IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v151y2020ics0040162518308539.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Searching for the right application: A technology development review and research agenda

Author

Listed:
  • Magistretti, Stefano
  • Dell'Era, Claudio
  • Verganti, Roberto

Abstract

Today's world is characterized by a continuous evolution in the demand and supply of new technology solutions, challenging the way companies pursue and manage technology development. Indeed, companies can no longer take decades to develop new technologies, but are compelled to deliver technologies in a short space of time. Despite the ample literature on the different technology development processes, the main factors influencing the creation of technological solutions remain unclear. The problem is no longer identifying a new process for developing a technology, but understanding which elements can guide the selection of the best approach for the situation faced. The aim of this study is therefore to provide a systematic literature review of technology development studies to contribute to shed lights on how companies can develop technology to foster innovations in a society that is continuously evolving its technological needs. The analysis of 187 articles highlights that process, organization, and knowledge are the three key dimensions that influence every technology development process. Thus, two main dichotomies emerge (i) linear vs iterative on the process level, (ii) designing vs finding on the knowledge level. Accordingly, we propose a research agenda based on a framework mapping the four resulting approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Magistretti, Stefano & Dell'Era, Claudio & Verganti, Roberto, 2020. "Searching for the right application: A technology development review and research agenda," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:151:y:2020:i:c:s0040162518308539
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119879
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162518308539
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119879?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefano Magistretti & Claudio Dell’Era & Alfredo De Massis & Federico Frattini, 2019. "Exploring the relationship between types of family involvement and collaborative innovation in design-intensive firms: insights from two leading players in the furniture industry," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(10), pages 1121-1151, November.
    2. Lehoux, P. & Daudelin, G. & Williams-Jones, B. & Denis, J.-L. & Longo, C., 2014. "How do business model and health technology design influence each other? Insights from a longitudinal case study of three academic spin-offs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 1025-1038.
    3. Markman, Gideon D. & Gianiodis, Peter T. & Phan, Phillip H. & Balkin, David B., 2005. "Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 1058-1075, September.
    4. Satish Nambisan, 2017. "Digital Entrepreneurship: Toward a Digital Technology Perspective of Entrepreneurship," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 41(6), pages 1029-1055, November.
    5. Ron Adner & Rahul Kapoor, 2016. "Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re-examining technology S-curves," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 625-648, April.
    6. Schmoch, Ulrich, 2007. "Double-boom cycles and the comeback of science-push and market-pull," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 1000-1015, September.
    7. Slaughter, Sarah, 1993. "Innovation and learning during implementation: a comparison of user and manufacturer innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 81-95, February.
    8. Wang, I. Kim & Seidle, Russell, 2017. "The degree of technological innovation: A demand heterogeneity perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 166-177.
    9. Marcel Bogers & Ann-Kristin Zobel & Allan Afuah & Esteve Almirall & Sabine Brunswicker & Linus Dahlander & Lars Frederiksen & Annabelle Gawer & Marc Gruber & Stefan Haefliger & John Hagedoorn & Dennis, 2017. "The open innovation research landscape: established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 8-40, January.
    10. Philip M. Podsakoff & Scott B. MacKenzie & Daniel G. Bachrach & Nathan P. Podsakoff, 2005. "The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 473-488, May.
    11. Cooper, Robert G., 1990. "Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 44-54.
    12. Su, Hsin-Ning & Moaniba, Igam M., 2017. "Investigating the dynamics of interdisciplinary evolution in technology developments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 12-23.
    13. Alva Taylor, 2010. "The Next Generation: Technology Adoption and Integration Through Internal Competition in New Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 23-41, February.
    14. Ron Adner & Daniel Levinthal, 2001. "Demand Heterogeneity and Technology Evolution: Implications for Product and Process Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 611-628, May.
    15. Bart Leten & Rene Belderbos & Bart Van Looy, 2016. "Entry and Technological Performance in New Technology Domains: Technological Opportunities, Technology Competition and Technological Relatedness," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(8), pages 1257-1291, December.
    16. Denicolai, Stefano & Ramirez, Matias & Tidd, Joe, 2016. "Overcoming the false dichotomy between internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition: Absorptive capacity dynamics over time," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 57-65.
    17. Markus A. Kirchberger & Larissa Pohl, 2016. "Technology commercialization: a literature review of success factors and antecedents across different contexts," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(5), pages 1077-1112, October.
    18. Popp, David, 2017. "From science to technology: The value of knowledge from different energy research institutions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1580-1594.
    19. Jha, Aditya & Fernandes, Kiran & Xiong, Yu & Nie, Jiajia & Agarwal, Neelesh & Tiwari, Manoj K., 2017. "Effects of demand forecast and resource sharing on collaborative new product development in supply chain," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 207-221.
    20. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    21. Christensen, Clayton M. & Rosenbloom, Richard S., 1995. "Explaining the attacker's advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 233-257, March.
    22. Chang, Shu-Hao, 2017. "The technology networks and development trends of university-industry collaborative patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 107-113.
    23. F. Scapolo & A. L. Porter, 2008. "New Methodological Developments in FTA," Springer Books, in: Cristiano Cagnin & Michael Keenan & Ron Johnston & Fabiana Scapolo & Rémi Barré (ed.), Future-Oriented Technology Analysis, chapter 11, pages 149-162, Springer.
    24. V. Krishnan & Shantanu Bhattacharya, 2002. "Technology Selection and Commitment in New Product Development: The Role of Uncertainty and Design Flexibility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(3), pages 313-327, March.
    25. Erwin Danneels, 2007. "The process of technological competence leveraging," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 511-533, May.
    26. Kerstin Cuhls, 2003. "From forecasting to foresight processes-new participative foresight activities in Germany," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2-3), pages 93-111.
    27. Stolwijk, C.C.M. & Ortt, J.R. & den Hartigh, E., 2013. "The joint evolution of alliance networks and technology: A survey of the empirical literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(7), pages 1287-1305.
    28. Magistretti, Stefano & Dell’Era, Claudio & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio, 2019. "How intelligent is Watson? Enabling digital transformation through artificial intelligence," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 62(6), pages 819-829.
    29. Johnson, William H.A., 2011. "Managing university technology development using organizational control theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 842-852, July.
    30. Iansiti, Marco, 1995. "Technology integration: Managing technological evolution in a complex environment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 521-542, July.
    31. Ghazinoory, Sepehr & Dastranj, Nasrin & Saghafi, Fatemeh & Kulshreshtha, Arun & Hasanzadeh, Alireza, 2017. "Technology roadmapping architecture based on technological learning: Case study of social banking in Iran," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 231-242.
    32. Dahlin, Kristina B. & Behrens, Dean M., 2005. "When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 717-737, June.
    33. Chaudhuri, Shekhar, 1986. "Technological innovation in a research laboratory in India: A case study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 89-103, April.
    34. Marco Iansiti, 2000. "How the Incumbent Can Win: Managing Technological Transitions in the Semiconductor Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 169-185, February.
    35. Douthwaite, B. & Keatinge, J. D. H. & Park, J. R., 2001. "Why promising technologies fail: the neglected role of user innovation during adoption," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 819-836, May.
    36. Chesbrough, Henry, 2003. "The governance and performance of Xerox's technology spin-off companies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 403-421, March.
    37. Kristina Dahlin & Deans M. Behrens, 2005. "When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Post-Print hal-00480416, HAL.
    38. Kim, Bowon, 1998. "Optimal development of production technology when autonomous and induced learning are present," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 39-52, June.
    39. Costantini, Valeria & Crespi, Francesco & Martini, Chiara & Pennacchio, Luca, 2015. "Demand-pull and technology-push public support for eco-innovation: The case of the biofuels sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 577-595.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Grybauskas, Andrius & Stefanini, Alessandro & Ghobakhloo, Morteza, 2022. "Social sustainability in the age of digitalization: A systematic literature Review on the social implications of industry 4.0," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    2. Sanasi, Silvia & Ghezzi, Antonio & Cavallo, Angelo, 2023. "What happens after market validation? Experimentation for scaling in technology-based startups," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    3. Waßenhoven, Anna & Rennings, Michael & Laibach, Natalie & Bröring, Stefanie, 2023. "What constitutes a “Key Enabling Technology” for transition processes: Insights from the bioeconomy's technological landscape," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    4. Şimşek, Tolga & Öner, M Atilla & Kunday, Özlem & Olcay, Gökçen Arkalı, 2022. "A journey towards a digital platform business model: A case study in a global tech-company," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schmidt, Arne & Walter, Sascha G. & Walter, Achim, 2010. "Contingency Factors and the Technology-Performance-Relationship in Start-ups," EconStor Preprints 37082, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    2. Cammarano, Antonello & Michelino, Francesca & Lamberti, Emilia & Caputo, Mauro, 2017. "Accumulated stock of knowledge and current search practices: The impact on patent quality," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 204-222.
    3. Natalya Vinokurova & Rahul Kapoor, 2020. "Converting inventions into innovations in large firms: How inventors at Xerox navigated the innovation process to commercialize their ideas," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(13), pages 2372-2399, December.
    4. Yuandi Wang & Xiongfeng Pan & Yantai Chen & Xin Gu, 2013. "Do references in transferred patent documents signal learning opportunities for the receiving firms?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 731-752, May.
    5. Sajad Ashouri & Anne-Laure Mention & Kosmas X. Smyrnios, 2021. "Anticipation and analysis of industry convergence using patent-level indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5727-5758, July.
    6. McCarthy, Killian J & Aalbers, Hendrik Leendert, 2022. "Alliance-to-acquisition transitions: The technological performance implications of acquiring one's alliance partners," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    7. Matt Marx & Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu, 2014. "Dynamic Commercialization Strategies for Disruptive Technologies: Evidence from the Speech Recognition Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(12), pages 3103-3123, December.
    8. Kathryn Rudie Harrigan & Maria Chiara Guardo & Bo Cowgill, 2017. "Multiplicative-innovation synergies: tests in technological acquisitions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(5), pages 1212-1233, October.
    9. Dirk Fornahl & Nils Grashof & Alexander Kopka, 2021. "Do not neglect the periphery?! - the emergence and diffusion of radical innovations," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2102, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    10. Mariia Shkolnykova & Muhamed Kudic, 2022. "Who benefits from SMEs’ radical innovations?—empirical evidence from German biotechnology," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 1157-1185, February.
    11. Jan M. Gerken & Martin G. Moehrle, 2012. "A new instrument for technology monitoring: novelty in patents measured by semantic patent analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 645-670, June.
    12. Keith D. Brouthers & Ram Mudambi & David M. Reeb, 2012. "The blockbuster hypothesis: influencing the boundaries of knowledge," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 959-982, March.
    13. Leone, Maria Isabella & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio & Natalicchio, Angelo, 2022. "Boundary spanning through external technology acquisition: The moderating role of star scientists and upstream alliances," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    14. Yoon, Jungsub & Lee, Jeong-Dong & Hwang, Seogwon, 2022. "Episodic change: A new approach to identifying industrial transition," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    15. Zahra, Shaker A. & Liu, Wan & Si, Steven, 2023. "How digital technology promotes entrepreneurship in ecosystems," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    16. Ugo Rizzo & Nicolò Barbieri & Laura Ramaciotti & Demian Iannantuono, 2020. "The division of labour between academia and industry for the generation of radical inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 393-413, April.
    17. Ron Boschma & Ernest Miguelez & Rosina Moreno & Diego B. Ocampo-Corrales, 2021. "Technological breakthroughs in European regions: the role of related and unrelated combinations," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2118, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jun 2021.
    18. Strumsky, Deborah & Lobo, José, 2015. "Identifying the sources of technological novelty in the process of invention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1445-1461.
    19. Quentin Plantec & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2020. "Impact of knowledge search practices on the originality of inventions: a study in the oil & gas industry," Post-Print hal-02613665, HAL.
    20. Barbieri, Nicolò & Marzucchi, Alberto & Rizzo, Ugo, 2020. "Knowledge sources and impacts on subsequent inventions: Do green technologies differ from non-green ones?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:151:y:2020:i:c:s0040162518308539. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.
    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy