Resumo - Identifying Industry Requirements For Technology Management Skills - Inovação e Tecnologia 2023-2

Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro Faculdade de Administração e Ciências Contábeis Departamento de Contabilidade Disciplina: ACC 602 - Gestão da Tecnologia e Inovação Período: 2023-2 Prof. Dr. Pierre Ohayon Aluno (a): XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX DRE: 123456789 Leitura 2 DAVIS, Charles H. TIFFIN, Scott. Identifying Industry Requirements for Technology Management Skills. Rio de Janeiro 2023 O artigo intitulado "Identifying Industry Requirements for Technology Management Skills" pelos autores Charles H. Davis e Scott Tiffin aborda a crescente necessidade de habilidades em gestão de tecnologia (MOT) nas empresas, mesmo quando muitos gestores não veem suas organizações como "empresas de tecnologia". Com o objetivo de direcionar efetivamente a educação em gestão, serviços de consultoria e iniciativas políticas com componentes de MOT, os autores desenvolveram um instrumento para coletar dados sobre as visões de gestores seniores sobre problemas de MOT. Os resultados de uma pesquisa em empresas da área de Montreal revelam cinco pontos de vista distintos entre esses gestores, identificados como Dependent Optimisation, Independent Product Innovation, Global Innovation, Potential Growth-Driven Innovators e Technological Entrepreneurship. No contexto de uma introdução sobre as habilidades necessárias para a gestão de tecnologia, os autores destacam a diversidade na definição e no escopo da MOT em instituições de ensino superior na América do Norte, Europa e Ásia. Eles observam que muitos gestores de empresas não se veem como empresas de tecnologia e frequentemente não estão familiarizados com as ferramentas e abordagens da MOT. Os autores exploram a metodologia adotada para entender as visões subjetivas dos executivos da indústria sobre suas necessidades de MOT. Eles destacam a importância de compreender como os problemas de MOT são percebidos pelos gestores e como essas percepções se relacionam entre si. A metodologia utilizada incluiu uma técnica chamada Q-sort, entrevistas e análise fatorial. A partir dessa metodologia, os autores identificaram cinco perfis distintos de habilidades necessárias em MOT, representando diferentes perspectivas de mercado. Esses perfis incluem Dependent Optimizers, Independent Product Innovators, Global Innovators, Potential Growth-Driven Innovators e Technological Entrepreneurship. Cada perfil apresenta requisitos específicos de habilidades em MOT e inputs de conhecimento. Os Dependent Optimizers são empresas que buscam otimizar operações dentro de limites estabelecidos, priorizando eficiência dentro das trajetórias existentes. Independent Product Innovators são focados em inovação de produtos, adaptando tecnologia existente para suas necessidades, mas têm pouco interesse em assistência técnica externa. Global Innovators são empresas tecnologicamente intensivas, interessadas em rastrear tendências internacionais e analisar forças globais, mas menos interessadas em estratégias de inovação de produtos. Potential Growth-Driven Innovators são impulsionadas pelo crescimento, buscando liderança na indústria, mas mostram menos comprometimento com a excelência tecnológica. A perspectiva de Technological Entrepreneurship representa empresas voltadas para empreendedorismo tecnológico, buscando mercado local, financiamento e colaborações intensivas em informações com universidades e laboratórios públicos. O estudo destaca a diversidade nas necessidades de MOT e implicações para fornecedores de serviços educacionais e consultoria. Os resultados ressaltam a importância de adaptar abordagens de MOT para atender às especificidades de cada perfil de empresa, abrindo espaço para o desenvolvimento de habilidades em gestão estratégica, inovação de produtos e análise de tendências globais. O artigo contribui significativamente para compreender as nuances na gestão de tecnologia e suas aplicações práticas em diferentes contextos industriais. Identifying Industry Requirements for Technology Management Skills Charles H. Davis Science Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada and Scott Tiffin SocioTech, Inc., Quebec, Canada ABSTRACT Few managers see their firms as "technology companies", and often they are unfamiliar with the tools, approaches, and insights provided by the emerging field of MOT. There is low demand for improved MOT skills in several industrial sectors. In order to more effectively target management education, consulting services, and policy thrusts with an MOT component, we developed an instrument to gather data about senior managers' views on MOT problems. Results of a survey of Montreal area firms are reported here. We identify five distinct viewpoints among senior managers concerning MOT problems. We call these viewpoints Dependent Optimisation, Independent Product Innovation, Global Innovation, Potential Growth-Driven Innovators, and Technological Entrepreneurship. Each viewpoint represents a specific market segment with particular requirements for MOT skills, knowledge inputs, and policy services. INTRODUCTION What skills does management of technology (MOT) entail? Many authors have endeavored to define the content and boundaries of MOT as a field of reliable knowledge and skills (see NRC 1987 and Adler 1989). The question of how to identify and accelerate learning of MOT skills clearly has importance for those firms seeking to develop competitive advantage in which technological assets might be made to play some strategic role. Also, since the learning system of the innovative firm extends well beyond the firm’s boundaries, suppliers of knowledge-intensive inputs (educators, consultants, and policy agencies) have interest in achieving a better understanding of how MOT skills are developed and diffused. An analysis of MOT programs in universities and polytechnics in North America, Europe, and Asia reveals great diversity in the approaches and boundaries of the field. Managers in industry do not necessarily see their firms as “technology companies” and are often unfamiliar with the tools, approaches, and insights provided by the emerging field of MOT. Many observers of Canada’s technological development effort have recommended in recent years that much more systematic attention be paid to improving the MOT skills of Canadian managers. The prevailing assumption has been that a low supply of formal MOT learning opportunities was hampering uptake of MOT skills by industry. Attention therefore has tended to focus on the adequacy of the supply of MOT training and research services, particularly in universities. The Science Council of Canada commissioned a study of university-based MOT courses in 1987 which was recently updated by the federal S&T flagship Management of Technology III. Tarek M. Khalil and Bulent A. Bayyakar, editors. © 1992 Institute of Industrial Engineers. agency (Clarke 1990). Thirty-six universities currently offer courses in MOT, and several programs have been established in recent years. There is some evidence in Canada of low industrial demand for university-supplied MOT skills (whether their origin is in management or engineering faculties). In order to more effectively target management education, consulting services, and policy thrusts with an MOT component, we investigated the views of senior industrial managers from a small sample of firms in the Montreal area regarding necessary skills for managing technology for competitive advantage. Results of the survey are reported here. We identify five distinct viewpoints among senior managers concerning MOT problems. Each viewpoint represents a specific market segment with particular requirements for MOT skills, knowledge inputs, and policy services. METHODOLOGY In this study we are concerned with subjective viewpoints: what do industry executives think their MOT needs are? How are significant MOT problems related to each other in the minds of executives? What are the similarities and differences among viewpoints? We used Q-methodology, an exploratory methodology which permits investigation of the structure of subjective viewpoints in a rigorous, easily replicable manner.1 The method can be summarized as follows. First, we drew up a set of items encompassing what can reasonably be considered as the full range of problems bearing on managing technology in firms.2 Our set was derived from material in previous studies on MOT, technology strategy, and management tasks, the list of Canadian courses collected in two surveys, and from MOT program material compiled at the Science Council of Canada and at the Université du Québec à Montréal.3 From this set of MOT problems a smaller representative set of 35 items was derived.4 These items were printed on individual cards and respondents were asked to rank order them from most important to least important according to the following quasinormal distribution: <- least importance most -> 3 5 6 7 6 5 3 [number of statements] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [score] Third, we asked respondents to explain their reasons for selecting certain items as "most important." These qualitative assessments are useful in interpreting the survey results. Twenty-one individuals from twenty firms, associations, or subsidiaries were interviewed and completed the Q-sort procedure. Respondents were all senior executives with good knowledge of their company’s operations. Fifteen of the industrial entities were indigenous and the others were foreign-owned. About half of the organizations were small or medium-sized firms. A range of industries was represented: two respondents were from the aerospace in- 1 For methodological presentations see Brown (1986) or McKeown and Thomas (1988). 2 In this we have adopted a line of enquiry which is supported by reports that executives categorize situations as problems or problem types in order to facilitate information processing and to ascribe meaning to situations (Cowan 1988). 3 Adler (1989), Denison (1990), Dodgson (1989), Knight (1989), Miller and Blais (1988), and Roberts (1988); Clarke (1990). 4 For this list, contact the authors or consult Tiffin (1991). dustry, one from agro-food, seven from information technology, electronics, or electrical equipment, one from pharmaceuticals, one from medical devices, two from plastics, four from paper or forest products, and one from textiles. We cast our net widely because medium technology and low technology industries may be users of MOT inputs, if appropriate ways of delivering them can be found. dusty, one from agro-food, seven from information technology, electronics, or electrical equipment, one from pharmaceuticals, one from medical devices, two from plastics, four from paper or forest products, and one from textiles. We cast our net widely because medium technology and low technology industries may be users of MOT inputs, if appropriate ways of delivering them can be found. A data matrix was constructed and factor analyzed using a standard microcomputer-based statistical package. In Q, individuals are the “variables” or columns and the 35 statements are the “cases” or rows. Factors represent groups of respondents’ viewpoints regarding management of technology in firms. The factor solution that we selected is the one with the smallest number of factors in which each factor has at least 3 respondents loaded significantly and singly on it. These criteria yield a five-factor solution that “explains” 59.9% of the variance in the matrix. That is, in the five-factor solution, we have at least 3 respondents who are associated with each factor at the 1% level or better. Of 21 respondents, 20 load significantly on one or more factors. 16 respondents load significantly at the 1% level on only one factor. These respondents best represent the particular factors and are preceded by an asterisk in Table 1. Five typical factors, each of which expresses a viewpoint, were calculated by rank ordering the 35 statements’ factor scores for each factor and then superimposing the quasi-normal distribution of scores on them.5 FIVE PROFILES OF REQUIRED MOT SKILLS Factor 1: Dependent Optimizers Four respondents express this viewpoint: R1 (Vice president, fabrication, medium indigenous aerospace components firm); R6 (Chief of engineering, large foreign-owned health products firm); R7 (Director of R&D, large indigenous agrofood firm); R16 (Vice-president, operations, medium indigenous textile firm). MOT problems of greatest importance: 6. Innovate or buy existing technology 16. Exploit global market opportunities for new tech-based products 22. Modify imported technology to fit firm’s products 3. Identify core product-market technology competence of the firm 7. Optimize current operations or make strategic changes 10. Link R&D to marketing, design and manufacturing 21. Recognize and resolve impacts of new technology on human work patterns 23. Recognize and resolve impacts of new technology on workers’ attitudes Interpretation: Factor One firms are not concerned with breaking out of the constraints of existing patterns of procurement and sales and technology trajectories, but, instead, with optimizing their operations within them. Firms with these characteristics we call “Dependent Optimizers.” Judging from the MOT skills selected as most important, Dependent Optimizers are sensitive to the competitive advantages that technological competence provides them. However, while these firms consider themselves to be technologically vigorous and even to have elements of a technology strategy, they seem to be content to work within established boundaries of products, technologies and markets. While changes in production technology are of understandable interest, product innovation is likely to be highly constrained by customers’ requirements and other firms that act as system designers. For instance, esthetic or en- 5 See Tiffin (1991). vironmental concerns are uninteresting unless they are expressed by established customers. International standards are not considered to be important problems, either. Dependent Optimizers are not likely to be technological leaders because the core technology is procured outside the firm. Maintaining the state of the art, knowing when and how to invest time and energy in in-house innovation, ability to modify outsourced technology, and knowledge of one's position in the industry are key management skills. Dependent Optimizers are also aware that new production technology implies the need to manage workers' skills and organization. Innovativeness in itself is not prized, and knowledge-intensive human resources are not considered to be essential. New ventures or fundamental changes in the reporting relationships of these firms are not considered important. Implications for suppliers of MOT inputs: Dependent Optimizers' technology strategy seems to involve detailed knowledge of the particular industrial sector, focussed on engineering and production management activities. Key skills that suppliers of MOT inputs might bring to Dependent Optimizers include technology transfer, international marketing, appropriate strategies for product innovation, analysis of the technology dimensions of product/market positioning, analysis and management of work reorganization, and strategies for cross management of internal innovation functions. However, since Dependent Optimizers do not consider themselves to be innovative technology companies, the term "management of technology" might not be the best rubric to use to attract their attention. It might be better to introduce MOT in terms of strategic management, organizational development, marketing, or some other familiar label. The challenge for suppliers of MOT inputs would be to demonstrate their worth to the firm and gradually move the firm to a more independent, creative use of its potential to break away from current constraints. Factor 2: Independent Product Innovators Three respondents express this viewpoint: R15 (Director general, small indigenous plastics firm); R19 (Senior Vice president, industry pulp and paper R&D group); R20 (Manager of technology and development, medium foreign-owned plastics firm). MOT problems of greatest importance: 7. Optimize current operations or make strategic changes 15. Identify lead market opportunities; begin innovating technology-based products 20. Integrate new process technology into existing production lines 2. Forecast change in technology, industry structure and markets 4. Generate families of products from single inventions 11. Integrate esthetic and environmental concerns into product innovation 25. Link product technology, process technology and information systems 30. Recognize opportunity for new business based on technological innovation Interpretation: Because Factor Two describes a class of firms that are primarily interested in innovation in terms of new products, we call these firms "Independent Product Innovators." Independent Product Innovators expect to grow and are willing to consider a very wide range of options: new production technology, local market development, strategic product innovation, novel internal information systems, new venturing, and development of new products that reflect contemporary design considerations (environmental, esthetic). However, Independent Product Innovators, while aware of their core technological competence, are not committed to any particular technological trajectory. Instead, they are more interested in designing and innovating products. They consider that their mastery of core technology is adequate, given prevailing circumstances. Independent Product Innovators usually purchase production technology and adapt it to their own product requirements. Off-the-shelf production technology provides a great many opportunities, provided that it can be suitably modified and integrated into existing operations. Ability to operate and adapt process and production equipment is a core technological skill in Independent Product Innovators. Implications for suppliers of MOT inputs: Independent Product Innovators are interested in MOT inputs insofar as they may help link core technological capabilities to a marketing, product innovation, and production strategy. However, because these firms are very market- and product-oriented, they have little interest in receiving technical assistance from outside sources. Independent Product Innovators do not highly value patents, technology brokers, consultants, university links, R&D, and government support programs. This property of Independent Product Innovators is important because these firms are often locally owned, creative, aggressive, and highly independent, very valuable players in the Canadian industrial and technology system. Independent Product Innovators are precisely the kind of firm that public policy is trying to encourage - yet these firms are not interested in the kind of technical support measures that most technology policy concentrates on. Independent Product Innovators' MOT training needs have been overlooked by most MOT programs in Canada. These firms are very much interested in product design and innovation, but a recent survey of university courses in Canada identifies only four courses devoted to a greater or lesser extent to technology, product design, and product innovation. Obviously, to meet the needs of Independent Product Innovators, MOT must hybridize with the field of industrial design. Independent Product Innovators probably would not hire a full-time MOT specialist, but they might prefer to procure management service inputs to help develop strategic views of potential markets and production management, and to link marketing and design factors with production factors. Suppliers of MOT training services might reach Independent Product Innovators through short, customized courses, student fellowships, university-based consulting services, or consortia of firms build around shared interests. At any rate, for MOT to reach Independent Product Innovators, emphasis should be placed on the design, marketing, and strategic positioning aspects of MOT, and especially on strategies of product innovation in the respective industries. Factor 3: Global Innovation Four respondents express this viewpoint: R8 (Vice president of R&D; Vice president of professional services, large indigenous management and information service consulting firm); R11 (Director of R&D, large indigenous forest products firm); R12 (Director of R&D, large electronics firm); R14 (Director human resources, large foreign-owned aerospace firm). MOT issues of greatest importance: 10. Link R&D to marketing, design and manufacturing 16. Exploit global market opportunities for new technology-based products 17. Control and deal with international standards and regulations 2. Forecast change in technology, industry structure and markets 13. Identify core product-market technology competence of the firm 8. Use technological innovation and adaptation to grow firm to international scale 12. Manage creative scientists and engineers 32. Use cooperative industry R&D and technology development corporations Interpretation: Factor Three firms are large technology-intensive firms whose main concern is to remain competitive in global markets. These firms, which we call "Global Innovators," are uninterested in innovation that is driven by local markets. They want capacity to track international market and technology trends, and to analyze their own strengths and weaknesses in some detail. Global Innovators recognize the necessity of having internal management skills to manage creative human resources and to handle growth. They also must have some skills in managing their environments, notably via cooperative and generic industrial arrangements and through relations with quasispublic technology agencies. However, Global Innovators are uninterested strategies for outsourcing technology or for reverse engineering. It is striking how little interest they manifest in product innovation strategies. This may indicate that Global Innovators are somewhat limited by being component suppliers, somewhat in the manner of Dependent Optimizers. However, they are different in that seem much more independent and aggressive, more concerned with growth based on technological innovation. Implications for suppliers of MOT inputs: Global Innovators probably represent one of the best markets for MOT inputs. They are large, well off and independent. MOT inputs can enter the firm under the covering rubrics of international market development or strategic planning or directly, as innovation management. Three specific skill domains, in particular, are of interest: international market/technology tracking and analysis, R&D management, and management of interrelated business units. However, Global Innovators express little interest in hiring specialist MBA's from outside, strongly preferring to upgrade long-term engineering staff. Success in marketing university training could only come from targeted publicity and close prior relations. Factor 4: Potential Growth-Driven Innovators Four respondents express this viewpoint: R10 (Director general, small indigenous electronics firm) ; R17 (Technical director, medium indigenous paper products firm); R18 (Vice president, production, small indigenous pulp and paper firm); R21 (Director of factory, large foreign electrical products firm). MOT problems of greatest importance: 5. Be industry leader, fast follower, or stay with proven technology 27. Set up independent corporate business units within firm for product innovation 32. Recognize opportunity for new business based on technological innovation 2. Forecast change in technology, industry structure and markets 13. Identify core product-market technology competence of the firm 15. Identify lead market opportunities to begin innovating products 11. Control and deal with international standards and regulations 28. Secure start-up or expansion financing Interpretation: The statements that Factor four firms select as important indicate a primary concern with managing growth. These firms recognize technology as a potentially strategic factor and are considering ways to build technology into their strategies for expansion. For these reasons, we call Factor Four firms Potential Growth-Driven Innovators. Unfortunately, except for managing growth, Factor Four firms are relatively uninterested in operational technology strategy. For example, they are uninterested in working with suppliers and purchasers to develop new products, using cooperative industry R&D and technology development corporations, or in determining whether it is more effective to make or buy technology. Factor Four firms are market driven, and are only interested in technological innovation when product market niches have been identified. These firms may lack some basic management skills that would permit them to direct some of their growth into technological leadership. For example, the electrical products subsidiary has good knowledge of the industry, but the innovation functions are probably all located in a European head office. The paper sector firms may want to move up in product and process sophistication but are hampered by the traditional skills structure and outlooks of management and employees. Implications for suppliers of MOT inputs: Potential Growth-Driven Innovators, by virtue of the options that growth offers for them, do have potential to become more technology-intensive. However, these firms are not committed to technological excellence. Why should they be, if they are experiencing growth without bothering with technology strategy? In order to encourage Factor Four firms to activate their technological potential and invest some of their present growth in innovation, suppliers of MOT inputs will have to reach senior management through the needs that it recognizes: internal analytical capability relating to forecasting and strategic planning, technology scanning, and equipment procurement capability. Potential Growth-Driven Innovators presently rely on equipment suppliers and on the hunches of internal technical staff for tips on managing technology. Demand for MOT services is most likely through these firms' technical staff and is likely to take form of engineering management courses. Inputs will have to be very product and process-oriented, and Potential Growth Driven Innovators may never realize there is more they can do in terms of corporate technology strategy. Factor 5: Technological Entrepreneurship. Five respondents express this viewpoint: R3 (Director, industry association for medical instruments); R4 (Director of R&D, industry information technology service association); R5 (Vice president, marketing, industrial innovation services support centre); R9 (Director of production, medium indigenous pharmaceutical firm); R13 (Vice president of engineering of a medium indigenous electronics firm; negative loading). Identified MOT problems of greatest importance: 15. Identify local market opportunities to begin innovating products 28. Secure start up or expansion financing 33. Use R&D links with universities and government labs 17. Control and deal with international standards and regulations 29. Manage start up of new business based on a technological innovation 31. Work with suppliers and purchasers to develop new products 34. Access government support programs for technology development 35. Influence politicians and bureaucrats on technology questions Interpretation: The profile described by this group of respondents is clearly one of small, entrepreneurial, NTBF (new technology-based) firms. Indeed, the Technological Entrepreneurship viewpoint reflects a textbook view of the individual entrepreneurial process of technological innovation in which firms lead a lead market, financing, information-intensive collaborative relationships with local universities and public labs, good relationships with suppliers and customers, access to programs and policy-making circles, and management skills that are specific to the start-up phase. Of little interest are questions of internal management of human and intellectual property resources, reporting relationships, or problems pertaining to the acquisition of technology. Such concerns may come later, once the firms have grown and stabilized. Three of the four respondents loading positively on this factor were representatives of industry associations or centers designed to serve industry. Whether such a view accurately describes the MOT problems of these associations' clients is an intriguing question. The public image of the individual technological entrepreneur is a powerful and compelling one and it is communicated through many channels. We believe that it may have a mythic character that displaces other viewpoints on MOT problems in firms that must adopt and adapt complex technology: for example, a MOT problematic with implementation as a major focal point. Implications for suppliers of MOT inputs: Technological Entrepreneurship firms (or those that speak for them) seem to be aware of a need for MOT skills, since the entrepreneur bases his entire activity on the strategic management of a technology. University-based courses on entrepreneurship and new venture management presumably prepare people for technology venturing, and such courses would be appropriate for persons who interact with or service such firms. Small, young entrepreneurial firms, however, are known to be unlikely purchasers of MOT inputs except under unusual circumstances - as part of a publicly supported, industry 287 driven technology extension service, for instance, or as part of a local "self-help" bootstrapping arrangement. Industry associations might be a useful delivery mechanism for such services, and the associations could hire MBA graduates with specialization in MOT. CONCLUSIONS We began this project with a conventional conception of significant categories of kinds of firms: small high-tech entrepreneurial, large high-tech, medium technology-intensive, mature, and technology services. Our sample of respondents was generated to reflect this classificatory schema. That our new, empirically derived typology of firms goes beyond this classificatory schema is a tribute to the exploratory power of Q-methodology, which imposes minimum constraints on respondents' construction of significance. Some of the five viewpoints that we identify may correspond to previously identified configurations of firms. Miller and Blais (1990), in a recent study of firms in the Montreal area, identified 6 kinds of firms, based on a variety of variables. Our Technological Entrepreneurship category seems to correspond to theirs. Our Global Innovation category seems fairly close to their world class innovators, or to the offensive strategy described by Freeman (1974). Three factors provide new images. Firms which are Potential Growth Driven Innovators appear to want to compete in technology-intensive areas, but are not committed to investing in innovation. The problems of activating the technological potential of such firms have not been adequately investigated. Similarly, the problems and prospects of the Dependent Optimization viewpoint have not been adequately addressed by the management technology literature. Dependent Optimizers are firms that use technology to maintain competitiveness, but prefer to stay within product and market constraints established by large customers or systems designers. The Independent Product Innovation viewpoint describes a group of firms who are concerned with managing the design of products that often embody significant amounts of technology, but technology itself is not the focus of attention. The MOT needs of these firms have been almost completely ignored. From our survey results and associated interview data we are able to make some inferences about how different kinds of firms are likely to absorb MOT inputs (consulting services, education and training services, and policy services). Most firms expressed some interest in MBAs, preferring to upgrade long-time engineering or other technical staff in-house. Respondents expressed the strong opinion that young MBAs would have little to contribute, whether or not they had training in MOT, which is rarely a formal activity in the firms and is handled only at the senior management level. Respondents were of the opinion that generalist management training was less valuable than detailed technical knowledge of the specific characteristics of the industrial sector. The best potential market for MBAs with specialization in MOT is in Global Innovation and Dependent Optimization firms. Firms with other profiles probably need different kinds of delivery mechanisms than participation of personnel in full-time MOT studies in a management school. Many classificatory schema have been devised to represent firms' technology strategies. Such schema usually are based on correlation of objective variables, often constructed as scales, which are meant to measure firm behavior and culture: flatness, innovativeness, internal communication styles, technical intensity, permeability to the environment, etc. Our approach is fundamentally different in that it attempts to capture executives' subjective un- 6 Cf. Abbott's (1988) survey of Canadian industrial executives' MOT preferences. The strongest interest was expressed in short modular MOT courses. 288 derstanding of MOT problems. Strategic change in firms of the sort of interest to us involves intraorganizational learning about how to use technological skills as assets. Such learning requires not just accommodation among competing interests within the firm, but also negotiated convergent belief structures (Walsh and Fahey 1986). Specifically, sense must be made about what technology is, why it is important, how it is related to the firm, and what opportunities it creates. Executive beliefs about these factors will condition the firm's behavior and its ability to identify and absorb knowledge inputs. The five "markets" for MOT inputs that we have identified here are therefore also interpretable as generic strategic postures with respect to technology. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbott, Mark (1988) "The Need for Education in Management of Technology in Canada," paper presented at the ASAC 1988 Conference, Halifax. Adler, Paul S. (1989) "Technology Strategy: a Guide to the Literatures," in Research on Technological Innovation, Management and Policy, v. 4, eds. R.S. Rosenbloom and R.A. Burgelman. Greenwich and London: JAI Press, 25:151. Brown, Stephen R. (1986) "Q Technique and Method," in W.D. Berry and M.S. Lewis-Beck (eds.) New Tools for Social Scientists. New York: Teachers College Press. Clarke, Thomas, (1990) Review of the Status and Availability in Canadian Colleges and Universities of Courses or Programs Dealing with the Commercialization and Adoption of Science and Technology. Ottawa: ISTC. Brown, Stephen R., (1989) "Technology in a Strategic Perspective," in Technology Strategy and the Firm: Management and Public Policy, M. Dodgson, ed. UK: Longman, 1-10. Freeman, Christopher (1974). The Economics of Industrial Innovation. Middlesex: Penguin. Knight, Russell M., (1989) "Technological Innovation in Canada: a Comparison of Independent Inventors and Corporate Innovators", International Journal of Technology Management 4(3) 273-281. McKeown, Bruce, and Dan Thomas (1988) Q Methodology. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage. Miller, Roger, and Roger A. Blais (1988) "The Interview Guide. The Innovative Organization Project", Center Inc, manuscript. Miller, Roger, and Roger Blais (1990) "Strategic Configurations of Industrial Innovation," in Management of Technology II, T. Khalil and B. Bayraktar, eds. Norcross, Ga.: Industrial Engineering and Management Press, 53:63. National Research Council [of the United States] (1987) Management of Technology: the Hidden Competitive Advantage. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Roberts, Edward B. (1988) "Managing Invention and Technological Innovation," Research and Technology Management, Jan.-Feb., 11-29. Tiffin, Scott (1991) Analysis of Skills in Management of Technology Required by Industry in 289 Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro Faculdade de Administração e Ciências Contábeis Departamento de Contabilidade Disciplina: ACC 602 – Gestão da Tecnologia e Inovação Período: 2023-2 Prof. Dr. Pierre Ohayon Aluno (a): XXXXXXXXXXXXXX DRE: 123456789 Exemplo Leitura 14a UTTERBACK, J.M. A Dinâmica da Inovação na Indústria. In: Dominando a Dinâmica da Inovação, Capítulo 1, p. 1-23, Rio de Janeiro: Qualitymark, 1996. Rio de Janeiro Data