Technology

Management Education:
ALTERNATIVE MODELS

Michael K. Badawy

lobal competitive strategies are increasingly becoming technology-

G driven. Technology has become the great equalizer among companies

and countries. Technological innovation cannot be achieved without
corporate management devoting considerable energy and investment
to developing effective linkages between science, engineering, and manage-
ment.1 Done well, these linkages can ultimately produce and provide products,
processes, and services that represent a cohesive and distinctive corporate tech-
nological competence. This competence, then, becomes a primary tool for
achieving the firm’s competitive advantage.
The enormity of technology capital expenditures represents a significant
indicator of the key role technology plays in the U.S. economy. Data from the
National Science Foundation research studies project that the U.S. will have
spent $184.4 billion on R&D and related technologies in 1997.2 Of this amount,
industry is projected to have spent $113.5 billion, most of which will have gone
toward applied research and development. The estimated total U.S. R&D expen-
ditures represent 2.49 percent of the gross domestic product and mark the
largest increase since 1985. In terms of international comparisons, the fact that
the U.S. spends more on R&D than Japan, Germany, France, and the United
Kingdom combined clearly underscores the critical importance of technology as
a core economic resource for enhancing corporate productivity and profitability.

The author would like to thank Dr. Afie M. Badawy for her guidance, critical insights, and comments on
earlier drafts of this article. The feedback received from her as well as from the anonymous reviewers
is greatly appreciated.

94 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 40, NO. 4 SUMMER 1998

 Technology Management Education: Alternative Models

Effective management of technology calls for different managerial skills,

techniques, styles, and ways of thinking.3 The challenge facing management
educators in determining what managers in the 21st century should know about
technology is daunting. What is needed is a new breed of managers who are as
adept in technology management as they are in traditional business skills. Tech-
nology-based corporations increasingly need a capacity for rapid innovation in
strategies, products, processes, and services as distinct from traditional high-
volume mass production or service companies of past decades. Managers of
technology, therefore, need to acquire the knowledge and skills that will enable
them to compete effectively in world markets.
However, there is a question whether traditional academic programs such
as the Master of Business Administration (MBA) and the Master of Engineering
Management (MEM) degree can, in fact, adequately prepare technologists for
effective management of technology. My purpose in this article is to provide an
understanding of alternate educational degree programs as models for develop-
ing managerial skills in technologists. Focusing on management education and
taking an analytical scholarly research perspective, this article will explore the
value of the MBA degree for technologists and compare it with the MEM degree.
The article will address the foundations, structure, and content of a proposed
Management of Technology (MOT) curriculum that can overcome the deficien-
cies of both the MBA and MEM programs. It will also examine the implications
for management educators, technical professionals, and managers.

Research on the Uniqueness of and Need

for Technology Management Education
The management of technology involves a broad spectrum of functional
areas, including basic research, applied research, development, design, construc-
tion, manufacturing, operations, testing, maintenance, and technology transfer.4
The concept of technology management is quite broad since it covers not only
R&D, but also the management of product, process, and information technolo-
gies.5 The management of technology is thus the practice of integrating tech-
nology strategy with business strategy in the company. This integration requires
the deliberate coordination of the research, production, and service functions
with the marketing, finance, and human resource functions of the firm.6
Current university degree program offerings provide technologists with
two major possibilities or avenues for management education: the MBA and
the MEM. Before undertaking a research-based critical assessment of each
degree in the following two sections, we should first understand the nature,
issues, and unique problems of managing technology. It is this uniqueness that
mandates a different kind of educational program for developing managerial
skills in technologists.

CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 40, NO. 4 SUMMER 1998 95

 Technology Management Education: Alternative Models

The idea that a good manager can manage anything regardless of its tech-
nological base is simplistic, misleading, and must be abandoned.7 Corporate
practices in the U.S. have long emphasized the need for general management
skills in mid-level and top executives and have required no familiarity with the
complex nature of the technologies that are supposed to be managed. The cen-
tral question is: How can managers manage something they do not understand?
The point is not that CEOs and top executive staff must become technol-
ogy specialists.8 Rather, they must develop a high degree of empathy and a
strong appreciation of the technologies they are investing in and the role of
technology in corporate strategy.
While it is not necessary for every manager to have a science or engineering
degree, every manager does need to understand how technology relates to the
strategic positioning of the firm, how to evaluate alternative technologies and
investment choices, and how to shepherd scientific and technical concepts
through the innovation and production processes to the market place. For more
and more firms, effective performance in developing, adopting, and using techno-
logical innovation is becoming vital to success in the market place. A solid under-
standing of how to combine the technical, organizational, and human dimensions
of the innovation process is at the heart of effective technology management.9

In short, without a thorough understanding of the essence of the man-

agement of technology, executives will end up with “tunnel vision.”
Successful managers of technology invariably attribute their success
largely to the ability to create a vision.10 That is, they have a sense of the grand
scheme of things that enables them to put individual technological develop-
ments into perspective. Top executives must have an idea of how technology
will evolve, how it will manifest itself within the industry, and how the com-
pany will operate its business using technology in the future.11 For these
managers, rapid technological change holds little intimidation value. They
understand what the evolving capabilities of these technologies are and how
they can contribute to making their firms competitive. Successful technology
executives’ vision is clearly reflected in their values, strategies, and leadership
styles.12 In short, their vision is based on a knowledge of where technology has
been and where it is going.
Often, however, executive action reflects inadequate strategic thinking,
cluttered vision, and a lack of focus.13 Instead of concentrating on what it can do
best, a company gets into doing too many things, but none of them well. This
gives top management a mistaken sense of synergy. Strategically, it would be far
more effective to develop a presence and a technological capability in a focused
market niche. This would enable the company to build a competitive advantage
through focusing on the critical few rather than the trivial many. From the per-
spective of technology management education, this point is significant in that it
demonstrates the necessity and importance of executive training in understand-
ing the strategic role technology plays in shaping corporate direction and future.

96 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 40, NO. 4 SUMMER 1998

 Technology Management Education: Alternative Models

Because this special training has been clearly lacking in MBA and MEM pro-
grams, there are many instances of poor practices in managing technology.
Top management must accept its primary role in technological innovation
since the process of managing technology begins at the top.14 Technology direc-
tion must emanate from senior management, which defines business strategy,
allocates investment funds, and establishes corporate policy. If this is not done,
these tasks default to others at lower organizational levels. Although research
studies show that top management involvement is a necessary condition for
developing a successful technology strategy, many technology-based companies
in the United States are headed by top executives who don’t have technology
backgrounds.15 Thus, they have insufficient understanding of linking business
and technical priorities, managing technological strategy, and planning technol-
ogy. Compared with Europe and Japan, more American managers come up
through non-production jobs in finance, law, accounting, or marketing.
This situation has serious implications for technology management prac-
tice. Specifically, technological deficiencies in executive backgrounds did, in fact,
make it difficult for U.S. companies to compete during 1970s and 1980s in tech-
nology-based global markets.16 This led to some serious and well-documented
outcomes with regard to corporate competitiveness.
Technology-based organizations draw heavily on the use of applied sci-
ence and technological innovation. Examples of fields where these organizations
typically function include electronics, computers, data processing, information
technology, pharmaceuticals, optics, lasers, word processing, chemicals, commu-
nications, and instrumentation. Studies show that the context of technology-
based organizations has several distinguishing features or characteristics. While
these features are difficult to quantify, they nevertheless present a corporate
profile that is distinctively different from traditional non-technology based
organizations.17 These features include:
Technology-based organizations typically employ a large number of engi-
neers, scientists, and other technical professionals. (It is estimated that
over 1.8 million engineers were employed by U.S. industry in 1997.)18
These organizations spend an enormous proportion of their resources on
R&D and other technology-related activities.
They essentially sell the knowledge, information talents, and expertise of
their technical staff.
They put a tremendous premium on the necessity of technological inno-
vation as a tool for achieving competitive advantage.
Inventions and innovations by the technical staff are usually protected by
patents and other means of protecting intellectual property rights.
Product, process, and information technology innovations are sources of
strategic competitive advantage.

CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 40, NO. 4 SUMMER 1998 97

 Technology Management Education: Alternative Models

Management systems, practices, and structures appropriate for these

organizations are less formal and more fluid, organic, adaptive, and flex-
ible than in traditional bureaucratic organizations. Systems, policies,
rewards, and overall organizational environments must be conducive
to creativity, experimentation, and innovation.
They typically function within extremely dynamic, high-velocity, and
turbulent environments characterized by rapid technological change,
product and process substitution threats, and massive changes in science
and technology.
Technical professionals represent the core competence of a technology-
based organization.19 The organization is driven by the talents, skills, and exper-
tise of its knowledge workers. It is these workers who create the inventions and
innovations in products and processes that change the industry. As technologies
change, technology-based firms are challenged to continually maintain, develop,
and expand their knowledge of workers’ talents and skills.
Technical professionals are the most important asset in the technology
management function. In organizations whose most valued product is essentially
ideas, the importance of effective managing and utilization of human resources
can not be overemphasized. With all the financial and physical resources a tech-
nology-based corporation has, it will have nothing to sell without the creativity,
imagination, and innovativeness of its scientists, engineers, and other technical
professionals.
The scholarly and professional literatures draw a profile of the technical
professional “stereotype.”20 However, there are enormous variations both among
and between different professional groups in terms of individual personalities
and behavioral patterns.21 The features this profile presents include:
Technical professionals are well educated and usually hold advanced
academic degrees and other professional credentials.
They display a high degree of creativity, intelligence, and capacity for
learning.
They thrive on intellectually challenging assignments.
They seek individual autonomy and flexibility as important elements
of an organization’s general work climate.
They value their freedom in pursuing intellectual research streams and
lines of inquiry.
They have a high degree of curiosity with a deep desire in learning and
acquiring knowledge for its own sake.
They have strong personalities and individualized ways of thinking and
value systems.
They have a high propensity for risk-taking, experimentation, and trying
new approaches to known phenomena.

98 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 40, NO. 4 SUMMER 1998

 Technology Management Education: Alternative Models

TABLE 1. Differences Between R&D and Other Corporate Activities

Dimensions Research Other Corporate

and Variables and Development Functions

1. Nature of task Ambiguous, less programmed More programmed,

less defined more defined
2. Central manage- People (labor- Structure
ment focus intensive industry)
3. Most important Social and inter- Administrative (structural aspects
managerial skills personal skills of the organization)
4. Key management The R&D director Marketing, production, and
priorities is the chief technologist finance are the key functions
of the business with top priorities
5. Managerial Participative Directive
leadership style

Furthermore, there are also well-documented studies showing that scien-

tists, engineers, and other technical professionals tend to be different from other
segments of the labor force.22 As such, these differences set engineers and scien-
tists apart from those working in other traditional individual activities such as
marketing, purchasing, and personnel. These differences include: they have very
long time horizons; their primary thrust is toward invention rather than sales;
they often have a strong product (or discipline) orientation but not market ori-
entation; and they tend to identify more with their professional peers than with
their company.23 While other corporate functions are fairly well defined, R&D
activities are generally less structured, with a high degree of uncertainty of out-
come, and with creativity required for their effective performance. 24 Table 1
provides the broad differences between R&D and other corporate functions.
Because of the salient differences between various professional groups
and the varied definitions of the concept of a “professional,” researchers have
continued using this concept as an encompassing construct under which several
types of employees are grouped.25 The evidence on the need for a technology
management education, however, remains compelling. There are five major
forces that contribute to this: the necessity of understanding the complex prob-
lems of managing technology, the critical need for a broad vision of technology
as an integral link in corporate strategy, managing technological innovation as a
top-management responsibility, the context and core competence of technology-
based organizations, and the unique characteristics of technical professionals.
What is required of educational institutions is a different set of managerial con-
cepts, competencies, and skills for the effective management of technology.

CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 40, NO. 4 SUMMER 1998 99

 Technology Management Education: Alternative Models

The Master of Business Administration Degree

The Value of the MBA for Technologists

The typical MBA curriculum is too theoretical and academic to provide
technologists with the proper training and skills they are going to need to func-
tion effectively as managers.26 There is also mounting evidence about the dissat-
isfaction of the corporate community with the quality of MBAs and the general
performance of business schools.27 This negative sentiment was made clear in a
recent executive survey:
Industry told us that we were teaching all the wrong things. They explained that
academe is industry’s only supplier with quality so bad that 100% of the incoming
goods require rework—that is, more training. . . . One of the major concerns exec-
utive survey respondents had was that they have got engineers who understand
technology, and they have business people who understand management. What
they are missing are people who understand the interrelation of those two
things—managing technology.28

The 1996 Report of the Faculty leadership Task Force of the American
Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) provides a glaring testi-
mony on the changing global environment and the critical need for business
schools to change their modes of operation in both undergraduate and graduate
management educational programs.29
The primary problem is that faculty skills are not aligned with the rapidly chang-
ing needs of business. Over time, business practice has advanced rapidly (e.g.,
TQM, re-engineering, cycle time reduction, diversity in the work force, customer
satisfaction incentives, global strategy and managing technology). Although
school and faculty competencies have advanced, the gap between practice and
academic research and teaching has widened. The lack of business interaction,
changing technologies, aging faculty and shortage of incentives to change have
inhibited faculty initiative for change that is necessary to keep pace with a rapidly
changing environment. Faculty should be leading the next generation of industry
knowledge and practice, but, in some schools, this is not the case.30

The tremendous growth in “corporate university” programs is another

recent indicator of the technical management community’s dissatisfaction with
the workings of the business school.31 From 1968 to 1996, the number of corpo-
rate universities has grown from around 400 to 1000. Although these universi-
ties were once found primarily in the high-technology industry, they now are
found in industries as diverse as financial services and health care.
The inadequate coverage of MOT in typical MBA curricula is a major
concern. Technology can no longer be taught or viewed as a “black box.” Russell
Ackoff has issued a warning about another field of which MBA program archi-
tects should take a serious notice.32 He traces the devolution of Operations
Research from its original state as a market-oriented profession through the stage
of output-orientation to its current state of input-orientation. He also traces the

100 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 40, NO. 4 SUMMER 1998

 Technology Management Education: Alternative Models

devolution of OR/MS in the decade following World War II and correlates this
devolution with the changing needs of U.S. industry, the inbreeding of faculty
teaching OR/MS subjects, and the concomitant inbreeding of OR/MS journals.
In Ackoff’s words, “The field’s introversion drove it into a catatonic state in
which it died mercifully but is yet to be buried.”33 Henry Mintzberg’s work
echoes Ackoff’s negative sentiment about MBA management education:
Our schools of administration and management have designed their curricula
to do other things. At one time most concentrated on teaching by the case study
method, presumably in the belief that managers-to-be would benefit from prac-
tice in unstructured decision-making . . . but our study gives us reason to believe
that this kind of instruction does not develop the wide array of talents managers
need. In the 1960s many schools of management turned away from the case-
study philosophy, devoting their attention instead to the teaching of theory. It is
interesting to note that much of this theory deals, not with the job of managing
per se, but with the underlying disciplines—economics, psychology, and mathe-
matics. . . . All of this knowledge will be useful to the manager-to-be, but almost
none of it relates directly to those things he will be called upon to do in the job of
the manager. . . . We must recognize that although the management school gives
students M.B.A. degrees, it does not in fact teach them how to manage. Hence
these degrees can hardly be considered prerequisites for managing, and the world
is full of highly competent managers who have never spent one day in a manage-
ment course.34

The AACSB study report frames the above issues as part of a larger prob-
lem relating to relevance in management and university education in general:
The growing gap between academic and business worlds and the lack of theory
and relevance in research can be traced to deficits in underlying skills. Faculty are
doing well on theory testing and construction and have made some progress on
global thinking, but the greatest needs exist for improvement in multi disciplinary
methods, new teaching technologies, technological awareness and innovative
research. Additionally, the knowledge of best practices, business communication
and creativity in problem-solving could benefit from skill enhancement. Much
room exists for improvement in faculty skills and interests. If business schools
could move faculty skill levels up, build ties to industry, and increase faculty abil-
ity and willingness to change, progress can be made in solving the problem of lack
of alignment between academia and business needs.35

Further evidence that coverage of the management of technology in typi-

cal MBA curricula is lacking can be found in some of the basic features underly-
ing typical MBA programs.36 For example, MBA programs have generally taught
the false theory that a good manager can manage anything, and that it is not
necessary to have a technological understanding of the process one is trying to
manage. Clearly this can lead to executives’ technological illiteracy which, in
turn, is responsible for a risk-aversion mentality. This orientation reinforces the
false and shallow concept of the professional manager, a “pseudo-professional”
who has no special expertise in any particular industry or technology but who
nevertheless can step into an unfamiliar company and run it successfully

CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 40, NO. 4 SUMMER 1998 101

 Technology Management Education: Alternative Models

through strict application of financial controls, portfolio concepts, and a market-

driven strategy.
Furthermore, MBA programs place a predominant emphasis on short-
range results, quick fixes, quarterly earnings, and viewing R&D and technology
functions as cost centers rather than investments in the corporate future. Execu-
tive performance is expressed and measured only in quantitative terms. Invest-
ments in technology are usually tied to explicit cost justifications of the type
that discount assumed cash flows over the next few years.
These weaknesses and shortcomings of typical MBA programs can be
addressed through specific areas or fields that can be covered in an MOT educa-
tion program. As outlined in the 1991 report by the National Research Council,
eight primary needs in technology management have been identified.37
How to integrate technology into the overall strategic objectives of
the firm.
How to get into and out of technologies faster and more efficiently.
How to assess/evaluate technology more efficiently.
How to accomplish technology transfer.
How to reduce new product development time.
How to manage large, complex and interdisciplinary or interorganiza-
tional projects/systems.
How to manage the organization’s internal use of technology.
How to leverage the effectiveness of technical professionals.
However, none of these topical areas are covered in current MBA
curricula.

The Master of Engineering Management Degree

Program Features38
Engineering management (EM) has been defined as the discipline that
focuses on making and implementing decisions for strategic and operational
leadership in current and emerging technologies as well as their impacts on
interrelated systems. A worldwide survey of engineering management programs
in 1994 shows:39
Academic institutions are using a variety of titles for this new discipline.
Examples include industrial management, systems engineering, technol-
ogy management, engineering science, production management, and
manufacturing management. Although there are at least 46 different
titles, engineering management is the most commonly used for these
programs.
As shown in Table 2, a total of 159 universities in twenty-five countries
indicated having EM programs. One hundred and three of them are in

102 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 40, NO. 4 SUMMER 1998

 Technology Management Education: Alternative Models

the U.S. and the remaining 56 are in 24 TABLE 2. Distribution of Engineering

countries. Management Programs
The growth in university programs has by Country*
been primarily on the graduate level.
A total of 204 types of degrees were Australia 9
offered by these 159 educational insti- Austria 1
tutions in 1994. These consisted of: 34 Belgium 2
Bachelor’s, 132 Master’s, and 38 Ph.D. Brazil 1
degrees. A comparison between 1990
Canada 8
and 1994 in the number of degree-
Denmark 2
granting programs provides some inter-
France 2
esting findings. As the number of
Germany 3
degrees offered by the programs has
increased by 23% in 1994, the shift of Hong Kong 1

emphasis toward the graduate degrees Indonesia 1

has become visible. The undergraduate Ireland 1
programs have decreased both in Israel 1
absolute numbers and as a percentage Japan 1
of the total while the graduate pro- Mexico 1
grams have increased, with the mas- New Zealand 1
ter’s degree representing the majority Norway 1
of the offerings. Saudi Arabia 1
EM programs are offered predomin- Scotland 1
antly by the engineering schools. Of Singapore 1
the 159 world-wide programs, eighty- South Africa 4
eight are located in engineering
Sweden 1
schools, 26 in business schools, and
Switzerland 3
32 are jointly administered.
Taiwan 1
While there are many common ele-
United Kingdom 7
ments in the overall curriculum designs, there
USA 103
are considerable variations in the subjects and
Total 159
topics covered in each program.40 At the grad-
uate level, most of the programs have a built-
Source: D.F. Kocaoglu, “Technology Management: Editorial
in flexibility provided by a combination of
Trends,” in IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
core courses and electives. The four course November 1994, p. 348.
clusters in graduate programs are:
Prerequisites (primarily in the core, few electives): statistics, simulation,
software engineering;
Fundamentals (both in the core and the electives): operations research,
accounting, economics, financial management, project management,
behavioral science, organization theory, quality management, manu-
facturing management, I/O (industrial/organizational) psychology,

CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 40, NO. 4 SUMMER 1998 103

 Technology Management Education: Alternative Models

technology management, strategic planning, R&D management,

communications;
Specialization (mostly electives, few in the core): engineering specialty
courses, M.I.S. (management information systems), personnel manage-
ment, artificial intelligence/expert systems, database management, pro-
ductivity management, technology forecasting, industrial relations,
entrepreneurship, CAD/CAM, computer-aided engineering, technology
marketing, technological innovation, engineering and public policy; and
Emerging Areas: strategic management of technology, business/technology
integration, technology planning, venture management, technology
transfer, concurrent engineering, product development process.
Engineering management concerns the process of managing the engi-
neering function itself. In short, engineering management is much narrower
in scope and orientation than technology management. Thus, the thrust of the
engineering management degree is not broad enough to cover the spectrum of
issues and intricacies of managing technology as a strategic corporate resource.

Proposed Mechanisms for Educating Technologists

in the Management of Technology

The Role of MOT in the Management Curriculum

Why is a curriculum in MOT needed? To answer this question, a more
precise definition of MOT is necessary. The 1987 and 1991 reports by the
National Research Council define MOT as linking “engineering, science, and
management disciplines to address the issues involved in planning, develop-
ment, and implementation of technological capabilities to shape and accomplish
the strategic and operational objectives of an organization.”41 A survey of uni-
versity courses by the JUPITER Consortium in the United Kingdom defined six
categories of technology management education: technology strategy and plan-
ning; technology acquisition and transfer; organizing and implementing tech-
nology; technology support; technology for managers; and general technology
management.42 Another disciplinary perspective views MOT as comprising three
distinct activities:43
Management of the Development of Technology: This is the product develop-
ment process. It is especially important in today’s environment which
features short product life-cycles, multinational vendoring, large-scale
product management, multidisciplinary components, application of scien-
tific principles over engineering know-how, and extensive use of design
aids and tools.
Managing the Technology Itself: This involves the management of highly-
complex automated production process and systems having a low labor
content, such as a chemical plant or an automated factory.

104 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 40, NO. 4 SUMMER 1998

 Technology Management Education: Alternative Models

TABLE 3. Conceptualization of MOT: A Proposed Model

Phases/Spectrum Process Output

Technology planning Basic research New Knowledge

and development Applied research Invention
Development Innovation

Technology implementation Product design Introduction and use of

Product development technology in products,
manufacturing processes,
Process development and other corporate
Integration functions

Technology diffusion Technology evaluation New or improved products,

Technology marketing processes, and services
and distribution

Technological change Technological forecasting Reevaluating and coping

Technology assessment with technology

Technology substitution

Managing with Technology: This is essentially the use of technology to

solve a management problem. For example, the personal computer
can increase a manager’s efficiency and effectiveness; robots can reduce
assembly time and cost; automating a machine tool can make it more
competitive; and management information systems can provide a man-
ager with information to make timely and better informed decisions.
Based upon the above, MOT can thus be defined as a field of study and a
practice concerned with exploring and understanding technology as a corporate
resource that determines both the strategic and operational capabilities of the
firm in designing and developing products and services for maximum customer
satisfaction, corporate productivity, profitability, and competitiveness. The distin-
guishing characteristics of MOT implicit in this definition include:
MOT is an integrative field of study and an emerging discipline.
MOT can be characterized as having four basic components: R&D man-
agement, product technology management, process technology manage-
ment, and information technology management.44
As a field of study, MOT has a distinctive scope and is much broader
than production and operations management, industrial engineering,
engineering management, and entrepreneurship.45
MOT is an interdisciplinary field of study with a dual orientation: it is
cross-disciplinary and problem driven.

CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 40, NO. 4 SUMMER 1998 105

 Technology Management Education: Alternative Models

TABLE 4. Scope and Boundaries of MOT

Horizontal Dimension (Breadth) Examples of Disciplines Involved

R&D management Mathematics
Product technology management Economics
Process technology management OR/MS/statistics
Information technology management Industrial engineering
Management
Vertical Dimension (Depth)
Political science
Strategic
Science and technology policy
Operational (product level and project level)
Operations management
Interfunctional
Information technology
System integration
MIS/computer science
Level of Analysis Finance/accounting
Corporate Marketing
Industry Manufacturing technology
National Organizational behavior
Global Science/engineering disciplines
Context
Other Areas
Low technology
Not Yet Apparent
Medium technology
High technology

The MOT field has a largely diffused and fragmented research base. This
is a natural phase in the development of an evolving discipline.46
Managing technology has a strong strategic orientation relating to the
role of technology in corporate strategy.47
As an integrative discipline, MOT has a vertical and a horizontal dimen-
sion. The vertical dimension represents the need for disciplinary depth
and concerns the MOT internal core or foundations (i.e., strategic, opera-
tional, interfunctional). The horizontal dimension represents the need for
disciplinary breadth and concerns building on theories and principles
drawn from other fields, such as R&D management, product technology
management, process technology management, and information technol-
ogy management.48
Because of the evolving nature of the field of MOT, there are no estab-
lished models. Tables 3 and 4 present useful information for conceptualization
of MOT and identification of its scope and boundaries. An MOT degree for tech-
nologists is an appropriate means for gaining an effective understanding of the
management of technology. While non-technical MBA managers may under-
stand the technologies being employed by their firms, they don’t have enough

106 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 40, NO. 4 SUMMER 1998

 Technology Management Education: Alternative Models

background to develop intuition for which possible technologies now on the

horizon are apt to become important and which are apt to be discarded. The
result is that incumbent managers have no way to judge the merits of revolu-
tionary changes (in, for example, production technologies), and as a result they
procrastinate, waiting for it to become clear which technology is the best. By the
time the answer is known, foreign firms may have a two- or three-year lead in
understanding and employing those new technologies.
Richie Herink’s research lends strong support to this position and makes
an appealing case for a degree program in MOT.
Managers of technology require a unique combination of technical, management,
and business abilities in order to effectively design, develop, manufacture and
distribute their firms’ products and processes. These abilities are more critical than
ever before, especially in today’s climate of rapid technological change where new
products are: increasingly complex; have shorter life-cycle; often involve many
disciplines, many organizations, and many vendors; are required to integrate with
products developed by other business units and companies; have more demand-
ing criteria for performance, quality, cost and delivery; and require highly sophis-
ticated assembly and manufacturing techniques and methodologies. Products and
processes are being designed today for use into the third millennium. The depart-
mentalization and discipline proliferation tendencies of universities emphasize
knowledge in depth rather than in breadth, and consequently favor theory over
practice. As a result, managers have no place to go to learn “how to run the
store.” This learning, therefore, largely takes place on the job via an oral tradition.
What is needed is a new graduate degree program in the management of technol-
ogy which represents a cooperative effort between industry and the university
schools of business and engieering.49

Alternative Modes of MOT Educational Delivery

Existing Programs
A strong partnership between students, the university, and industry is
needed if management education is to be effective. The alliance between the
three parties is shaky, and its basic foundations need to be reexamined. There
are several problem areas that warrant the concern of management and engi-
neering educators and practitioners and require a reexamination of the assump-
tions, methods, and approaches employed by the university in doing its task.
How can the university help better prepare technologists for careers in
management? In addition to the MBA and MEM degree programs, other strate-
gies include:
infusion of MOT training in existing curricula by broadening the scope
and domain of engineering management programs and by creating a field
of concentration in MOT within MBA programs;
initiating graduate degree programs in MOT.

CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 40, NO. 4 SUMMER 1998 107

 Technology Management Education: Alternative Models

The problem with broadening the scope of the typical existing EM or

MBA program is that the educational philosophy, objectives, ideologies, founda-
tions, and program structure are quite different from what would be needed to
make it an MOT graduate program. To be sure, the existing programs cannot be
made broad enough to transform it into an MOT program. Furthermore, a sound
MOT graduate program should not be developed and offered by either the engi-
neering faculty or by the business faculty alone. It should be a joint partnership
and an educational program that is offered and administered by the faculty in
both colleges. This would ensure high quality and program integrity.

A Graduate Program in MOT

While the proposed program might overlap with some of the programs
already available under a variety of names, it should, of course, be different from
both EM and MBA programs. The philosophy, requirements, and content of the
proposed program would, naturally, have to be left for the faculty of the con-
cerned schools and would largely depend on their backgrounds, program objec-
tives, and “market needs.”
Because of the “newness” and evolving nature of MOT as an emerging
discipline, providing a detailed blueprint of the proposed program would not
be appropriate here. However, for the proposed program to be effective in over-
coming the deficiencies inherent in both the MBA and EM degree programs, it
should be designed to meet several criteria. It should:50
be a joint sponsorship by both engineering and business colleges;
seek heavy involvement from the industrial community in providing
valuable input into the design and content of the program;
provide a thorough and substantive coverage of the unique and complex
problems of managing technology;
maintain a profound balance between technology and management in
program structure, content, and course coverage;
take an action learning perspective with a strong skill development
orientation;
provide a balanced content combining learning-by-doing with cognitive
learning through breadth in scope and depth in analysis.
adopt a clinical positive (as opposed to normative) approach to manage-
ment education, incorporating appropriate strategies for adult learning;
and
recognize the foundations of managerial skill development as essentially
a self-development process.
Based on the available research studies, a university curriculum for a
master’s degree in management of technology is proposed in Table 5. Again,
this is not a blueprint, but is meant to stimulate ideas and discussion among

108 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 40, NO. 4 SUMMER 1998

 Technology Management Education: Alternative Models

TABLE 5. Proposed Curriculum for a Master’s Degree in Management of Technology

Foundation Courses/Topics 10. Manufacturing systems and operations

1. Computer-based management support management
systems 11. Marketing and selling technology
2. Managerial accounting and technical 12. Managing technical projects
systems 13. Technology/corporate interfacing
3. Technology and economic analysis 14. Developing interpersonal skills of technical
4. Financial management for technologists managers
5. Quantitative tools for decision making 15. Technology and business unit strategy
6. Technology transfer 16. Technology and innovation management
7. Emerging technology management models 17. Strategic management of technology
and techniques (TQM, concurrent
engineering, cycle time management, Elective Courses/Topics
robotics, etc.)
1. International aspects of managing
8. Techniques for new product development technology
9. Developing managerial skills of technical 2. Design/manufacturing interface
managers management
10. Expert systems in technology management 3. Technological alliances
11. Communication skills for technical people 4. Technology integration and functional
(verbal, nonverbal, written, etc.) interfaces (R&D, engineering, manufacturing,
and marketing)
Core Courses/Topics 5. Analysis of emerging technologies
1. Leaership in technical organizations 6. Technology forecasting
2. Technology and organizational systems 7. Technological entrepreneurship
3. R&D management 8. Technology planning and venture
4. Managing cross-functional teams management
5. Managing process technology 9. Contract management
6. Managing product technology 10. Patent and copyright law for technical
7. Managing information technology managers

8. Human resource utilization systems in 11. Technology assessment and social aspects
technology-based organizations of technology

9. Managing technical professionals 12. Personnel management for technical

professionals

university educators, researchers, and managers in this field.51 In reviewing the

proposed curriculum, it is important to keep the following in mind:
The proposed areas are not necessarily separate program courses, but
topical areas that can be combined into course packages.
Three program tracks are proposed: foundations covering managerial tools
and techniques, core areas, and elective areas.

CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 40, NO. 4 SUMMER 1998 109

 Technology Management Education: Alternative Models

TABLE 6. Selected Universities and Institutes with MOT Offerings:

An International Listing

Bentley College Northeastern University

Carleton University (Canada) Northwestern University
Carnegie-Mellon University Pepperdine University
Clarkson College Polytechnic University of New York
Cranfield Institute of Technology (U.K.) Portland State University
Case Western Reserve University Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Catholic University (Belgium) Rochester Institute of Technology
EuroPACE (European Program of Advanced Stanford Univeristy
Continuing Education) (France) Stevens Institute of Technology
European Institute of Technology (Italy) Sussex University (U.K.)
Fairleigh Dickinson University University of California at Berkeley
George Washington University University of Cincinnati
Georgia Institute of Technology University of Colorado
Harvard Business School University of Kiel (Germany)
Industrial Research Institute University of Manchester (U.K.)
International Institute for Management University of Miami, Florida
Development (Switzerland)
University of Minnesota
JUPITER Consortium (U.K.)
University of Southern California
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
University of Twente (Netherlands)
McMaster University (Canada)
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
National Technological University State University
New Jersey Institute of Technology Washington University

The proposed areas revolve around the four components of MOT: R&D
management; and managing product, process, and information
technologies.
The proposed areas cover the four major resources in an organization:
financial, physical, human, and informational.
Selection of appropriate topical areas for an academic degree in technol-
ogy management must, in the final analysis, depend on the judgment of
the faculty, university administrators, and the professional business com-
munity. It follows that the MOT program curriculum will vary among
different colleges as a function of the program objectives, educational
philosophy, distinctive competence of the school and its geographical
location, market needs, and other community-based considerations.

110 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 40, NO. 4 SUMMER 1998

 Technology Management Education: Alternative Models

TABLE 7. Selected Journals in Engineering and Technology Management:

An International Listing

International Journal of Operations & Production R&D Management

Management Research Policy
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Research Technology Management
Management
Technology Analysis and Strategic
International Journal of Technology Management Management
Journal of Engineering and Technology Technology Review
Management (JET-M)
Technological Forecasting & Social Change
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Technovation
Product and Process Innovation
Transactions on Engineering Management
Project Management Journal

Where to Learn about MOT

University degree programs in MOT are emerging in Europe, and many
U.S. colleges and institutes are also offering degrees, short courses, executive
programs, and seminars in MOT. Collaborative efforts among faculties, involving
multiple universities and multiple countries, are not uncommon.52 As a newly
emerging discipline, it will be some time before those program offerings mature
and stabilize. Table 6 provides a partial listing of universities and institutes offer-
ing degrees or individual courses and seminars in MOT.
In addition to degree programs and seminar offerings, several specialized
journals in engineering and technology management are available. These jour-
nals can provide technologists and scholars with a valuable source of current
information, new developments, and research findings in MOT. A selected list
appears in Table 7.

Conclusion
The implications of the proposed MOT programs are profound. While
most managerial activities in other corporate functions are directed toward man-
aging stability and conformity, managing technology and innovation is, by its
very nature, directed toward managing change. Change is disruptive because it
requires developing and dealing with new ways of doing things, new products,
new markets, and new competitors. Indeed, it requires new ways of thinking.
The management of technology is an integrative process and not a func-
tional activity like engineering management. It focuses on integrating the tech-
nology side of the house (i.e., R&D, engineering, manufacturing) with the
business side of the house (i.e., marketing, finance, human resources). From
this perspective, MOT has an important professional role to play in manage-
ment education. This can then be the university’s response to industry’s need

CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 40, NO. 4 SUMMER 1998 111

 Technology Management Education: Alternative Models

TABLE 8. Management Educational Programs for Technologists: A Comparative Profile

Program
Characteristics
and Features MBA MEM MOT
Target audience Open.Technologists to Technologists to learn Both technologists
learn about about engineering and managers to learn
management management how to manage
technology

Major thrust Management Technology Management of

technology

Orientation Functional Functional Integrative with

specialization specialization strategic orientation

Dominant mode Product-driven Process-driven Technology as a

of thinking strategic corporate
resource

Education and Management Technical disciplines Cross-disciplinary,

research focus disciplines problem- and issue-
driven

Domain Business school Engineering school Joint

Correspondence to Business and Technology side of Cuts across functional

corporate functional management side the house divisions and
structure of the house departmental
structure

for technologists to learn about management and for non-technologist managers

to learn about technology.
Table 8 compares the distinctive features of MBA, MEM, and MOT pro-
grams. While both the MBA and MEM degrees provide valuable knowledge of
management concepts and principles, they will not adequately prepare gradu-
ates for dealing with the unique and complex problems of managing technology.
An MOT curriculum can overcome their deficiencies and lead to more effective
managers who can successfully address the strategic needs of competing in the
global markets in the third millennium.

Notes
1. For a good discussion of this point, see Richard N. Osborn and John Hagedoorn,
“The Institutionalization and Evolutionary Dynamics of Interoranizational
Alliances and Networks,” Academy of Management Journal, 40/2 (April 1997):
261-278.
2. National Science Foundation, Science & Engineering Indicators (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996).

112 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 40, NO. 4 SUMMER 1998

 Technology Management Education: Alternative Models

3. See Yu-Ting Cheng and Andrew H. Van de Ven, “Learning the Innovation Jour-
ney: Order Out of Chaos?” Organization Science, 7/6 (November/December 1996):
593-614; Michael K. Badawy, Management as a New Technology (New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill, 1993), chapters 1 and 2.
4. See, for example, Katherine J. Klein and Joann Spear Sorra, “The Challenge of
Innovation Implementation,” Academy of Management Review, 21/4 (October 1996):
1055-1080; J.F. Coates, J. Mahaffie, and Andy Hines, 2025: Scenarios of US and
Global Society Reshaped by Science and Technology (Greensboro, NC: Oakhill Press,
1997).
5. Michael K. Badawy and Afie M. Badawy, “Directions for Scholarly Research in
Management of Technology,” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,
10/1&2 (June 1993): 1-5.
6. See M.A. Youndt, S.A. Snell, J.W. Dean, and D.P. Lepak, “Human Resource Man-
agement, Manufacturing Strategy, and Firm Performance,” Academy of Management
Journal, 39/4 (August 1996): 836-866; A. Subramanian, “Innovativeness: Redefin-
ing the Concept,” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 13/3&4 (Sep-
tember/December 1996): 223-243.
7. For an excellent discussion, see Peter F. Drucker, “The Discipline of Innovation,”
Harvard Business Review, 63/3 (May/June 1985): 67-72; Robert Drazin and Claudia
Bird Schoonhoven, “Community, Population and Organization Effects on Innova-
tion: A Multilevel Perspective,” Academy of Management Journal, 39/5 (October
1996): 1065-1083; Jan Bossak and Soichiro Nagashima, Corporate Strategies for
a Borderless World (Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization, 1997); John P. Kotter,
General Managers (New York, NY: The Free Press, 1996).
8. Stephen C. Harper, “The Challenges Facing CEOs: Past, Present, and Future,” The
Academy of Management Executive, 6/3 (1992): 7-25; Donald C. Hambrick, “The Top
Management Team: Key to Strategic Success,” California Management Review, 30/1
(Fall 1987): 88-108; J. Macioriello, J. Burke, and D. Tilley, “Improving American
Competitiveness: A Management System Perspective,” The Academy of Management
Executive, 3/4 (1989): 294-303; J.F. Mathis, “Turning R&D Managers into Technol-
ogy Managers,” Research-Technology Management, 35/1 (January/February1992):
35-38.
9. Michael L. Dertouzos, Richard K. Lester, and Robert M. Solow, Made in America:
Regaining the Productive Edge (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989).
10. See Raymond E. Miles, Henry J. Coleman, Jr., and W.E. Douglas Creed, “Keys to
Success in Corporate Redesign,” California Management Review, 37/3 (Spring 1995):
128-145; John G. Irwin, James J. Hoffman, and Bruce T. Lamont, “The Effect of
the Acquisition of Technological Innovations on Organizational Performance: A
Resource-Based View,” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 15/1
(March 1998).
11. For more on this point, see Leonard H. Lynn, John D. Aram, and N. Mohan
Reddy, “Technology Communities and Innovation Communities,” Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management, 14/2 (June 1997): 129-145.
12. Peter F. Drucker, “The Information Executives Truly Need,” Harvard Business
Review, 73/1 (January/February 1995): 54-63; G.G. Dess, A.M.A. Rasheed, K.J.
McLaughlin, and R.L. Priem, “The New Corporate Architecture,” The Academy of
Management Executive, 9/3 (August 1995): 7-20; Jay A. Conger, “The Brave New
World of Leadership Training,” Organizational Dynamics, 21/3 (Winter 1993): 46-
58; Andrew H. Van de Ven, “A Community Perspective on the Emergence of
Innovations,” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 10/1&2 (June
1993): 23-51.
13. Dertouzos, op. cit., chapters 3, 4, and 5; Badawy, op. cit., chapter 1, pp. 3-34.

CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 40, NO. 4 SUMMER 1998 113

 Technology Management Education: Alternative Models

14. See, for example, Rita G. McGrath, “A Real Options Logic for Initiating Technol-
ogy Positioning Investments,” The Academy of Management Review, 22/4 (October
1997): 974-996; Jeanne H. Liedtka, “Collaborating Across Lines of Business for
Competitive Advantage,” The Academy of Management Executive, 10/2 (May 1996):
20-34; S. Ghoshal and C.A. Bartlett, “Changing the Role of Top Management:
Beyond Structure to Processes,” Harvard Business Review, 73/1 (January/February
1995): 86-96.
15. For an interesting discussion, see Deborah Dougherty and Edward H. Bowman,
“The Effects of Organizational Downsizing on Product Innovation,” California
Management Review, 37/4 (Summer 1995): 28-44; William McKinley, Carol M.
Sanchez, and Allen G. Schick, “Organizational Downsizing: Constraining, Cloning,
Learning,” The Academy of Management Executive, 9/3 (August 1995): 32-44;
Ghoshal and Bartlett, op. cit.; Michael K. Badawy, “Technology and Strategic
Advantage: Managing Corporate Technology Transfer in the U.S. and Japan,”
International Journal of Technology Management (1991), pp. 205-215.
16. Richie Herink, “Technology Management Education for the Third Millenium,”
International Journal of Technology Management, 10/3 (1995): 353-359.
17. See, for example, Sara L. Keck, “Top Management Team Structure: Differential
Effect by Environmental Context,” Organization Science, 8/2 (April 1997): 143-156;
Eric H. Kessler and Alok K. Chakrabarti, “Innovation Speed: A Conceptual Model
of Context, Antecedents, and Outcomes,” Academy of Management Review, 21/4
(October 1996): 1143-1191.
18. Based on data and estimates provided by the Engineering Workforce Commission
of the American Association of Engineering Societies.
19. See, for example, James Brian Quinn, Philip Anderson, and Sydney Finkelstein,
“Leveraging Intellect,” Academy of Management Executive, 10/3 (November 1996):
7-27; Brian Becker and Barry Gerhart, “The Impact of Human Resource Manage-
ment on Organizational Performance: Progress and Prospects,” Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 39/4 (August 1996): 779-801; C.A. Lengnick-Hall and M.L.
Lengnick-Hall, “Strategic Human Resources Management: A Review of the Litera-
ture and a Proposed Typology,” Academy of Management Review, 13/3 (1988): 454-
470; Michael K. Badawy, “A New Paradigm for Understanding Management as a
New Technology: A Research Agenda for ‘Technocologists’,” International Journal of
Technology Management, 12/5&6 (1996): 717-732.
20. Mary Ann Glynn, “Innovative Genius: A Framework for Relating Individual and
Organizational Intelligences to Innovation,” Academy of Management Review, 21/4
(October 1996): 1081-1111; T.M. Amabile, R. Conti, H. Coon, J. Lazerby, and M.
Herron, “Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity,” Academy of Management
Journal, 39/5 (October 1996): 1154-1184; Michael Bonsign-Ore, “Four Forces of
Career Change,” Engineering Management Review, 25/1 (Spring 1997): 67-72.
21. See, for example, Ralph Katz, ed., The Human Side of Managing Technological Inno-
vation (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997); Cameron M. Ford, “A
Theory of Individual Creative Action in Multiple Social Domains,” Academy of
Management Review, 21/4 (October 1996): 1112-1142; R. Cordero, G. F. Farris, and
N. Di Tomaso, “Identifying and Developing Promotability in R&D Laboratories,”
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 11/1 (March 1994): 55-72; N. Di
Tomaso, G. F. Farris, and R Codero, “Diversity in the Technical Workforce: Re-
Thinking the Management of Scientists and Engineers,” Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management, 10/1&2 (June 1993): 101-128.
22. For an excellent discussion of this issue, see Brent B. Allred, Charles C. Snow, and
Raymond Miles, “Characteristics of Managial Caeers in the 21st Century,” The
Academy of Management Executive, 10/4 (November 1996): 17-27; Shirou Fujita,
A Strategy for Corporate Innovation (Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization, 1997);

114 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 40, NO. 4 SUMMER 1998

 Technology Management Education: Alternative Models

James E. Tingstad, “Why Do Technical Managers Ignore the Data?” Research-Tech-

nology Management, 35/1 (January/February 1992): 8-9; Michael K. Badawy, Devel-
oping Managerial Skills in Engineers and Scientists, Second Edition (New York, NY:
Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1995); T.J. Allen, Managing the Flow of Technology (Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984).
23. See Debra M. Amidon Rogers, “The Challenge of Fifth Generation R&D,” Research-
Technology Management, 39/4 (July/August 1996): 33-41; Lisa H. Pelled and Paul S.
Adler, “Antecedents of Intergroup Conflict in Multifunctional Product Develop-
ment Teams: A Conceptual Model,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
4/1 (February 1994): 21-28.
24. Deborah Dougherty and Cynthia Hardy, “Sustained Product Innovation in Large
Mature Organizations: Overcoming Innovation-to-Organization Problems,” Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 39/5 (October 1996): 1120-1153; Claudia U. Ciborra,
“The Platform Organization: Recombining Strategies, Structures, and Surprises,”
Organization Science, 7/2 (March/April 1996): 103-118.
25. Michael K. Badawy, “Practical Issues in Managing Technical Professionals,” Inter-
national Journal of Technology Management, 13/5&6 (1992): 428-442.
26. For an excellent critical evaluation of management education for technologists
and MBA programs, see Richard T. Mowday, “Redefining Our Scholarly Values,”
Academy of Management Review, 22/2 (April 1997): 335-345; Jane C. Linder and H.
Jeff Smith,” The Complex Case of Management Education,” Harvard Business
Review, 70/5 (September/October 1992): 16-33; “Management Education: Pass-
port to Prosperity,” The Economist, March 2, 1991, pp. 6-28.
27. AACSB Report (1996), op. cit.; Linder and Smith, op. cit.; J.C. Mason, “Business
Schools: Striving to Meet Customer Demand,” Management Review, 81/9 (Septem-
ber 1992): 10-14; James Reeve, “Graduate Management Education in Transition,”
Survey of Business, 28/1 (Summer 1992): 3-5.
28. John H. Sheridan, “The New Breed of MBA,” Industry Week (October 1993), pp.
11-16.
29. The American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business, A Report of the AACSB
Faculty Leadership Task Force, April 1996, St. Louis, MO.
30. Ibid., p. 4.
31. Mowday, op. cit., p. 337.
32. Russell Ackoff, “Higher Education and Social Stratification,” Interfaces, 24/4
(1994): 73-82; Russell Ackoff, “OR: A Post Mortem,” Operations Research, 35/3
(1987): 471-474.
33. Ackoff (1987), op. cit.
34. Henry Mintzberg, The Nature of Managerial Work (New York, NY: Harper & Row,
1973), p. 186.
35. AACSB (1996), op. cit.
36. This discussion is partly based on Edgar H. Schein, “Career Anchors Revisited:
Implications for Career Development in the 21 st Century,” The Academy of
Management Executive, 10/4 (November 1996): 80-88; the AACSB Report (1996),
op. cit.; Mowday, op. cit.; William A.B. Purdon, “Increasing R&D Effectiveness:
Researchers as Business People,” Research-Technology Management, 39/4 (July/
August 1996): 48-56; John P. Kotter, “Leading Change: Why Transformation
Efforts Fail,” Harvard Business Review, 73/3 (March/April 1995); Dertouzos et al.,
op. cit.
37. National Research Council, Research on the Management of Technology (Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press, 1991); National Research Council, Management of
Technology: The Hidden Competitive Advantage (Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press, 1987).

CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 40, NO. 4 SUMMER 1998 115

 Technology Management Education: Alternative Models

38. Discussion in the section in based partly on D.F. Kocaoglu, “Technology Manage-
ment: Educational Trends,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 41/4
(November 1994): 347-349; D.F. Kocaoglu, “Research and Educational Character-
istics of the Engineering Management Discipline,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 37/3 (August 1990): 172-176.
39. Kocaoglu (1994), op. cit.
40. For an interesting discussion, see Arnold Reisman, “Technology Management: A
Brief Review of the Last 40 years and Some Thoughts on Its Future,” IEEE Trans-
actions on Engineering Management, 41/4 (November 1994): 342-346; A. Bailetti and
J. R. Callahan, “The Engineering Management Synthesis: Evidence from Graduate
Programs in Telecommunications,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
40/1 (February 1993): 30-39.
41. National Research Council report, op. cit.
42. William A. Weimer, “Education for Technology Management,” Research-Technology
Management. (May/June 1991): 41-45.
43. Herink, op. cit.
44. Badawy and Badawy, op. cit.
45. S.E. Herman and K.G. Provan, “An Emergent Theory of Structure and Outcomes
in Small Firm Strategic Manufacturing Networks,” Academy of Management Journal,
40/2 (April 1997): 368-403.
46. C. Marlene Fiol, “Squeezing Harder Doesn’t Always Work: Continuing the Search
for Consistency in Innovation Research,” Academy of Management Review, 21/4
(October 1996): 1012-1021; Philip Anderson, “Toward Exemplary Research in the
Management of Technology,” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,
10/1&2 (June 1993): 7-22.
47. For an excellent discussion, see Raghu Garud and David Ahlstrom, “Technology
Assessment: A Socio-Cognitive Perspective,” Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management, 14/1 (March 1997); W.G. Egelhoff and C.S. Haklisch, “Strategy, Size
of Firm, and the Use of Technological Alliances: An Exploratory Study,” Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management, 11/2 (June 1994): 117-148; Kim B. Clark,
“What Strategy Can Do for Technology?” Harvard Business Review, 67/6 (Novem-
ber/December 1989): 94-98; Joseph Morone, “Strategic Use of Technology,” Cali-
fornia Management Review, 31/4 (Summer 1989): 91-110.
48. Abbie Griffin, “Modeling and Measuring Product Development Cycle Time Across
Industries,” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 14/1 (March 1997);
Philip Anderson, op. cit.
49. Herink, op. cit.
50. Peter J. Frost, “Bridging Academia and Business,” Organization Science, 8/3
(May/June 1997): 333-347; Mowday, op. cit.; Dertouzos et al., op. cit.
51. See, for example, the AACSB Report, op. cit.; Manuel London, “Redeployment
and Continuous Learning in the 21st Century,” Academy of Management Executive,
10/4 (November 1996): 67-79; Michael B. Arthur and Denise Rousseau, “A New
Career Lexicon for the 21st Century,” Academy of Management Executive, 10/4
(November 1996): 28-39.
52. Weimer, op. cit.; Trevor Grigg, “Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Universities:
A Case Study of Higher Education in Australia,” Journal of Engineering and Technol-
ogy Management, 11/3&4 (December 1994): 273-298.

116 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOL. 40, NO. 4 SUMMER 1998