Perspectives on the

Management of Technology
By Gerard H. (Gus) Gaynor
Retired 3M Director of Engineering
President, IEEE Technology Management Council
IEEE-USA E-Books
Published by IEEE-USA
Copyright 2008 by the IEEE. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
Edited by Georgia C. Stelluto, IEEE-USA Publishing Manager
Cover design and layout by Josie Thompson, Thompson Design
This IEEE-USA publication is made possible through funding provided by a special dues assessment of IEEE
members residing in the United States.
Copying this material in any form is not permitted without prior written approval from the IEEE.
3
Table Of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Origins of MOT in Academia and Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Where Are We Today? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Technology, Management, Engineering Management, Management of Technology . . . . . 8
Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Management of Engineering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Management of Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Critical Issues in MOT Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Mindless Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Overspecialization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Peculiar Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Critical Issues in MOT Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Back to Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
What Are We Trying to Accomplish with MOT? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
What Were the Expectations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Who Are the Players?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Research in MOT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
The MOT Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Chief Technology Ofcer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
MOT Body of Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Challenges in Promoting MOT in Academia and Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
PERSPECTIVES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
4
Introduction
Y
ou may ask why technology professionals and engineering and technology managers
should be interested in the concept, Management of Technology (MOT). My objective is
to provide some general background information, report on the current status of MOT, identify
what needs to be done to develop MOT as a recognized academic discipline, and provide a
positive impact on industry operations.
Technology professionals and technology managers have heard much over the years
about managing technology specialists. I use the term technology professionals to include
the complete technology family that includes engineers, scientists, software developers,
support personnel, and others responsible for creating new products and processes.
Managing technology professionals is an oxymoron. Managing any professional is an
oxymoron. Why? Because its difcult, if not impossible, to manage knowledge workers
(in the classical sense) who are hired to demonstrate their thinking, their creativity, and their
dedication in developing new products, new services and new processes. The best any
manager can do is manage the activities of technology professionals and the interaction
with other professionals in meeting organizational objectives. Technology managers must
differentiate between managing technology professionals and managing their activities.
What does this technology manager and technology professional relationship have to do
with managing technology? Managing technology goes far beyond managing engineering
operations: it requires a change in the mindset of the technology professionals and their
managers; both need to expand their roles in meeting organizational results.
~Gus Gaynor
PERSPECTIVES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
5
Origins of MOT in Academia and Industry
W
hat was to become the discipline of Management of Technology (MOT) began over four
decades ago with articles in the Economist, but more formally over two decades ago
with great expectations from both academia and industry. While most discussion involves
MOT, I also consider its complement Managing Technology (MT). MOT applies to the
research and academic aspects, and MT applies to the doing of MOT which is MT.
At the First International Conference on Engineering Management, in 1986, Dr. Edward
Roberts
1
, David Sarnoff professor of management of technology at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, suggested that the failures of the automotive, ofce equipment and electronics
industries were not a result of economic conditions, technology policies, trade regulations,
or political policies but from the inability of industry to implement programs in managing
technology. Roberts emphasized:
Integrating technology into the rms strategic objectives
Being proactive in introducing new technologies, new products and processes, with an
emphasis on cycle time
Increasing productivity of the rms technical community
Understanding the interdisciplinary needs of project management
Analyzing the organizations resources and infrastructure in selecting the scope of
technical activities and the work effort
Roberts major concern was that engineering and management were being taught as two
separate disciplines nobody was teaching engineering and management as a combined
discipline. Keep in mind, this is in 1986.
Resolving each of these eight major issues involves knowledge related to strategic thinking,
organizational behavior, nance, operations research, marketing, science, engineering,
risk analysis, political science, human resource management, infrastructure development,
and much more. MOT involves more than completing technology projects: it involves
multi-disciplinary knowledge.
Management of Technology: The Hidden Competitive Advantage
2
was published in 1987. The
Task Force and its many Committees included representatives from academia, industry and
government. The Report was prepared because of the decline in international competitiveness
of U.S. industries. We continue the same discussion in 2008. Managers somehow lost their
awareness of the importance of the role technology plays in shaping the economic future of
their rms. This scenario was taking place in 1987, when international competition, primarily
from Japan, was decimating the U.S. automobile and electronic
PERSPECTIVES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
6
industries. The United States was late in accepting computer-aided design and manufacturing,
concurrent engineering, and cycle-time reduction. The work of Dr. W. Edwards Deming and
Dr. Joseph Juran focusing on reducing product defects generally was disregarded (if not all
together ignored) by US industry, but Japanese industry accepted it, and practiced it with
determination. It took several years before U.S. industry took on the challenge to reduce
product defects.
The Report describes Management of Technology as:
Management of technology links engineering, science and management disciplines to
plan, develop and implement technological capabilities to shape and accomplish the
strategic and operational objectives of an organization.
The key elements of MOT in industrial practice include:
1. Identifying and evaluating technical options
2. Managing research and development
3. Integrating technology into the rms operations
4. Implementing new technologies in products and processes
5. Obsolescing and replacing products and processes
Resolving each of these ve major issues involves knowledge related to strategic thinking,
organizational behavior, nance, operations research, marketing, science, engineering, risk
analysis, political science, human resource management, infrastructure development, and much
more. MOT involves more than completing technology projects. It involves multi-disciplinary
knowledge and inter-disciplinary interaction.
ORIGINS OF MOT IN ACADEMIA AND INDUSTRY
7
PERSPECTIVES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
Where Are We today?
M
anagement of Technology (MOT) as an academic discipline and an industry practice
was heralded as a solution for providing growth opportunities by linking technology and
management. Some two decades later, little (if any) agreement exists as to the direction of
MOT research, to whom MOT should be directed, what should be taught in MOT programs,
and how MOT should be practiced in industry. The concept of managing technology provided
a multi-disciplinary approach to managing the impact of technological change. Unfortunately
multi-disciplinary scholarship does not necessarily t into the strategic directions of academia
and industry has not as yet found a way to manage its technologies and operations from
a systems perspective the functional silos continue. The best that can be said is that
academia and industry promote MOT by trial and error. Academia has not made signicant
progress in developing MOT as a discipline. And industry has failed to recognize the
advantages from managing technology from a systems perspective.

Chapter 4
8 Technology, Management, Engineering
Management, Management of Technology
L
ack of or ambiguous communication too often creates difculties in implementing workable
concepts. In our age of total freedom of expression, individuals and groups develop new
denitions or descriptions for old concepts and disregard the language of practice. What at one
time was referred to a block diagramming now becomes mapping. What was at one time a
major change in direction now becomes a new paradigm. Invention is confused with innovation.
Management of engineering is considered equivalent to management of technology. The
same applies to our understanding of descriptions of technology, management, technology
management, and engineering management. While everyone may not agree on denitions,
the starting point must, at a minimum, include an understanding of the terms and the context
in which they are being used.
Technology
There is no shortage of descriptions or denitions for technology but not one has been
accepted universally. Shenhar
3
et al. include ten denitions that range from the simple to
complex. Some examples include:
Technology is knowledge embedded in products and processes.
Technology is created capability.
Technology is the totality of means created by people to facilitate human activity.
Technology is science-based knowledge that can be reduced to practice or optimized
toward commercial use.
Technology is a systematic and standardized means for achieving any predetermined
result.
Shenhar goes back to the original meaning of the Greek term techne meaning knowledge
of technical things and links techne with the word artifact which is dened as any
object made by humans. Artifacts can be divided into art or artistic artifacts that cannot be
reproduced, and man-made objects are those that can be reproduced. Shenhar refers to
these man-made artifacts as technofacts. Technology then involves capability to create
technofacts which involves knowledge, skills, machinery, processes and methodology. In
essence, technology is the capability to create artifacts.
A hierarchy or continuum of technofacts begins with basic materials and concludes with what
Shenhar describes as an array. Shenhar suggests six levels of artifacts:
Material: basic materials like steel, glass, and plastics
Components: simple products never used as end products like wire, switches, and
building elements of any kind
PERSPECTIVES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
9
Assemblies: a linkage of components that perform a single or limited function like a
power supply for a computer or any stand-alone assembly of components
Systems: a complex of assemblies that perform multiple functions, such as a radar
system or an automobile
Platforms: a base or carrier on which systems can be incorporated such as ships,
airplanes, and buildings
Arrays: a widely dispersed collection of systems and platforms functioning to meet
a common purpose, such as an air trafc control system or national communication
system
Management
Management is not science, although the scientic method can be used in developing
the information required for sound decision-making. Management research has not as yet
developed workable algorithms to predict the results from a group of people working to
accomplish a particular task. Management as a practice is not new; it is ancient, but
as a discipline, its roots begin in the World War II period. As Peter Drucker
4
has noted,
management deals with action and application: and its test is results. Drucker has also
noted on many occasions that the practice of management is truly a liberal art. If we
agree that management deals with action and application; and its test is results, we
must recognize what it takes on the part of managers to fulll that maxim. Too often, we
disregard the importance of managing. Henry Mintzberg reminds us:
No job is more vital to our society than that of the manager. It is the manager who
determines whether our social institutions serve us well, or whether they squander
our talents and resources.
If by chance you should doubt those words, just reect on your career and the career of
your colleagues and recognize the implications of poor management. Managers can take
the best and the brightest, and because of lack of understanding, destroy a career. Those are
words that managers, as well as technology professionals and others engaged in the practice
of managing, need to think about seriously. Every failure and every success in academia,
government and industry can be traced to the managers performance. As managers we
can foster environments that promote innovation; we can foster environments that build
successful careers; we can foster environments that build successful organizations. The
managing credo places nal responsibility and accountability for results on the manager.
Effective management involves:
1. Administration
2. Direction
3. Leadership
TECHNOLOGY, MANAGEMENT, ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
10
Administration
Administrative matters must be executed but cannot dominate. The department effort must be
planned; performance appraisal requires continuous attention; various routine documents must
be reviewed, discussed, and approved, or disposed of in some manner; the organizational pa-
per must be moved through the system; reports must be submitted; staff needs to be hired, as
well as occasionally reeducated, transferred, or terminated; meetings require attendance within
the organizational unit and with cooperating organizational units; and various legal requirements
require compliance. And there are many more routine duties that need to be performed.
Direction
Direction involves being a teacher, a coach, a promoter and an innovator. Managers provide
direction by integrating the knowledge, skills, attitudes, personal characteristics, experiences,
and the career needs of their employees to effectively and efciently meet the needs of the
organization. Basically, direction involves managing the assigned and available resources within
the organizations infrastructure. Those resources include people with all their competencies or
lack thereof, the intellectual property of the organization, available time, access to information,
technology, the organizations distribution system, customers and suppliers, production
capability, and of course, the nancial capability to meet the organizations needs.
Infrastructure includes the organizations purpose, its vision and values, its goals and objectives,
the organizational structure, the management attributes, the attitude toward risk taking, the
policies and procedures, and nally, the ability to communicate effectively what needs to be
communicated. One major infrastructure element that supersedes all others is the managers
capability to create a culture that fosters innovation.
Leadership
Much has been written about the differences between managers and leaders. If the assump-
tion is made that managing and leadership are two independent functions, then much of what
has been written has not provided any guidance to managers or leaders. Managers who do
not demonstrate leadership are not managers and leaders who lack competency in managing
are not leaders. Leadership and management are opposite sides of the same coin. Leaders do
not lead 24-7-365. Leadership involves being the pathnder, dening the future and meeting
expectations, and taking the initiative. I prefer to think of leadership as taking the lead
which involves accepting responsibility and accountability for actions; accepting the messenger
with bad news; making judgments on the available facts (usually insufcient facts); challenging
the status quo; making the complex simple; challenging the experts; obsolescing the present
before its time; and fullling what I describe as the six Is initiative, imagination, interest,
invention, innovation and implementation. Taking the lead also requires managers and
technology professionals to think strategically, create new opportunities, communicate and
collaborate, develop a business perspective, become innovators and entrepreneurs, cross
traditional boundaries, and sharpen all their skills to meet the requirements in the context in
which they are working.
We need to recognize the differences between management and administration. Administration
usually involves following rules, regulations, processes and specied methodologies. Admin-
istrators seldom focus on creativity, foster an innovative environment, take risks, and focus on
change: they are more attuned to fostering the status quo. Administration is not management.
TECHNOLOGY, MANAGEMENT, ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
11 Management of Engineering
M
anagement of Engineering (ME) is much different from MOT. ME is just what the name
implies and basically involves managing engineering operations. This in no way belittles
the responsibilities or contributions of those involved in managing the engineering process,
whether in a start-up organization or a major multi-national corporation. Most engineering
organizational units focus on meeting specications, schedules and costs in the complete
chain of activities required to bring quality products to the marketplace. Yes, they do have
responsibilities that include developing budgets, hiring and performing performance appraisals,
serving on other organizational committees, and interacting with other operational functions.
Relatively few engineering managers adopt what I refer to as performing the engineering
function from a systems perspective.
The systems perspective to managing engineering goes beyond just performing the duties
assigned to the engineering department: it involves considering engineering decisions from
the perspective of the organization and not just engineering. As an example, the extensive
discussions, and often acrimony, created between engineering and marketing benet
neither marketing nor engineering and certainly provide no benet to the organization.
An engineering success and a marketing failure should not provide a sense of pride for
engineering. Few engineering managers develop technology policy. Few engineering
managers develop technology strategy. Few engineering managers cross discipline
boundaries and interact with their counterparts in other organizational functions. Managing
engineering from a systems perspective involves looking beyond the needs of engineering
and focusing on the business picture. Im not placing blame on engineers and engineering
managers for this lack of a systems perspective, because such a perspective is not fostered
by executives as a rule. However, the business of engineering and technology is the
business not the engineering and technology. Technology is what provides the stimulus
to grow the business.
One of the best experiences I had as a young engineer was the organizations expectation
that young engineers would do booth duty at the organizations trade shows. What better
way to nd out what customers think of your design work. What better way to gain rst
hand an appreciation for the needs of customers. What better way to explore future customer
needs. Such experiences quickly begin to change the view of just what being an engineer or
engineering manager involves. How many engineers consider the manufacturability of their
product designs? Yes, some do, but we know too many focus only on their parts basically
disregarding how their designs will be manufactured. How could General Motors invest billions
of dollars in 1987 in redesigned product lines and automated factories that resulted in one of
the highest manufacturing costs in the industry?
PERSPECTIVES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
12
Management of Technology (MOT)
T
he Hidden Competitive Advantage described MOT as:
Management of technology links engineering, science and management disciplines to
plan, develop and implement technological capabilities to shape and accomplish the
strategic and operational objectives of an organization3.
We need to ask if this description has hindered substantive academic research and acceptance
by industry. As noted in Shenhar, it describes MOT in terms of what it does rather than what
it is. In essence, this description provides no boundaries. It includes any organization that
uses technology in pursuit of its objectives. It includes any individual who uses technology in
pursuit of some goal. In many organizations, technology is accepted as a necessary condition
for survival -- but there is no attempt to manage technology. The organization just uses the
technologies that have been proven and available to all organizations. Technology is not used
to develop competitive advantage. More importantly, technology does not focus on the total
organization. And much too often, the technology focus is limited to information technology.
Shenhar explores the boundaries of MOT. Some researchers have described MOT as
management of technology-based organizations. In these organizations, technology would be
considered a strategic issue. Others have substituted high-tech for technology-based.
The requirements of a technology-based organization include use of a strong scientic-
technical base, obsolescing of current technologies and a preference for new technologies,
and using new technologies to revolutionize markets. Shenhar once again goes back to basics.
If technology is analogous to other -ologies, why talk only about MOT, and not management
of psychology and other -ologies? The fact remains that the management part of MOT only
applies when considered in a particular organizational context. So Shenhar concludes that
MOT is the management of organizations that create economic value through technology.
This description tells what MOT is and not what it does. The doing can take on many
different approaches, depending on the industry in which an organization operates.
Implementation would be quite different in Boeing, GE, BMW, Toyota, Intel and 3M.
PERSPECTIVES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
13
Critical Issues in MOT Research
E
xcept for the early days of MOT, little substantive and directed research has come forward
from the academic community. There are bits and pieces and mostly on the surface. Few
longitudinal studies are available. Many academics have reached the guru status, with books
and consulting services that promote some denitive process or methodology to solving all
problems. Much research from the academic community is paper-oriented, justifying self-
evident hypotheses.
At the 1989 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (1 August 1989), Arthur G.
Bedeian
5
, President of the Academy, challenged the research community in his presentation
Totems and Taboos: Undercurrents in the Management Discipline. Bedeian identied three
undercurrents: Mindless Research, Overspecialization, and what he referred to as a Peculiar
Situation.
Mindless Research
Using proxies that have the most tenuous logical and empirical connection to the
phenomena under study
Mindlessness in grounding the analysis of a complicated phenomenon on survey
questions, without any idea of how respondents understood the questions
Mindless eldwork, with thick descriptions of what is already common knowledge
Failure to foster a productive interplay between theory and research
Research that begins with hypotheses that are clearly true, and if all premises held,
the hypotheses would be obviously true
Too much of the discipline is theory thin and method driven
Overspecialization
Movement toward greater and greater academic specialization
Todays graduates are not being trained in management, but in such subelds as
transaction cost analysis and resource dependency
Researchers cultivating their own turf
Current subeld boundaries within the discipline of management are arbitrary
The discipline needs what Daniel P. Moynihan has called the great complexiers,
the Chester I. Barnards and the Mary P. Folletts, the people who tend to gravitate to
ambiguity, and away from subjective certainty.
PERSPECTIVES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
14
Peculiar Institution
Although educators are paid for the number of courses they teach, they are promoted
on how much they publish and only sometimes by the quality of their publications.
Careers advance through quantity rather than quality.
Academics have been criticized for being more interested in their careers than
educating the constituencies of management.
Academia needs a broader denition of scholarship that includes teaching, research and
service.
One possible solution: Upon receipt of a terminal degree, potential authors receive an
allocation of a xed number of journal papers for their career -- perhaps the emphasis
would change from quantity to quality.
In his conclusion, Bedeian says:
As currently practiced, most of our tenure and promotion systems not only discourage
interdisciplinary, longitudinal eld studies the anthropological eld work that is so
badly needed as a foundation for meaningful research but also topics where risk is
involved. The jeopardy of being unable to collect necessary data, or not nding statistically
signicant results, or engaging in research projects that are meaningful, but take years
before a worthwhile product can be identied are luxuries seldom tolerated by most
tenure and promotion systems.
Professor Bedeian saw opportunities in linking academia and industry through relevant
research. After almost twenty-years of mindless research, overspecialization, and the
peculiarity of academic institutions, it seems granting tenure on the basis of quantity rather
than quality continues.
CRITICAL ISSUES IN MOT RESEARCH
15 Critical Issues in MOT Education
T
he MOT educational programs have not been dened by either the academic or business
communities. While many universities provide graduate level programs in some form
of technology management, arriving at a consensus as to what should be taught has been
elusive. A 1991 paper by Judith Kamm
6
reviewed the curricula of some 100 plus MOT
programs and found no clear understanding among academicians regarding the purposes,
objectives and strategies associated with MOT educational programs. There was a great
deal of diversity in thinking as to what an MOT program should include. As I read through the
objectives of these programs in the Kamm Report, I was concerned about two issues:
1) Most programs are modied MBA programs and
2) An analysis of the verbs used to describe the participation by professors and students
showed that:
Professors: clarify, design, develop, give, help, introduce, offer, present, promote,
provide, and utilize
Students: acquire, come to understand, gain, overcome, study, understand
Professors and students: consider, examine, explore, identify, and recognize
These verbs suggest that professors give and students receive. The verb experience was
missing. There were no signicant opportunities for experiencing whats involved in MOT.
I found this most disconcerting, since MOT focuses on integration and takes a holistic perspec-
tive on the impact of technology in providing competitive advantage. The curricula did not seem
appropriate for someone who was to take on the responsibilities of a chief technology ofcer
(CTO). Few signicant changes have taken place since 1991. Since implementation of MOT is
practitioner oriented, I suggest that MOT education must provide not only theory and history,
but also opportunities for experiencing the ways and means for implementing MOT.
There are several reasons for this lack of consistency:
1) Academic institutions were quick to recognize MOT programs as not only an addition-
al source of revenue, but for providing a new eld for research and teaching.
2) There was no, so-to-speak, academic home for MOT.
and
3) Industry began to nance university MOT programs without adequate discussion and
consideration as to the deliverables.
PERSPECTIVES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
16
The MOT educational and industry communities failed to identify the MOT educational
requirements for the communities to be served. They didnt consider just how this concept
we called MOT was to be implemented. We need to ask:
1. Do current MOT programs serve the technical professional looking to become a
manager in one of the technology related business functions, such as research,
development, manufacturing, or marketing?
2. Do current MOT programs serve the technology manager looking for a more
expansive role in some aspect of managing technology?
3. Do current MOT programs serve the technology professional looking to become the
organizations chief technology ofcer (CTO)?
My experience shows that most MOT programs are directed toward professional specialists
seeking mid-level positions in managing one of the technical functions. First, most MOT
programs involve a combination of some required courses that include subjects like strategy,
marketing, operations research, nance/accounting, technology forecasting, information
systems, statistics, communication, leadership, project management, innovation, entrepreneur-
ship, and a selection of several electives and perhaps some form of capstone project. This
curriculum does not meet the requirements of a person designated to be the chief technology
ofcer, or an upper level manager of some technology function who has responsibility for
codifying and proposing future directions in technology. Perhaps in the urgency to develop an
MOT curriculum, educators disregarded the needs of different groups of constituents.
The educational needs for these three groups must relate in some manner to their future work.
They are signicantly different. Not only are they different but also require different levels of
depth to be productive. Expanded survey courses do not meet the requirements. A modied
MBA program does not meet the requirements. While a course in operations research may
be desirable, is it necessary? Obviously, the knowledge and experiences that individuals bring
to each of these three educational requirements determines the results to be achieved. As
currently structured, the curricula do not teach about taking a broader perspective of the im-
plications of technology on organizational performance. The MOT curricula as structured and
the MBA curricula do not teach the basics of how to manage. They teach topics and even
capstone projects or work-related programs do not provide the opportunities for experiencing
the leadership that would be expected from a person with an advanced degree in MOT. One of
my greatest concerns after teaching in two graduate-level programs in MOT for over a ve-year
period was that nobody really aspired to top-level management: Most students were interested
in being appointed as a manager, but not seeking top-level positions; that was disappointing.
It appears that the roles that these three groups will play in determining the future of the
organization have not been considered. What roles will each of these three groups (the techni-
cal professional aspiring to management, the upper-level manager, the aspiring CTO) play in
building the rms future? Does someone being appointed to a CTO position need courses
on management basics, project management, strategy, accounting, or any number of other
courses that now make up the MOT curriculum? If so, that applicant probably does not bring
the minimum of credentials and experience to the job. What each participant must bring to the
table, so-to-speak, to function successfully in the assigned role has not been codied to meet
specic requirements.
CRITICAL ISSUES IN MOT EDUCATION
17
Back to Basics
A
s an engineer, whenever I found myself struggling for a solution, I concluded it was best
to stop and reect for a moment and then go back to the basics. Its difcult to contra-
dict fundamentals and though the fundamentals of engineering are more denable than those
related to managing, I suggest that they can be applied to the issues related to management.
In our quest to resolve the issues related to MOT perhaps we have not described adequately
the mission of MOT. So, in my desire to rethink MOT, I pose some questions:
1. What are we trying to accomplish with MOT thats different from managing
engineering?
2. What are the expectations from investing in MOT?
3. Who are the players?
4. What kind of research will provide a benet for industry, and at the same time develop
scholars in MOT?
5. Where does the organization begin implementing a program in MOT?
6. What are the expectations from the designated Chief Technology Ofcer?
What are we trying to accomplish with MOT?
MOT was intended to integrate technology into the organizations strategy. It was to be
interdisciplinary. It was to spur the creativity and innovation in introducing new technologies.
It was to provide the required resources and organizational infrastructure and increase the
productivity of the technical community. MOT was to link the engineering, science and
management disciplines. That word link may be the problem because MOT involves
more than providing a link. It requires bringing together engineering and science to optimize
the benets to the organization. It requires identifying, developing, and implementing
identied actions. If MOT is operational, the functional silos may exist structurally and on
the organization chart, but the mental attitude within those silos must transcend the physical
description of the silo. We cannot claim MOT operational, if the six major contributors
research, development, design, manufacturing, marketing, and information operate
independently, with only occasional opportunities for resolving differences. That bringing
together requires changing the mindset, not only of managers at all levels, but also all the
discipline specialists to understand that a success in any one silo is of no value if the
project fails. That mindset requires acknowledging and recognizing that a single decision
within any function may require signicant changes in other functions. A change in research
direction could negatively affect manufacturing. New information in marketing could force
changes in research, product development and manufacturing, and possibly in the distribution
and administration operations.
PERSPECTIVES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
18
What were the expectations?
The expectations from MOT were very high. The premises were quite simple; the academic
community would provide the relevant research and industry would implement the results.
Research would eventually dene the discipline of MOT. But the relevant research efforts were
short lived. While some excellent research was provided in relation to general management
issues, research specically related to MOT was limited and questioned as to its usability,
because of the limited scope of the research. In the process, the word innovation crept into
the MOT vocabulary, and often dominated the discussion and the published research. Here
too, few longitudinal studies were undertaken grounded in research that would go beyond the
obvious for those of us who have been involved in doing innovation.
MOT practice expected organizations to adopt new technologies and exit old technologies in
a timely manner; track and evaluate new technologies; assess future directions of technology
(project into the future and speculate if you wish); and not only reduce product development
times, but also consider the total time required from concept to commercialization. MOT
principles required using cross-disciplinary approaches to resolving issues. Organizations
basically operate in a matrix form. The silos not only exist in R&D, marketing, manufacturing,
product development, engineering, and other functions but within functions. Those silos do
exist between electrical, electronic, mechanical, chemical, and even among their sub-functional
groups. As noted, managing requires integration of many sources of knowledge and many
activities. A new mindset must be created, if MOT is to provide the expected benets.
Who are the players?
Theoretically one could argue that everyone in the organization has some opportunities for
providing input to managing technology, since one of the major requirements of MOT includes
the capability of tracking technologies not only those of immediate concern, but to consider
future possibilities for gaining competitive advantage. However, the primary responsibility falls
to the scientists, engineers and all other technology professionals and their managers from the
rst to the uppermost levels. These are the people who should know what is going on in their
particular eld of interest. But as with other responsibilities, someone must be responsible and
accountable for the results. If everyone has responsibility, no one has responsibility or account-
ability for the results.
If organizations were to manage their technologies, there was obviously a need for some
one to manage this activity, so the ofce of the Chief Technology Ofcer (CTO) came to life.
Little thought was given as to just how the CTO would function. Not much information was
provided as to the role and expectations of the position. A research executive could become the
CTO. Any seasoned executive of the organization could become the CTO. But the function of
the CTO involves more than technology: it involves intimate knowledge of where the organiza-
tion is directing its future, understanding of the competition and not only the nancial numbers
but the history of the competition, and the ability to not only think about the future individually
but garner the organizations key technical personnel to direct the future. But the function of
the CTO must be dened, the limits of authority must be clearly stated, and a decision must
be made as to whether the position is advisory or operational. Will the CTO become the, so-
to-speak, technology czar? It appears that these questions and others were never answered
because they were never asked.
PERSPECTIVES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
So, the issue is not so much the role of the CTO but the role of the Ofce of the CTO,
which would include representatives from the functional groups -- not based on rank but
on knowledge. Bringing people into a discussion who can only opine and not present factual
information provides little, if any, benet. Eventually someone in authority must make a
decision, but that decision must be grounded in knowledge, and not from the latest newsletter
from an organization promoting an agenda.
So, how does an organization nd a way to understand the limitations of their current
technologies, and those that currently do not impact them, but may in the future? How do
they track these technology advancements? Will one person, the CTO, fulll such a mission?
I suggest that may be an impossible task, if for no other reason than the inability of a single
individual to possess the competence to cope with the many technologies associated with any
organizations business. I suggest that responsibility for pursuing or implementing appropriate
technologies cannot be given to one person. The manager and the related specialists of any
technology function have the responsibility for keeping abreast of the technologies related to
that sector of the business, including research, development, manufacturing, marketing, and
all the sub-functions associated with these groups. Managers and their associated colleagues,
however, should have input to the CTO, if there is one, and work cooperatively to meet the
organizations objectives. The CTO, however, is expected to have a much broader perspective
about the interaction of technologies, how to make technology choices, and understand future
technology directions.
BACK TO BASICS BACK TO BASICS
20 Research in MOT
W
hile much was written about what research was required to move MOT into organiza-
tional operations, very little was funded and most came from MBA and doctoral papers.
In 1994, Albert H. Rubensteins
7
, Trends in Technology Management Revisited, identied areas
of research that needed attention:
1. Technical Entrepreneurship in the Firm an important organizational activity, but with
few successes
2. The Role of Corporate Research Laboratories many organizations have scaled back
these operations in preference to more related product or process research
3. Networking of Divisional Technology forcing intercommunication to take full
advantage of the organizations leading-edge technologies seldom works who owns
the organizations intellectual property?
4. Long-Range Technology Planning proactive technology planning, not as an
afterthought, but as a continuous activity
5. R&D Production Interface using concurrent development processes and eliminating
the barriers
6. Evaluation and Technology Audit its more than project selection auditors need
more than a technical background; they need market understanding
7. Expert Systems we have only seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to articial
intelligence; it requires some new thinking
8. Make or Buy what should be outsourced and under what circumstances
9. Technology Policy and Embedded Technology Capabilities organizations seldom
enunciate a technology policy and evaluate their technical capabilities beyond the typical
performance appraisal what is the net value of the capabilities?
10. Software Development Process new technology for researchers, but every
researcher does not have to be a software developer
11. Source of Chief Technical Ofcers need for people with a cultural attachment to
technology
12. Effects of Strategic Business Units on Technology and Innovation what is the
impact; short- and long-term?
These areas of research could have provided industry with some valuable input for improving
performance of all technology operations. With relevance, industry will listen. It is unfortunate
that an MOT Think-Tank never materialized two decades ago. While many papers have been
published, most reect a very short-term perspective. The 12 major areas of research identied
by Albert Rubenstein continue to be the top research priorities.
PERSPECTIVES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
21 The MOT Organization
F
igure 1 illustrates a simplied model of an organization: it is divided into three primary
activities: Genesis, Distribution and Administration. I use the word Genesis to include the
organizations sources of creativity and innovation for new products, services and processes.
Genesis does not mean that creativity and innovation do not play a major role in the Distribution
and Administration areas. While the Genesis function is not responsible exclusively for
creativity and innovation, it provides the initiative and thinking that drives an organizations
performance. The Distribution function includes sales, physical distribution and customer
service. The Administration function includes nancial, procurement, patents, legal, human
resources, general administration and public relations. Each of these specic activity categories
can be subdivided in many sub-categories.
ACTIVITY
GENESIS DISTRIBUTION ADMINISTRATION
RESEARCH SALES FINANCIAL
DEVELOPMENT PHYSICAL DISTRIBUTION PROCUREMENT
DESIGN CUSTOMER SERVICE PATENT AND LEGAL
MANUFACTURING HUMAN RESOURCES
MARKETING GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
INFORMATION PUBLIC RELATIONS
Figure 1 Functional Organizational Model
In recent years, signicant resources have been allocated to information technology, and at
times, it appears when the word technology is mentioned, it too often embraces only
information technology. No doubt information technology is a vital component in the manage-
ment function, but it is only a means to an end it is not the end. As an example, the CERN
Large Hadron Collider, atom smasher, constitutes many technologies and obviously includes
information technologies but these information technologies, while important, represent
the means for integrating the various functions of the Collider they are not the Collider.
Figure 1 represents a typical organization. What are the differences in managing this model
from a purely management perspective and from a technology management perspective?
In the ideal world, there would be no difference. Executives and managers would be sensitive
to issues of competition. They would recognize that what we refer to as market competition
is really technology competition. All executives and managers would be technologically
literate. But thats not the real world. We are all familiar with why organizations often fail to
meet expectations: functional managers focus on their function; upper level managers focus on
their short-term responsibilities; and when we reach the executive levels, the focus is on the
bottom line. We can argue this practice, but unless an organization meets its short-term tar-
PERSPECTIVES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
22
gets, it will not meet its long-term targets. We also need to recognize that society, as a
collective, prefers to live with the status quo, rather than play the role of the pathnder.
Relatively few organizations are driven by innovation and entrepreneurship; relatively few
managers take initiative and focus with regard to the future. The emphasis is on today.
How can these functions be integrated? Figure 2 shows a stage by stage process for
integrating the organizational functions.
LEVELS of INTEGRATION of BUSINESS FUNCTIONS in MOT
Information Information Information Information Information
Research Research Research Research Research
Development Development Development Development Development
Design Design Design Design
Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing
Marketing Marketing Marketing Marketing
Sales Sales Sales
Physical Physical Physical
Description Description Description
Customer Customer Customer
Service Service Service
Financial Financial
Procurement Procurement
Patent and Patent and
Legal Legal
Human Res. Human Res.
General Adm. General Adm.
Public Rel. Public Rel.
Customers
Suppliers
Other
Internal
Other
External
STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4 STAGE 5
Figure 2 Five Stages of MOT Integration
Figure 2 represents a ve stage process for implementing MOT. Any effort to integrate aspects
of MOT begins with providing the means for socializing the impact of the change on both
individual and organizational performance. Developing and using information guides all ve
stages. But information is not technology information involves 1) developing information that
can be analyzed and 2) technology to process the information.
PERSPECTIVES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
23
The process begins at Stage 1 with the intention of integrating the activities of research and
development. Integration means focusing on the dened program or programs and recognizing
that tradeoffs will need to be negotiated. A researcher with an understanding of development
not only works more effectively, but also prevents countless of hours of rework. Stage 2 adds
design, manufacturing, and marketing as required. Stages 2 to 5 are self-evident. Stage 5 adds
customers and suppliers, other internal and other external.
While Figure 2 illustrates the ve stages, how can managers make it a reality? Change doesnt
come easily. It may be benecial to begin by putting together a team that will lead the project.
The team begins the socialization of the issues. The mindset must be changed. Organizational
structures will not cease to exist. There is one simple answer: develop the information to show
what operating these functions as silos costs the silo, and the organization. If the managers
and discipline specialists cannot understand the costs involved, then perhaps some education
may be required, or eventually some terminations may be in order. Its not possible to build a
successful team without the appropriate talent, especially if that talent resists learning what is
required to make it successful.
Chief Technology Ofcer
Dr. Rias van Wyk
8
has described the requirements of the CTO as tracking the major trends in
technological evolution and implementing the technological advances for the benet of the
organization.
Dr. van Wyk denes the key tasks of the CTO as:
1. Maintaining a corporate technology knowledge center
2. Participating in overall strategy development
3. Assisting the board and senior management to become technologically literate
4. Assisting investor relations to promote technological vitality
These four tasks describe not only the role of the CTO but the Ofce of the CTO. This Ofce
becomes the organizations Technology Center, requiring not only the CTO, but also input from
all those managers and discipline specialists involved in the technology-related functions
and from whoever may be knowledgeable.
Changing the title from vice president of research to chief technology ofcer without changing
the job design provides no signicant benet. Wouldnt it be plausible to think that looking
into future potential technologies already exists in the job description of the vice president
of research? The responsibility of the CTO involves giving consideration to all technologies
required to move products successfully from the laboratory to the marketplace. It will involve
knowing about and identifying the directions and timing of those new discoveries. The CTO
would be expected to provide wise counsel when introducing new technologies, and in the
THE MOT ORGANIZATION
24
discussions related to technology tradeoffs. So, what should the CTO bring to the table?
Evidently, sufcient knowledge in technology is a given. Looking toward the future involves
more that a PhD in some technical discipline. At one time in my career, I worked for a CEO
who was an attorney by education, but was probably more technologically literate and
interested in what technology can accomplish than many high level technology executives.
He had an emotional and a cultural attachment to technology. He had highly developed powers
of observation related to technology. He was a pathnder for new applicable technologies for
the business. He had an insatiable curiosity when it came to technology. These are some of
the charismatics the CTO must bring to the position.
How much power should the CTO have? Just what role does the CTO play? The selection of
a CTO depends on the role assigned. Is it that of a pathnder, an advisor to top management?
Or an advisor to those at the technology bench, a communicator, a manager of a report factory,
a coordinator of all technologies?
THE MOT ORGANIZATION
25 MOT Body of Knowledge
T
he Body of Knowledge (BOK) includes the requirements for the CTO or equivalent, several
levels of managers, and the discipline professionals, and to all in the organization through
a general technology awareness program. Not all knowledge acquisition requires courses or
advanced degrees. The MOT Body of Knowledge basically evolved from the MBA programs
with the possible inclusion of courses in technology policy, technology forecasting, use of
simulations and models, a focus on innovation and entrepreneurship, possibly organizational
design, human behavior, economic analysis, and other courses that provide relevant knowledge
and experiences. So, how can a manager manage effectively at any level, without considering
the business or organizational system? What is missing is what it means to manage an
organization.
Do we need a Body of Knowledge for the CTO? I doubt that a need exists to develop a
Body of Knowledge for the organizations CTO. I suggest that the selection of the CTO of
an organization would involve an individual who understands the organizations strategy and
direction, who is technologically competent not as a specialist but who possesses a
breadth of current as well as future technological requirements. This person may also need
some exposure to the latest knowledge about assessing and mapping technologies, and
charting the future technology directions within the context of the organizations strategic
direction. If the person selected to be the CTO needs to take a course in Financial Management
for Non-Financial Managers, chances are, the wrong person has been selected. If the person
selected to be the CTO needs to take a course in Project Management, chances are, the
wrong person has been selected. If the person selected to be the CTO needs to visit a foreign
country for a week to get exposure to other cultures, chances are, the wrong person has
been selected.
There is a need, however, to develop a Body of Knowledge for technology managers and those
aspiring to managing technology related functions who will bring a more comprehensive
perspective than those managing engineering. If given the opportunities, such people can
play a major role in the Ofce of the CTO. They should recognize that technology decisions
are made in relation to the business and not to the technology. Using the most advanced
technologies may not be essential, but knowing when to introduce a new technology from
a business perspective is quite different from introducing it because it is new.
And here Id like to introduce to you an approach by Dr. Rias van Wyk
9
. I propose his
comments as a means for the MOT community to step back and engage in a rational
conversation to reconsider how this eld of MOT, that drives economic growth and
well-being, will fulll its function.
PERSPECTIVES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
26
Dr. van Wyk asked where we are academically when it comes to MOT. He examined the
academic status of knowledge and found the following in relation to MOT:
1. Technology
a. General theory of technology dangerously underdeveloped
2. Technology-focused management topics
a. Generally well documented
3. General management topics
a. Extremely well developed
4. Supporting disciplines
a. Some areas are well developed, e.g. economics
He suggested the following template for MOT educational programs, recognizing that the
needs will vary depending on the organization, and that the specic curriculum cannot be
legislated, but must be grounded in the fundamentals. As noted, MOT was conceived and is
multidisciplinary. Dr. van Wyks Educational Template suggests meeting three requirements:
1. Focused enough to emphasize the unique features of technology
2. Sufciently broad to encompass the entire scope of MOT
3. Flexible enough to allow for creative diversity and competencies of host universities
The Template includes:
1. Technology-centered subjects theory of technology, emerging technologies,
technology foresight and specialty elds
2. Technology related management procedures technology forecasting, managing
research, development, new products, innovation, programs and projects and
intellectual property
3. Corporate functions strategy, marketing, nance, operations, management
information systems, human resources and general administration
4. Supporting disciplines national technology policy frameworks, general systems
theory, futuristics, industrial ecology, ethics, economics, human behavior, quantitative
methods, accounting and law
5. Special assignments internships, capstone projects, research topics, business
studies
MOT BODY OF KNOWLEDGE
27 Challenges in Promoting MOT in
Academia and Industry
D
oes promoting academic research in MOT and implementing MOT in industry provide
any benets in developing economic value through technology? The response should be
a resounding, yes. But for that to occur, the academic research must be relevant and industry
must begin managing from a systems perspective. That shift cannot be accomplished without
changing the mental approach to managing. A manager cannot just manage his or her activities
without consideration of all the related functions. Technology successes, but business failures,
provide no benet. The functions of a technology group are not to use the latest technology.
The function involves giving the customer products and services that provide that customer
with a competitive advantage and that involves more than technology. It involves a process and
a team that can take an idea and transform it into a useful product or service that is accepted by
the marketplace. The research must be relevant, and managers of various technology-related
functions need to develop a business perspective. The business of technology is business
performance.
Making MOT a reality involves a response to the following issues:
1. Academia and industry need to reect on what theyre attempting to accomplish
through MOT education. Who are the candidates? Whats the purpose? What are the
outcomes? For what kind of organization (Fortune 500 or the continuum from start-up
to Fortune 500)?
2. MOT requires multi-disciplinary research. The academic community needs to promote
research in MOT that crosscuts the disciplines. Such promotion will require a new
approach to scholarship. Research from MBA programs or variations adapted as MOT
programs will not satisfy the needs of scholarship.
3. The MOT curriculum needs to be dened to focus on MOT issues. Trying to include
many basic management courses inhibits focusing on MOT issues. Perhaps the
basic management course should be a requirement to participate in a MOT graduate
program.
4. Much has been written about the Chief Technology Ofcer. Where are the programs
that focus on the seasoned manager who needs not only general management
education, but learning opportunities appropriate to the CTO?
5. Many people have graduated with their advanced degree in MOT. At what level are
they working today? A study could show just where after these many years these
graduated have progressed.
PERSPECTIVES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
28
6. Attendance at the MOT academic programs as currently structured was expected to
inuence the management of technology in industry. Research to determine benets
may reveal some of the shortcomings.
7. Do those attending current MOT programs develop the leadership competence to
promote the principles of MOT in their organizations?
8. Industry continues as structured and operates basically along functional disciplines.
What are the ways of breaking down these barriers that prevent optimizing
performance?
9. Current MOT programs appear to educate for mid- to upper-level management
positions in one of the technology related functions. While such programs may be
benecial, what are the requirements to take that education to the next level?

CHALLENGES IN PROMOTING MOT IN ACADEMIA AND INDUSTRY
29 References:
1. Edward Roberts, Comments from the First International Conference on Engineering
Management, 1996.
2. National Research Council, Management of Technology: The Hidden Competitive
Advantage, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1981, p.13.
3. Aaron J. Shenhar, Rias van Wyk, Josa Stefanovic, Gerard Gaynor, Technofact: Toward
a Fundamental Entity of Technology, IAMOT Conference, 2004, Washington, D.C.
4. Peter F. Drucker, People and Performance. New York: Harpers College Press, 1977, 345.
5. Arthur G. Bedeian, Totems and Taboos: Undercurrents in the Management Discipline,
Academy of Management News, Vol. 19, No.4 October 1989.
6. Judith Kamm, Report presented at a business meeting of the Technology and Innovation
Management division of the Academy of Management, August 1991.
7. Albert H. Rubenstein, Trends in Technology Management Revisited, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, Vol. 41, No. 4, November 1994.
8. Rias van Wyk, Personal discussions with Dr. van Wyk
9. Rias van Wyk, A Template for Graduate Programs in the Management of Technology,
Report of the Education Committee of the International Association for Management of
Technology (IAMOT), May 11, 2004
Suggested reading:
Rias van Wyk, Technology: A Unifying Code, Cape Town, 2005. ISBN: 062 032 029-Handbook
Handbook of Technology Management, published by McGraw-Hill, 1996, Gerard H. Gaynor,
Editor-in-Chief.
PERSPECTIVES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1202 Washington, D.C. 20036-5104
+1 202 785 0017 www.ieeeusa.org
www.ieeeusa.org/communications/ebooks