Dynamic Capabilities Theory

The incapacity of the resource-based view (RBV) to interpret the development and
redevelopment of resources and capabilities to handle constantly changing contexts led to the
development of dynamic capabilities (DC) theory. DC could be used to gain a competitive
advantage (Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997). Beyond the premise that a corporation's
acquisition of valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable (VRIN) resources provides a
firm with a sustained competitive advantage, DC theory goes further. Organizations' dynamic
capabilities enable them to integrate, marshal, and rearrange their resources and capabilities
in order to adapt to quickly changing circumstances. DCs are thus methods that allow a
company to rethink its strategy and resources in order to create long-term competitive
advantages and greater performance in rapidly changing contexts. Despite the abundance of
papers that cover the concept of DC, furthering the theory requires a collaborative effort from
academics to illustrate issues connected to the theory and how to correlate them to actual
practices within companies.

With that in mind, the current work tries to answer two key questions: first, whether there is a
widely accepted empirically based definition of DC; and second, what are the most influential
conceptual definitions that have influenced prior empirical research in the field of DC from
1997 to 2015. Teece, Pisano, and Shuen's study (1997), which is considered an important
reference in the field of business economics and has sparked major dispute among business
strategy scholars when giving their conceptual definition of DC, was chosen as the starting
year.

The paper is organized as follows: the first section contains an introduction; the second
section contains a theoretical background and a literature review; the third section discusses
the methodology used, while the fourth section describes data analysis; the fifth section
contains our study's findings; and the sixth section contains the study's conclusion and
limitations ( Bleady, Ali, & Ibrahim, 2018).

Management Fashion Theory

In business and management studies, the theory of management fashion states that, in
uncertain situations, organizations ("management fashion followers") imitate innovation
models promoted by "fashion-setting organizations" (such as consulting firms, management
gurus, business mass-media publications, and business schools), and that the diffusion rates
and final levels of adoption of any given management innovation cannot be fully explained
by rational/technically based models. In addition to technological and economic forces,
socio-psychological elements play an important role in deciding whether or not to embrace
and apply a management innovation.
Thus, management fashion is essentially a cultural phenomenon molded by rationality norms
(i.e., sets of behaviors considered logical by a specific stakeholder group) and advancement
expectations (i.e. management must be seen to be always looking for improvement).
The basic assumption is that, over time, a specific management fashion will become less
popular, and other ones will arise. Some fashion trends fade fast, and these are referred to as
"fads." Others gain universal acceptance and are used for an extended length of time.
Finally, numerous cycles or generations of innovation are observable in a given subject area,
when trend setters present a new innovation as one proposed technique falls. S-curves or bell
curves are commonly used to represent these outcomes.
The evolution of the discourse surrounding the innovation, as well as the degree to which the
innovation is actually adopted for continuous use, can be used to study management styles.
The term "talk life-cycle analysis" refers to a method of analyzing the volume and nature of
discourse about a certain fashion through time. This is usually accomplished by
bibliographical and content analysis, which separates the many modalities of discourse —
mass media, the Internet, trade/business press, and academic press (journals and
dissertations).
Diffusion life-cycle analysis is a method for determining the extent to which a new idea is
adopted by organizations (fashion followers) and the amount of use over time. This can be
done by surveys, case studies, or secondary data analysis, such as growth/decline in the
companies of service or product suppliers, and specific market sales statistics, depending on
the nature of the innovation. (Grant, 2011)

Organizational Culture Theory

Since the early 1980s, various cultural notions derived from two independent disciplines
(anthropology and sociology) have been used to organizational studies. In Burrell and
Morgan's (1979) framework, these two fundamental disciplines represent diverse
perspectives, and have contributed to the formation of several theories and frameworks of
organizational culture in the academic literature. Anthropology adopts an interpretivist
perspective, viewing culture as a metaphor for organizations and describing organizations as
cultures. Sociology, on the other hand, adopts a functionalist perspective and defines culture
as something that an organization possesses. Despite the various definitions of organizational
culture, there appears to be progress toward a common understanding.
The most widely used organizational culture framework is that of Edgar Schein (1988), who
takes a functionalist approach and defines culture as "a pattern of basic assumptions invented,
discovered, or developed by a given group as it learns to cope with its problems of external
adaptation and internal integration that has worked well enough to be considered valid and,
thus, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to
those problems."

RESOURCE BASED VIEW OF THE FIRM

The Resource-Based View of the Firm (RBV) is a collection of similar ideas that assume
resource heterogeneity and immobility across enterprises. According to this perspective, a
company is a collection of resources, competencies, or routines that generate value and are
difficult to replicate or appropriate by competitors due to isolating mechanisms. The RBV
includes ideas that explain the existence of (sustainable) competitive advantage and economic
rents. It is based on the economic traditions of the "Chicago School" of economic efficiency,
the "Austrian School" of economics, and organizational economics. From this viewpoint,
empirical research looks at both company performance and behavior at the business strategy
(e.g., within-industry rivalry) and corporate strategy levels (e.g., acquisitions).
The knowledge-based view of the firm (KBV), dynamic capabilities, and the relational view,
which recognizes capabilities can be developed and shared through alliances between firms,
are major extensions and refinements of the RBV, which was first developed through a series
of papers by several authors in the 1980s–1990s. (Miller, 2019).

THE FUNCTIONALITY MODEL AS CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION FOR MANAGEMENT

OF TECHNOLOGY (MOT) AMONG GHANAIAN INDUSTRIES

ABSTRACT

This research contains an introduction which provides a framework for this

research and helps to bring clarity to the reader on how the fulfilment of the aims

and objectives of the research will contribute positively to management science

and its practice. The discussion begins with a research background, problem and

purpose of the research project. These details the problem of the management of

technology in the practice of management science and how the functionality model

can be used as a foundation for the practice.

The proposal goes on to explain the research objectives and further discusses the

questions that necessitate this research. The proposal goes ahead to give a brief

overview of the research’s approach towards existing literature. The proposal ends

an overview of the proposed research method, significance of the research to the

management practice community as well as the limitation of the research. Project

schedule follows with a detailed description of the stages with list of tasks

involved and the timelines for each stage or task that needs to be completed.

INTRODUCTION

Research Background

Technology is made up of a diversity of expressions, applications and disciplines,

and now needs a single theoretical structure and body of knowledge, so that
students and those who practice Management of Technology [referred by the

acronym of MOT] may benefit by creation of these foundational paradigms in

their task of strategic technology analysis and management.

We find the omnipresence of technology, described by Van Wyk (2000:204) as

―technification, the relevance of promoting technology know-how among students

and users of technology becomes self-evident. Drejer (2002:363) states

unreservedly that MOT should be a significant part of organizational management.

The management need to understand technological progress and its several

impacts are also pointed out by Gottfredson, Schaubert, and Saenz (2008:68),

when they state that market leaders consistently perform better than market

followers on return on assets (ROA), comparative to their relative market shares. It

is therefore in alignment with the argument that corporate technologies are assets

on the balance sheet including production tools and processes, goods and services,

associated intellectual property and subsequent patents, as well as innovations in

goods and services. This is the case, even if, general accounting practice still treats

research and development (R&D) as an expense on the income statement rather

than as an asset on the balance sheet (Ehrbar, 2000:55). Therefore, to the

management, and technology users, of these corporations, the objective and indeed

challenge is to achieve a holistic understanding of management of technology,

which would typically encapsulate understanding of progress in technology and

supporting technology intelligence processes, to all aspects involving product and

service lifecycles and all processes in the relevant value chain of the business.

Van Wyk (1988:4,7) pushes for a wider academic and corporate acceptance of

MOT and has been doing so since the late 1970‘s. He opines that MOT as the

management discipline which establishes understanding of technology potential

 and harnessing of such potential to the benefit of organizations (Van Wyk,

2000:205). However, the discipline and the job portfolio it serves, remains

inconsistent and obscure, because it lacks an established task sheet for technology

managers, a manual or book of knowledge for students and practitioners and the

nurturing attention of a ―mother science (Van Wyk, 2008: personal

communication).

Research Problem
It is true as Drejer (1997:254) still shows grave concern about the confusion

surrounding Management of Technology concepts and the disparity about the

practical tools for solutions of problems in management of technology.

According to Gunther Ropohl (1999a:66), ―hardly anybody understands

technology, irrespective of the clear management requirement to do so. Phaal and

Farrukh (2000:1) find little common ground in strategies in technology

management and practices between diverse fields of operations. The study of

technology, its theoretical foundations and its management principles, are all still

vaguely understood. It does not have a unified model (Beard, 2002:46) and,

according to Van Wyk (2002:15; 2004:10), any scientific paradigm to stand upon.

Pelc (2002:37) stated that the discipline of MOT restructures under the influence

of new paradigms and now presents a consolidated set of concepts and this serves

as a good example of a new academic stimulus which now characterizes MOT. It

appears, however, to be only a precursor to upcoming arguments about the multi-

disciplinary and highly complex nature of MOT. Characteristically of academic

argument, the discussion about MOT showcases asymmetrical viewpoints about

technology and its origin, history, development of terms and definitions, nature,

role and educational dogmas. This dialogue is in a dire need of direction, as

 evidenced by a long-time participant to the conversation, Peter Bond (2001); as

well as a theoretical structure as ―…a unifying perspective to aid in its

comprehension, as stated by Farrell (1993:161). It is not a dialogue which lacks

definitions of technology, that will be used as hardly as possible in the unfolding

of this research project. Definitions of the notion of technology are actually too

many in existence, and as such have caused lots of misalignments in the broader

discourse about MOT, as is shown by Shenhar, Van Wyk, Stefanovic and Gaynor

(2004).

The subsequent stir-up of Management of Technology as an academic discipline

presents a formalized structure for scientific conversation about technology and

related management, and that has led to the establishment of courses and teaching

programs in various universities; resulting in the creation of professional societies

such as the International Association for the Management of Technology

(IAMOT) (Van Wyk, 2000:206), and also a broadly accepted Credo for MOT

(Van Wyk, 2003). However more importantly, it drives the efforts to further argue

and to research more into a theory of technology (Van Wyk, 1988; 2000; 2002;

2007; Shenhar et al., 2004). These developments, described by Van Wyk (2002:14)

as a “...fascinating quest towards a fundamental theoretical structure for

technology, have served as a stimulus for more theoretical work in MOT”. It

therefore hovers on trained professionals in MOT to respond to this general lack of

technology understanding among students and MOT practitioners to further

improve understanding and establish rigorous framework for a more accurate and

conforming practice of Technology Management.

Research focus

It is clearly known that Management of Technology is pivotal profession for the

21st century to drive corporate success, but it needs a firm theoretical macro-

structure to stand upon. According to Van Wyk (2008: personal communication),

about four different models reflect a theory of technology as it stands in

connection to Management of Technology. Among these four models, the

Functionality model which is focused on functional classifications is the most

likely model to aid in forming a consistent and unifying theory of technology, and

it is this model which will consequently serve as the primary theme of this

research.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

There is the need to provide Management of Technology with a proper context for

its use and value to real management problems in industry. This is due to the large

number of divergent research contributions about the discipline. In view of this,

the overarching objective of this research is to contribute to the formalization and

structuring of a theory of technology. The Functionality model presents an

opportunity to broaden and strengthen the body of knowledge and related tools in

the practice of Management of Technology.

The Functionality model is a cognitive frame, which is generally viewed as a

broader concept than a just a theory and as a necessary prerequisite for

development of theory. The Functionality model is set as a particular cognitive

frame, and it helps to define a structured point of departure for this research. By so

doing, the way forward is defined with the following objectives:

1. To re-evaluate the theoretical foundations for the Functionality model and

its key concepts, and to evaluate relationships between these concepts in

order to assess its usefulness as a taxonomic factor.

 2. To show the conception of a value construct, which would be validated by

appropriate statistical techniques, and will serve as a measurement for

testing the null hypothesis, as well as establish it as a management metric

for the benefit of the practice of Management of Technology.

3. To evaluate the Functionality model in relation to the guidelines for good

theories, and to formulate and recommend steps to aid in improving the

model, its theoretical alignment and its practical relevance.

These research objectives are pursued in order to test the primary null hypothesis,

provisionally formulated as follows: Different taxonomic permutations of the

Functionality model have different utility values to students and practitioners of

Management of Technology.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

From these objectives, the following research questions arise:

1. What are the theoretical foundations and attributes of the Functionality

model, and is it sufficient to apply it as a taxonomy of technological

entities and does it indeed have theoretical and practical advantages?

2. How is the taxonomic value to Management of Technology practitioners to

be measured, and what metrics or instruments are available to test the null

hypothesis?

3. Does the Functionality model meet the requirements for good theory when

applied, tested and observed? What improvements can be advised, given

the test results, and what recommendations flow from these insights to

improve the theoretical stability of the model and its replicability when

applied in practice?
 Literature Review

According to Bunge (1974:33), the justification for the existence of technology knowledge is
to be successfully applied for the achievement of practical goals. By this philosophy, this
literature review begins with a basic problem statement, then gives a paradigmatic framework
for theoretical discourse about the research challenge, and closes with a model that may aid in
the practical solution of the problem.

Management of Technology and technology edification

Technological advancements alter economic inputs and outputs, resulting in cost savings in
the production or consumption of goods and services. However, technology cannot be called
an economic tool until degrees of technological understanding and control over technological
processes are addressed – after all, technology is ―organized by man (Tondl, 1974:5-9,
emphasis in the original). In response to technological progress and complexity, Van Wyk
(1984:102) too warns management to improve its technology comprehension tools A journal
editor sighs that learning how to effectively manage technology in the actual world would be
far more valuable than continuing the discussion. academic credentials (Wolff, 2001) -
statement in response to the turbulent entry of telecommunications technology into the
twenty-first century; a feeling echoed by Chorafas (2004:3) who in response to the turn of the
century ruin of telecommunication stocks laments that ―…good management is by no means
a widespread practice. As a result, technology enlightenment and technologically conversant
management are required to grasp the management dynamics of technological change and to
use such insights for economic benefit, notions Van Wyk (2008) still continues to promote.

Convergent technologies as the latest manifestation of techno-economic change

From a business standpoint, strategic technology management, Grobbelaar (1994:132)
depicts technological change as one of the primary drivers of market competition. Pol and
Caroll (2004:127) describe it as a basic axiom of economics, while Freeman and Soete
(2007:13) opines that the majority of international economic growth and progress is linked to
the rapid spread of technological change and access to codified information.
The idea of technology as a driver of overall economic development has become so
fundamental to understanding economic cycles that manifestations of technical advancements
have been dubbed "techno-economic paradigms." (Perez, 2002:8; Sagasti, 2003).

Proposed Research Methodology

Methodological tools and practices for theory development in the discipline are presented,
Jain and Narvekar‘s (2004) in a way confirm Management of Technology research as a
subset of management research. To that goal, they provide a current summary of research
paradigms, ranging from Positivism as the context-free logical option to Constructivism as
the keeper of numerous social constructs. This research, like many PhD projects, is limited by
a lack of data and applications for the basic construct, the Functionality model, and this is
especially true for the rising class of convergent technologies. Recognizing the empirical
challenge, this study will straddle the line between Positivist and Post-positivist research
traditions, with the first adhering to the requirements of logical-empirical inference and the
second triangulating experimental data with insights gained through semi-structured and
unstructured interviews with knowledgeable experts.

As previously stated, the Functionality model and its data requirements are at the center of
this project's research model. The Functionality model as a core construct in the
operationalization of STA as a technology paradigm will be examined in response to the first
project aim. The Functionality model, as shown in the literature review, has theoretical
foundations in General Systems Theory and is now used as a taxonomy for classification and
comprehension of technical entities. Given that General Systems Theory and the science of
categorization are both mature domains of scientific inquiry, a theoretical study will look into
the common ground between the two to determine the legitimacy of a concept like a
technology taxonomy.

Data gathering and theory application are the second and third study objectives, respectively.
Data collection for the second objective will center on the relevant technological entities to be
used in the study, with STA being used to examine and fit these technologies to various
permutations of the Functionality model. The third study objective, which is at the heart of
this research effort, is to get a better knowledge of taxonomies in general and the
Functionality model in particular. It comprises practical testing of the Functionality model's
usefulness to MOT practitioners in order to test the fundamental study hypothesis, which is
that different taxonomic permutations of the Functionality model have varying utility values
to MOT practitioners.

In the final part of this research project, proposals for theoretical enhancement and practical
refinement of the Functionality model and its applications will be made. The ultimate goal is
to provide students and practitioners of technology with access to a technology theory with
practical utility value, to the extent that its applications incrementally help to construct a
technology paradigm with exemplar answers to real-world technology management
challenges.

PROJECT SCHEDULE
A one -year time plan for this research endeavor is shown below. It is predicated on the
assumption that this is a part-time study with multiple significant obstacles. The timetable is
mostly determined by the research questions that arise from the stated study goals. Some
stages will run concurrently to maximize time efficiency and to take advantage of chances for
a more rich and contextual learning experience as they arise. The plan follows in Table 1.

Table 1: Research phases and time plan

Phase Period
Phase 1
- additional research and publication of a
working paper, tentatively titled A Paradigm 15 July 2022 – 15 August 2022
of Technology: Fact or Fallacy?
Phase 2
- involves data collecting, particularly on 15 August 2022 – 15 December 2022
convergent technologies, as well as STA
analysis of these elements.
Phase 3 15 December 2022 – 15 January 2023
- involves the creation, development, and use
of a taxonomic value measuring system.
Phase 4 15 January 2023 – 15 February 2023
- involves statistical data analysis and
 subsequent research hypothesis testing.
Phase 5 15 February 2023 – 15 March 2023
- begins with a summary of the test results
before recommending changes to the
Functionality model.
Phase 6 15 March 2023 – 15 April 2023
- involves drafting up the last chapter and
completing the research process.
Phase 7 15 April 2023 – 14 June 2023
- entails finishing a paper and writing a first
draft of an article titled Convergent
Technologies: A Functionality Classification.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
All enterprises will be affected by technological development. New sorts of managerial,
diplomatic, and social abilities, as well as a new type of decision-making process, will be
required, which will not be accommodated by present organizational structures.
The technological change that this research will produce will have an impact on three aspects
of the organizational environment: market competition and uncertainty will increase, there
will be demands for more diversity and higher quality in the organization's products or
services, and external politics and legislative reform will become more complex. Each of
these shifts will cause the organization's structure and relationships with employees and
customers to alter.

Changes in essential managerial functions will be forced by this technological change.

Management will be held more accountable for the organization's outcomes, putting a greater
emphasis on planning, decision-making, control, and coordination. These will frequently rely
on computer-based management science methodologies, which need managers to have a
higher level of intellectual aptitude. This will put pressure on managers and other employees,
lowering morale, productivity, and output.
Technological advancements can have a good impact on individual values, allowing people
more time to consider both the heart and the brain while making decisions. This could lead to
increased moral sensitivity, tolerance, and compassion for others, as well as a more rational
decision-making process.

Increased devotion to one's profession rather than one's organization could be a result of
technological development. It's still controversial how technology development affects a
manager's search for self-actualization.
For all businesses, technological progress has resulted in a growing need for strategic
planning. We must all ask ourselves, "What do we need to do right now to achieve our goal
tomorrow?" We may anticipate changes, including those caused by technology, analyse the
different options open to us to deal with those changes, and be prepared for the future as it
arrives, using this method.

CONCLUSION
This applicant believes that there is more research to be done on the topic as described in this
proposal, and that this research project could serve as a theoretical foundation for additional
investigation into the nature and usefulness of technology management. This could lead to a
greater understanding of technology and its management implications in the future. If it
proves to be a successful scientific endeavor, this research could make a small but significant
contribution to the evolution of a technological paradigm. A paradigm of technology, as a
collection of worldviews, knowledge bases, ideas, and research methodologies, may once
again contribute to a better understanding of technology and its all-encompassing outcomes.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This dissertation investigates the Functionality model as a proposed theory of technology
within STA as a developing paradigm of technology. As a result, this section covers the
general outlines of the research approach that will be used to investigate the Functionality
model. It begins by outlining the needs for theory in the context of research, and then moves
on to a broad overview of the research model. Following that, there will be a discussion of
the research questions and an explanation of the unique research method that will be used to
achieve these distinct goals.

Table 2 lists the theories, ideas, and notions that are immediately relevant to this study.
General Systems Theory, with a particular focus on its interplay with categorization science,
lies at the heart of this approach. STA, with its structures, concepts, and models for study of
the technological cosmos, which again consists of hierarchies and technological entities, was
born out of a goal to systematize and order technology and its attendant knowledge.

Table 2: Theories, models, constructs and concepts for STA

Universum of technological entities

Strategic Technology Analysis (STA)
Functionality
Cascade
Anatomy for model Ecology for
model for
morphological for stakeholder
long term
description taxonomical interests
trends
classification

General Systems Theory Science of classification

REFERENCES
Bleady, A., Ali, A. H., & Ibrahim, B. S. (2018). Dynamic Capabilities Theory: Pinning Down a Shifting
Concept. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 22, 2.

Schein, E., & Pettigrew, A. (2011, November 16). Corporate culture. Retrieved from Is Theory. org:
https://is.theorizeit.org/wiki/Organizational_culture_theory

Grant, K. A. (2011, November 16 ). Management Fads & Fashions. Retrieved from Is Theory.org:
https://is.theorizeit.org/wiki/Management_fashion_theory

Miller, D. ( 2019, March 26). Oxford Research Encyclopedias. Retrieved from Business Management:
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.4
Miller, D. (2019, March 26). Retrieved from Business Management: . Retrieved from Oxford Research
Encyclopedias: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.4

Amundson, S.D. 1998. Relationships between theory-driven empirical research

in operations management and other disciplines. Journal of Operations
Management, 16:341–359.
Baily, K.D. 1994. TYPOLOGIES AND TAXONOMIES: An Introduction to Classification

Techniques. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Beard, J.W. 2002. Management of Technology: A Three-Dimensional Framework with

Propositions for Future Research. Knowledge, Technology, & Policy, 15(3):45-57.

Bunge, M. 1974. Technology as Applied Science. In Rapp, F. (ed), Contributions to a

Philosophy of Technology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

D'Costa, A.P. (ed) 2006. The New Economy in Development: ICT Challenges and

Opportunities. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan in association with United Nations University

and World Institute for Development Economics Research.

DeGregori, T.R. 1985. A Theory of Technology: Continuity and Change in Human

Development. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Drejer, A. 1997. The discipline of management of technology, based on considerations

related to technology. Technovation, 17(5):253-265.

Durbin, P.T. 2006. Philosophy of Technology: In Search of Discourse Synthesis. Techné:

Research in Philosophy and Technology, 10(2):1-288.

Ferré, F. 1995. Philosophy and Technology After Twenty Years. Society for Philosophy and

Technology, 1(1-2), Fall. [Online]. Available:

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v1n1n2/ferre.html (10 May 2008)

Frenkel, A. & Maital, S. 2000. Measuring dynamic technical change: a technometric

approach. International Journal of Technology Management, 20(3/4):429-443.