issues of vertical integration in the manu-
facturing industry. Now a lecturer in the Department, his current
research interests are the management of technology and manufactur-
ing mobility.

Dr S. K. Banerjee is a senior lecturer in the Department of Design

Manufacture and Engineering Management, University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow. His current research interests are in the areas of industrial
systems design, enterprise integration and technology management. He
is a member of the IFAC/IFIP task force on architectures for enterprise
integration, WG 5.12.

426 l"edlnovaSonVol.]7 No. 8