Clandia Maffini Gomes e Isak Kruglianskas
Recibido: - Aprobado:
Basically, technology can be exploited in two ways. The first is internal use, when a company obtains technology from its own products, processes and operations. The second way is to make use of technology obtained from external sources. External use may involve numerous methods, such as licensing a technology to another company; joint ventures, by working together with other companies to exploit technology; contracting in, by using the company's technology processes to manufacture another company's products; using the technology of a company product to design a product for another company; using the company's marketing technology for another company's product; and contracting out, whereby another company does the designing or manufacturing, or carries out the marketing for the company (Ford & Saren, 1996).
Also according to Ford and Saren (1996), one central problem in improving returns on investments in technology is that many companies approach the analysis and implementation of the use of technology from an internal and restricted perspective. Few companies have strategic visions of external use, and few stop to think about when and how they might sell their technology to others or cooperate with others in using certain types of technology. There are many reasons for this restricted perspective in exploiting technology. Among them, one could include (1) guidelines from senior management with little long-term strategic vision as to the development and exploitation of the company's processes and marketing technology, (2) the company's having an organizational structure more focused on product and markets than on the technology developed, (3) a stronger orientation toward marketing products than for marketing the use of technology on which the products are based (4) inadequate accounting, with few mechanisms for measuring returns on technological investments, (5) mechanical approaches that give less attention to the strategic use of the technology on which a company's products are based, and (6) the planning of life cycles without integrating inputs from different areas in the company.
Very few companies can build core capabilities without importing some knowledge from outside their doors; but success absorbed from outside is as important as internal efforts, and no less difficult to attain (Leornard-Barton, 1995).
A company's ability to recognize the value of new information from outside, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial purposes, is critical for its capacity to innovate. The benefits of knowledge depend not only on the quality of the source of technology but, especially, on the organization's ability to absorb it. Leornard-Barton (1995) says that companies differ considerably in their ability to develop external knowledge, that is, to identify, access and assimilate knowledge from external sources of technology information.
The strategy of using technology involves internal and external analyses. Internal analysis means evaluating the company's current position, by clearly defining the problem and the company's technology. It also involves external analysis of the existence and potential of opportunities and the type of organizational need to obtain technologies from different sources at the same time, and use them for particular applications.
The integration of different methods of exploitation is critical for companies, say Ford and Saren (1996). Various methods may be appropriate in any given circumstance and during successive stages of a single technology. One competitive advantage for a company consists of not choosing a single technology, but integrating an appropriate set of products, processes and technologies for a particular application. The choice of the method to be used and when it should be used are the key decisions for using a given technology.
The potential for applying a specific type of technology affects the decision to use it during the stages of its life cycle. A high potential for exploitation suggests the need for technological support, especially in the marketing area, where little is generally known about the potential for applying different types of technology. A company can exploit technology internally in areas where there is need for technological support, and externally through a combination of joint ventures and licensing. One important question about the exploitation of external technology is knowing when to use a particular technology. The most common reasons for use are: (1) to enter a new and specific area of application for which the company currently has no appropriate set of technology, (2) the search for additional benefits from technology in areas outside its control, (3) contacts with some other company that wants to use the technology in its operations, (4) the desire to exercise a measure of control over the use of the technology, and (5) for partners that are innovating in a particular application (Ford & Saren, 1996).
The use of external sources of technology information is expected to increase substantially in coming years. Organizations have changed their focus of innovation from the use of internal sources of information to that of external sources, such as consumers, research carried out by companies, and partnerships between companies and universities. Some industrial companies are trying to reduce innovation activities based on internal sources and are moving toward venture capital, alliances and acquisitions of technology. Even though organizations may use external sources of technology information, they usually do not have strategies for managing these sources. Having a strategy for managing sources of information for innovation not only helps an organization decide on a combination of internal and external sources. It also allows them to lever ahead the current innovation. Few companies show defined strategies for managing sources of information and few manage the different sources in an integrated way to obtain better results (Linder; Jarvenpaa & Davenport, 2003).
Increased global competition is causing shorter life cycles of products and services, and this means that new products must be developed faster, says Chatterji (1996). Companies now recognize that they should make use of all types of sources of technology – internal and external – to increase their speed. Operational and other costs are factors that also pressure the need for change. In addition, cooperation with external sources of technology becomes an interesting option because investment risks can then be shared jointly by companies.
A company's ability to expand knowledge by using external sources of information results from the combination of different relationships, which may be either formal or informal. This may mean involvement with other companies, cooperation among companies (consumers and suppliers), and the diffusion of technology among companies (through departments at universities or laboratories of the public and private sectors), the possibility of setting up networks of workers in research and development, and the establishment of individual relationships with scientists and engineers from other organizations. The specific focus of innovation found in most companies is more closely related to individual responsibility than to a corporate plan. Few companies have a clear focus on corporate innovation and rarely have a model of innovation as their target. The process of innovation in business tends to occur mainly during occasional periods of re-engineering. Among the main advantages of using external sources of technology information are the creation of new opportunities, faster and better results, reduction in costs of innovation, more ease in defining priorities, and stimulus for internal innovation (Beltramo; Mason & Paul, 2004).
Companies are using external sources of information during all the stages of their processes of innovation, ranging from discovery and development to sales and product maintenance. And they use different sources during different stages of the process (Linder et al., 2003).
Chatterji (1996) drew up a conceptual model for managing external sources of technology information, which is increasingly important for improving companies' capacity to innovate. Each company should develop and put into practice a set of management practices that will address its specific interests. On the basis of the results obtained in his research on the topic, Chatterji (1996) drew up a list of useful industrial practices that are available to companies interested in beginning or broadening the effects of their use of sources of technology.
In conclusion, Chatterji (1996) holds that the management of external sources of technology information should be developed and put in place in plans that integrate both internal and external sources. Success in the use of external sources of information requires a planned approach toward the management of business processes. It is increasingly important to unite this type of approach with practices being produced by the R&D community. Companies that are interested in increasing their efforts at effectively using external sources of technology information should carry out practices that will increase their innovation capacity.
The use of external sources of technology information involves some subtle and problematic limitations, including culture, speed, flow of information, and working processes. To adopt a strategy for managing sources of information for innovation implies drawing up a management model for innovation different from that which most companies currently use. With such a strategy, specialization in sales and marketing, and the management of channels of innovation will be more important for success in innovation. Managing an innovation process should be aimed at capturing more added value than what solely internal development can provide. It is also essential to measure performance, even if the results are not perfectly accurate. (Linder et al., 2003). There are many ways to evaluate sources of information for innovation, and companies should unite them in different and effective ways
When companies use external sources of technology, this means they go looking for new opportunities, by experimenting, constructing knowledge, and even studying interesting problems and acquiring new knowledge (Darso, 2001).
Theoreticians have recently begun to see more clearly the importance of studies that evaluate companies' external capacity to develop their networks in conjunction with other organizations. The perspective of setting up external relationships with other organizations has important implications for a company's performance. Zaheer and Bell (2005) published a study aimed at identifying whether companies with high-grade network structures are better at exploiting their internal capacity to improve their performance. The results of the study showed that a company's capacity to innovate and the structure of its network both improve its performance. The ability to innovate does not directly improve performance, but innovative companies that have such network structures, do improve it.
For McEvily and Zaheer (1999), research often considers the effects of a company’s network on performance, especially in relation to its partners and structure. A company's value comes from a number of different directions, including its contacts, the research that is controlled by these contacts, the company's ability to exploit such studies and, ties built up through partnerships.
Organizations vary in their ability to develop, understand and use innovation and knowledge. The key factor for improving a company's ability to use and benefit from knowledge acquired outside is its capacity to absorb, which is often reflected in its ability to innovate and exploit new knowledge (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Internal communication and cultural factors also influence a company's capacity for innovation (Chandy & Tellis, 1998).
A company’s ability to innovate must be taken into consideration when explaining its performance. Whereas a network structure influences performance in the context of use and transfer of knowledge, its effects can be reduced by the focus adopted and by changes in the company's capacities. Having a high-grade network structure means that a company is able to exploit the knowledge it garners from its contacts. If one examines both a company's focus and the changes that have taken place in its capacities, as well as their joint effects on the value of the network structure, one can understand the factors that affect access to the exploitation of knowledge obtained from the network, and made use of to influence its performance. The maintenance of partnerships generates further ideas for innovation that can be put into practice in a company's operations, in order to introduce new and innovative products and services that will improve its performance (Zaheer & Bell, 2005).
A study carried out by Cohen and Levinthal (1990) concluded that a company's ability to absorb new or outside influences is critical for its ability to innovate. The ability to absorb can be defined as the capacity for a company to recognize the value of new and external information, assimilate it and apply it to commercial purposes. Companies with high ability to absorb tend to be proactive and skillful in taking advantage of opportunities, whereas companies with low ability to absorb tend to be more reactive (Dorso, 2001).
Linder et al. (2003) analyzed the way in which organizations are currently establishing and using external sources of information for innovation. For them, organizations are increasing their alliances, but most show lack of strategy for managing their sources of innovation. They transact with few, and only familiar, external sources of information, and fail to obtain adequate results from this important activity. The availability of information exercises a crucial role in decisions made by analysts, who may abandon measures with high capacity to predict value due to the high cost of acquiring this information, and they sometimes tend to look for short-term analyses, due to the volatility of the economy in general.
It is important to note the recent increase in the influence of non-financial information used by companies and their greater interest in factors related to strategy, credibility of managers, innovation, and market position (Low, 1998, as cited in Pace, Basso, & Silva, 2003).
According to Costa and Cunha (2001), technological training can be measured by means of different indicators, but all refer to infrastructure, training of human resources involved in R&D, external sources of acquisition of technology, and the results attained. In their study on metal, mechanical, electrical and electronic sectors, Costa and Cunha identified the main indicators as industrial automation, the ability to generate technology, the number of employees in R&D, the importance attributed to the R&D area, and the percentage of annual sales invested in R&D. Once a company has identified and understood the impact of technologies on products and the impact on the products' competitiveness, it can focus its internal resources on levels of competence. Other technological needs can be sought externally from partners or through sub-contracting.
One of the main problems that become apparent when one analyzes the innovative behavior of companies is the limited availability of data. For R. Sbragia, Kruglianskas, Andreassi and R. Sbragia (1998), for example, the indicators shown for a number of different countries are very incipient and limited. However, a number of international institutions have decided to set up and define common indicators.
The concepts and indicators presented above show the increasing importance that companies are giving to the installment of mechanisms for evaluating performance, as a way to guarantee their development and competitiveness. The concepts and indicators also call attention to the need to establish and use indicators that are adequate to each company's business reality, but based on international standards and methods, in order to obtain comparative data. Beyond establishing indicators, companies must create their own cultures of evaluation of their activities and operations.
[anterior] [inicio] [siguiente]
Vol. 31 (1) 2010
[Índice]