Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:332529 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
and Accounting, Allameh Design/methodology/approach – To respond to the two main questions about technology
Tabatabaei University, intelligence in this paper, the authors have studied relevant academic, peer-reviewed journals and
Tehran, Iran. books using the literature databases of Google Scholar, Sciencedirect, Inderscience, Wiley and
Gholam Reza Tavakoli is Emerald Insight. They have used few selection criteria to choose papers and books for inclusion in their
a Strategic Management study.
Consultant based at the Findings – Enhancing the authors’ understanding of the technology intelligence concept by
Department of responding to the two main questions (What is technology intelligence? How is it accomplished?),
Management and classifying the main studies in the field of technology intelligence and several practical and theoretical
Economy, Tarbiat implications are the findings in this paper.
Modares University, Practical implications – A number of practical implications related to technology intelligence
Tehran, Iran. structure, process, methods, tools and players are suggested to managers of organizations and
companies to improve their technology-related planning processes and decision-making.
Originality/value – Despite the considerable level of consensus on the necessity of precise scanning
and monitoring technological changes and trends, there is still limited understanding of the technology
intelligence concept. This paper intends to enhance the authors’ understanding of technology
intelligence by responding to two questions: What is technology intelligence? And how is it
accomplished?
Keywords Tools, Process, Methods, Structure, Players, Technology intelligence
Paper type Literature review
1. Introduction
Scholars’ research has so far produced various reasons for corporations’ failures in
confrontation with radical technological changes. One of the most important reasons has
been the poor and partial process of technology intelligence (Lichtenthaler, 2007).
Although most managers tend to claim that their companies are well keeping pace with the
latest developments in their areas of specialization, they hardly have a systematic
methodology to sift the key elements of technological change out of the general current of
information in their environment. On the other hand, the fast and high availability of
information and technological knowledge is, at first, seen as a benefit for organizations in
the information age. On closer examination, the outcome of this is a big challenge. The
amount of information that is available these days has to be systematically structured
(Schuh et al., 2014).
Furthermore, traditional monitoring processes in most companies tend to be carried out
haphazardly and spontaneously. Meanwhile, there is also a bunch of studies spotting that
Received 20 November 2014
Revised 27 February 2015
in some organizations, a limited set of tools are applied to support strategic planning
Accepted 7 April 2015 (Fleisher, 2006). Whatever the case, in today’s world, such unorganized processes to
PAGE 240 Foresight VOL. 17 NO. 3 2015, pp. 240-256, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1463-6689 DOI 10.1108/FS-11-2014-0072
monitor technological changes and compile technological strategy plan are hardly
sufficient (Patton, 2005).
On the one hand, the quality of the gathered information on the current and future trends
of technology holds fundamental influence on the effectiveness of technology management
in organizations (Iansiti, 2000), and on the other, complexity and dynamicity of
technological developments pose serious setbacks to creating a database of related
technological trends. These necessitate tapping into a systematic approach toward
monitoring technological changes and developments to identify the existing technological
threats and opportunities in the environment (Savioz, 2004; Kerr et al., 2006; Arman and
Foden, 2010).
The past few years have been witnessing an increasing interest of technology-driven
companies in the systematic approach of technology intelligence, and, of course, a lot of
studies are focusing on its various aspects (Lichtenthaler, 2003, 2004a, 2004b,2004c,
2005, 2006, 2007; Savioz and Blum, 2002, Savioz, 2004, 2006; Kerr et al., 2006; Mortara
et al., 2008, 2009; Arman and Foden, 2010, Yoon and Kim, 2012; Park et al., 2013;
Takahashi and Nishigaki, 2013; Schuh et al., 2014; Taghva et al., 2014; Russo and Rizzi,
2014). For instance, a search in Google Scholar on “technology intelligence” provides
approximately 2,340,000 results (papers and books).
Downloaded by Philippine eLibrary Project At 00:00 14 November 2018 (PT)
2. Methodology
To respond to the two main questions about technology intelligence in this paper, we have
studied relevant academic, peer-reviewed journals (such as the Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, R&D Management, International Journal of Technology Management,
International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Research-
Technology Management, Technovation, Research Policy, Competitive Intelligence Review,
Foresight, Expert Systems With Applications and other journals) and books using the
literature databases of Google Scholar, Sciencedirect, Inderscience, Taylor and Francis,
Wiley and Emerald Insight.
1. structure;
2. process;
3. methods;
4. tools; and
5. players.
1. “structural”;
2. “hybrid”; and
3. “informal”.
In a structured organization style, tasks and responsibilities are assigned to positions and
organizational units through a hierarchical order, with full-time specialists of technology
intelligence in these units observing rivals, universities and fledgling companies to track the
latest technological trends. The combinational structure, however, involves projects with
certain and limited terms which are conducted to adapt to particular issues of technology
intelligence. And finally, the informal structure of organization attempts to steer
Downloaded by Philippine eLibrary Project At 00:00 14 November 2018 (PT)
1. the primitive phase (where no special effort is made in line with intelligence
acquisition);
2. the situational phase (where there is need for scanning but no formal system whereby
to accomplish it);
3. the situational phase (at which activities are made on an unstructured and unplanned
basis); and
4. the proactive phase (activities become structured and directed toward obtaining
intelligence).
Ashton et al. (1991) assume a step-wise process of intelligence acquisition, including
Downloaded by Philippine eLibrary Project At 00:00 14 November 2018 (PT)
1. coordination;
2. search;
3. filter;
4. analysis;
5. documentation; and
6. dissemination.
While Savioz (2004) considers it to be including identification of information needs, info
collection, analysis, dissemination and diffusion of intelligence.
Lichtenthaler (2007) focuses on the three coordination styles of technology intelligence,
namely:
1. hierarchical;
2. hybrid; and
3. participatory.
The hierarchical technology intelligence process leads quickly to generally accurate
decisions concerning the direction of technological change and required R&D projects.
But, there are overvaluations and undervaluations concerning timing and the size of
technology investments because the middle management is not included into the
assessments. On the other hand, the participatory technology intelligence process leads to
a discussion of the trend among relevant groups, but the discussion is not managed well
and often ends up in intense conflicts. The lack of communication routines to the top
systems theory and relationship tree have been suggested by Schuh and Grawatsch
(2003).
A number of technology intelligence methods include (Lichtenthaler, 2005) publication
frequency analysis, publication citation analysis, quantitative conference analysis, patent
frequency analysis, patent citation analysis, S-curve analysis, benchmarking studies,
portfolio analysis, Delphi studies, experts panel, flexible expert interview, technology
roadmap, product technology roadmap, product roadmap, learning curve, simulation,
scenario analysis and quality function development (QFD). The definition and explanation
of some of the aforementioned methods are presented below.
4.3.1 Publication analysis. Publication analysis is an approach to identify research groups
in a particular research field. By using this method, we can identify and classify clusters of
authors to represent research groups and access to two types of outcomes:
communicating the relationships between evolving and developing markets, products and
technologies over time (Phaal et al., 2004).
4.3.8 Simulation. Simulation uses various representations to model some aspect of an
uncertain world, with the model being formed as a piece of computer software. This is then
used to aid decision-making (O’Keefe, 1986).
4.3.9 Scenario analysis. Scenario analysis is not aimed at obtaining forecasts, but
advocates the creation of alternative images of the future development of external
environment. In doing so, scenarios highlight crucial uncertainties, with an impact on the
strategic decisions managers have to make (Postma and Liebl, 2006).
4.3.10 Quality function development. QFD converts user demands into substitute quality
characteristics, determines the design quality of the finished good and systematically
deploys this quality into component quality, individual part quality and process elements
and their relationships (Akao and Mazur, 2003).
Companies need to apply proper intelligence technology methods, followed by the
respective evaluation procedures. Still, method adoption and the evaluation procedure are
influenced by a number of situational factors, which are as follows: (Lichtenthaler, 2005):
Functions: Functional expectations from methods are influential in adopting a certain
method and the way it would be assessed. There are two methodological functions
distinguishable, namely, information generation and learning. The former, in turn, can
be carried out through three methods, namely, extrapolative, explorative and
normative. Learning, however, comes in two individual and organizational forms.
Uncertainty: In the period of uncertainty, the objectives of assessment of future
technology progresses tend to change, as under uncertain circumstances, it would be
difficult to forecast a number of parameters. In high uncertainty, companies usually
tend to exploit methods which incorporate the uncertain conditions.
Industry type: The pace at which technological changes are occurring and the nature
of different industries have an impact on the choice of methods. For example, methods
applied by knowledge-driven industries, such as the pharmaceutical industry, are
different from those used by market-driven ones, such as communications, and mature
ones, like the automobile industry.
Decision-making style: The choice of the method of technology intelligence is very
much affected by the decision-making style, that is some companies trust in formal and
technological changes (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Garud and Rappa, 1994).
Mortara et al. (2009) presented a toolbox for technology intelligence to examine different
modes of technology intelligence system, that is mine, trawl, target and scan, introduce
players active in each style which follows:
In the “Mine” mode, data searchers know that the data have been acquired by the
organization and they know where they can be found. Knowledge management
activities and skills are of paramount importance in this style; therefore, the main
players here are knowledge managers, experts and knowledge analyst.
In the “Trawl” mode, searching to acquire intelligence from internal resources is the
case when data are stored in people’s memories rather than explicitly organized. This
style is applied to tap into latent knowledge resources. Such knowledge is usually
obtained through making use of interpersonal links (internal social networks). Major
players in this style include knowledge brokers, internal gatekeepers and members of
internal social networks.
The “Target” mode is applied when a technology identified beyond the territories of a
company is to be examined. This mainly calls for people with intense knowledge on
identified technologies. Major players with this style are targeting coordinators, external
gatekeepers, technical experts and technical specialist analyst.
The “Scan” mode is applied to acquire external information in relation to technologies
which have not been already identified. The main players of this approach are
scanning coordinators, external gatekeepers, members of external social networks,
members of technology listening posts and non-specialist people.
5. Conclusion
Technology globalization and high rate of technological changes intensify risks which
technology-based companies may face. To be able to make efficient and effective
decisions in the technology field, there has to be acquaintance about changes of product,
materials, processes and business technologies. Responding to technological changes
and the reduction of related risks can, to a very large extent, be achieved using an efficient
technology intelligence system, which is equipped with an early alarming apparatus and
can assess potentials of new technological advances. In this section, a classification of
research conducted in the field of technology intelligence is offered, and, at the end, a
number of managerial implications and directions for future researches are proposed.
developments
Lichtenthaler (2003) Different generations of technology intelligence
Savioz (2004) Technology intelligence system
Kerr et al. (2006) Conceptual model of technology intelligence
Savioz (2006) Technology intelligent systems in large, medium and
fledging companies
Rohrbeck (2010) The concept of technology scouting
Technology intelligence structure Lichtenthaler (2004b) Organization and integration of technology intelligence
activities and organization of international technology
intelligence
Lichtenthaler (2004c) Various organizing styles of technology intelligence
Technology intelligence process Ashton et al. (1991) Technology intelligence process
Lichtenthaler (2004a) Technology scanning and monitoring process
Lichtenthaler (2006) Stages of technology intelligence process
Lichtenthaler (2007) Different process styles of technology intelligence
Arman and Foden (2010) Designing technology intelligence process
Technology intelligence methods Gerybadze (1994) Technology forecast as means for organizational
intelligence
Norling et al. (2000) Process of competitive technology intelligence
Lichtenthaler (2005) Methods applied in technology intelligence process
Antunes and Canongia (2006) Technological foresight and technological scanning for
identifying priorities and opportunities
Russo and Rizzi (2014) Proposing a function-oriented method for competitive
technological intelligence and technology forecasting
Technology intelligence tools Schuh and Grawatsch (2003) TRIZ-centered intelligence technology
Porter and Cunningham (2005) Tools for tech mining
Yoon (2008) Introducing software to identify technological
opportunities
Mortara et al. (2009) Technology intelligence toolbox (tools)
Veugelers et al. (2010) Relation between technology intelligence and open
innovation
Karvonen and Kassi (2011) Patent analysis for analyzing technological convergence
Yoon and Kim (2012) Introduction of software tools to identify technology
trends based on patents
Park et al. (2013) Introduction of a software tool for technology strategic
planning
Technology intelligence players Mortara et al. (2009) Technology intelligence toolbox (players)
Other research Mortara et al. (2008) Implementation of technology intelligence systems
Takahashi and Nishigaki (2013) Technology intelligence-based new product development
Schuh et al. (2014) Identification of requirements for focused crawlers in
technology intelligence
Taghva et al. (2014) Proposing a conceptual model for university – industry
knowledge transfer through technology intelligence
cycles and social networks
References
Abraham, B.P. and Moitra, S.D. (2001), “Innovation assessment through patent analysis”,
Technovation, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 245-252.
Akao, Y. and Mazur, G.H. (2003), “The leading edge in QFD: past, present and future”, International
journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 20-35.
Antunes, A. and Canongia, C. (2006), “Technological foresight and technological scanning for
identifying priorities and opportunities: the biotechnology and health sector”, Foresight, Vol. 8 No. 5,
pp. 31-44.
Arman, H. and Foden, J. (2010), “Combining methods in the technology intelligence process:
application in an aerospace manufacturing firm”, R&D Management, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 181-194.
Ashton, W.B. and Klavans, R.A. (1997), “An introduction to technical intelligence in business”, in
Ashton, W.B. and Klavans, R.A. (Eds), Keeping Abreast of Science and Technology: Technical
Intelligence in Business, Batelle Press, Columbus, OH, pp. 5-22.
Ashton, W.B., Kinzey, B.R. and Gunn, M.E. (1991), “A structured approach for monitoring science and
technology developments”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 6 Nos 1/2,
pp. 91-111.
Ashton, W.B. and Stacey, G.S. (1995), “Technical intelligence in business: understanding technology
threats and opportunities”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 79-104.
Bengisu, M. and Nekhili, R. (2006), “Forecasting emerging technologies with the aid of science and
technology databases”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 73 No. 7, pp. 835-844.
Breitzman, A.B. and Mogee, M.E. (2002), “The many applications of patent analysis”, Journal of
Information Science, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 187-205.
Brenner, M.S. (1996), “Technology scouting and technology intelligence”, Competitive Intelligence
Review, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 20-27.
Budd, T. (2000), “Competitive technical intelligence at applied bio systems: attracting, monitoring, and
exploiting technology-based opportunities”, Competitive Intelligence Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 5-11.
Camp, R.C. (1989), Benchmarking: the Search for Best Practices that Lead to Superior Performance,
ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, Wl.
Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmén, M. and Rickne, A. (2002), “Innovation systems: analytical and
methodological issues”, Research Policy, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 233-245.
Christensen, C.M. (1992), “Exploring the limits of the technology S-curve: part 1: component
technologies”, Production and Operation Management, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 334-357.
Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1999), “New product portfolio management:
practices and performance”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 333-351.
Drew, S.A.W. (1997), “From knowledge to action: the impact of benchmarking on organizational
performance”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 427-441.
Edler, J., Meyer-Krahmer, F. and Reger, G. (2002), “Changes in the strategic management of
technology: results of global benchmarking study”, R&D Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 149-164.
Fleisher, C.S. (2006), “Assessing the tools companies use or analyzing the sand environment”,
International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 380-403.
Downloaded by Philippine eLibrary Project At 00:00 14 November 2018 (PT)
Garud, R. and Rappa, M.A. (1994), “A socio-cognitive model of technology evolution: the case of
cochlear implants”, Organizational Science, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 344-362.
Hekkert, M., Suurs, R.A.A., Negro, S., Kuhlmann, S. and Smits, R. (2008), “Attributes of innovation
systems: a new approach for analysing technological change”, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 413-432.
Iansiti, M. (2000), “How the incumbent can win: managing technological transitions in the
semiconductor industry”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 169-185.
Jain, S.C. (1984), “Evironmental scanning in US corporations”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 117-128.
Karvonen, M. and Kassi, T. (2011), “Patent analysis for analysing technological convergence”,
Foresight, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 34-50.
Kerr, C.I.V., Mortara, L., Phaal, R. and Probert, D.R. (2006), “A conceptual model for technology
intelligence”, International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 73-93.
Lichtenthaler, E. (2004a), “Technological change and the technology intelligence process: a case
study”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 331-348.
Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M. and Helmer, O. (1975), The Delphi Method Techniques and Applications,
Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Boston.
Mishra, S., Deshmukh, S.G. and Vrat, P. (2002), “Matching of technological forecasting technique to
a technology”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 1-27.
Mortara, K., Kerr, C.I.V., Phaal, R. and Probert, D. (2008), “Technology intelligence practice in UK
technology-based companies”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 48 No. 1,
pp. 115-135.
Mortara, K., Kerr, C.I.V., Phaal, R. and Probert, D. (2009), “A toolbox of elements to build technology
intelligence system”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 322-345.
Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Belknap Press,
Cambridge.
Norling, P.M., Herring, J.P., Rosenkrans, W.A., Stellpflug, M. and Kaufmann, S.B. (2000), “Putting
competitive technology intelligence to work”, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 43 No. 5,
pp. 23-28.
O’Keefe, R. (1986), “Simulation and expert systems-a taxonomy and some examples”, Simulation,
Downloaded by Philippine eLibrary Project At 00:00 14 November 2018 (PT)
Okoli, Ch. and Pawlowski, S.D. (2004), “The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design
considerations and applications”, Information & Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 15-29.
Park, H., Kim, K., Choi, S. and Yoon, J. (2013), “A patent intelligence system for strategic technology
planning”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 2373-2390.
Patton, K.M. (2005), “The role of scanning in open intelligence systems”, Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, Vol. 72 No. 9, pp. 1082-1093.
Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J.P. and Probert, D.R. (2004), “Technology roadmapping: a planning framework
for evolution and revolution”, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Vol. 71 Nos 1/2, pp. 5-26.
Porter, A.L. and Cunningham, S.D. (2005), Tech Mining (Exploiting New Technologies fir Competitive
advantage), A John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Porter, A.L., Roper, A.T., Mason, T.W., Rossini, F.A., Banks, J. and Wiederholt, B.J. (1991), Forecasting
and Management of Technology, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Postma, Th. J.B.M. and Liebl, F. (2006), “How to improve scenario analysis as a strategic management
tool?”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 161-173.
Ranga, M. and Etzkowitz, H. (2013), “Triple Helix systems: an analytical framework for innovation
policy and practice in the Knowledge Society”, Industry and Higher Education, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 337-262.
Reger, G. (2001), “Technology foresight in companies: from an indicator to a network and process
perspective”, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 533-553.
Rohrbeck, R. (2010), “Harnessing a network of experts for competitive advantage: technology scouting
in the ICT industry”, R&D Management, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 169-180.
Russo, D. and Rizzi, C. (2014), “A function oriented method for competitive technological intelligence
and technology forecasting”, International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation
(ICE), Bergamo.
Savioz, P. (2006), “Technology intelligence systems: practices and models for large, medium-sized
and start-up companies”, International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 2 No. 4,
pp. 360-379.
Savioz, P. and Blum, M. (2002), “Strategic forecast tool for SMEs: how the opportunity landscape
interacts with business strategy to anticipate technological trends”, Technovation, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 91-100.
Schuh, G. and Grawatsch, M. (2003), TRIZ-based Technology Intelligence, European TRIZ Association
Meeting TRIZ Futures, Osaka.
Shehabuddeen, N.T. and Probert, D.R. (2004), “Excavating the technology landscape: deploying
technology intelligence to detect early warning signals”, IEEE, International Engineering Conference,
Singapore, Vol. 1, pp. 332-336.
Taghva, M.R., Majidfar, F., Salami, R. and Karshenas, A.A. (2014), “A conceptual model for
university-industry knowledge transfer through technology intelligence cycles and social networks:
multiple case study of technology transfer projects”, Asian Journal of Research in Business Economics
and Management, Vol. 4 No. 9, pp. 57-75.
Tibbetts, J. (1997), “Technology scouting”, in Ashton, W.B. and Klavans, R.A. (Eds), Keeping Abreast
of Science and Technology: Technical Intelligence in Business, Batelle Press, Columbus, OH,
pp. 217-257.
Tschirky, H. (1994), “The role of technology forecasting and assessment in technology management”,
Downloaded by Philippine eLibrary Project At 00:00 14 November 2018 (PT)
Veugelers, M., Bury, J. and Viaene, S. (2010), “Linking technology intelligence to open innovation”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 335-343.
Yoon, B. (2008), “On the development of a technology intelligence tool for identifying technology
opportunity”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 35 No. 1/2, pp. 124-135.
Yoon, J. and Kim, K. (2012), “TrendPerceptor: a property – function based technology intelligence
system for identifying technology trends from patents”. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39 No. 3,
pp. 2927-2938.
Zhu, D. and Porter, A.L. (2002), “Automated extraction and visualization of information for technological
intelligence and forecasting”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 69 No. 5,
pp. 495-506.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
1. Ozcan Saritas, Dirk Meissner, Alexander Sokolov. 2018. A Transition Management Roadmap for Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles
(FCEVs). Journal of the Knowledge Economy 39. . [Crossref]
Downloaded by Philippine eLibrary Project At 00:00 14 November 2018 (PT)