New Developments in Technology Management

Topics: Management, Innovation, Technology transfer Pages: 27 (7698 words) Published: November 22, 2010
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2009, Vol. 8, No. 3, 324 –336.

........................................................................................................................................................................

New Developments in Technology Management Education: Background Issues, Program Initiatives, and a Research Agenda PHILLIP H. PHAN The Johns Hopkins University DONALD S. SIEGEL University at Albany, SUNY MIKE WRIGHT Nottingham University Business School and Erasmus University, Rotterdam We provide background information on key developments and trends in technology management education, including the managerial implications of recent public policy changes designed to stimulate investment in technology and entrepreneurship. We then consider the educational implications of these trends, drawing on lessons learned from papers in the special issue and our own research. Finally, we outline an agenda for future research on technology management education.

........................................................................................................................................................................ INTRODUCTION The teaching of technology management has a long history in business schools. However, the nature and focus of such curricula have changed in recent years, due to several trends. The rise of a knowledge-based economy has brought greater attention to the management and commercialization of intellectual property (Markman, Siegel, & Wright, 2008). Questions regarding the appropriate business models to foster successful commercialization have been further complicated by the rise of “open-source” innovation (e.g., Linux, a software company that has captured substantial market share). And new institutions (e.g., incubators and science parks; Phan, Siegel, & Wright, 2005) and new organizational forms (e.g., research joint ventures [RJVs], and technology alliances) have emerged that may also have profound effects on technology management education. Nonprofit institutions, most notably universities and federal laboratories, have become much more aggressive in protecting and exploiting their intellectual property (Siegel & Wright, 2007). Such institutions, es324 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download or email articles for individual use only.

pecially universities, are also working much more closely with industry and government. These trends and growing involvement of government and nongovernmental institutions in innovation and commercialization have led to growing international recognition of the narrowness of technology management education as it is practiced today. Some business and engineering schools have responded to these developments by designing new courses and curricula related to technological entrepreneurship. Some countries with centralized educational systems (e.g., Japan, Singapore, and Ireland) are graduating “bilingual engineers” with capabilities in technology and business. Yet, this trend of marrying technology with management education is still far from being in the mainstream. Another important development in stimulating and changing the nature of the demand for technology management education is the rise of knowledge and intellectual property management as a professional field. In many countries, national governments have supported these initiatives by en-

2009

Phan, Siegel, and Wright

325

acting legislation to facilitate public–private research partnerships, technology transfer (through patenting and licensing) from universities to firms (e.g., the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980), and collaborative research. For example, the EU, China, and Singapore have established technology-based venture funds to stimulate the development of technologybased...

References: Ambos, T., Makela, K., Birkinshaw, J., & D’Este, P. 2008. When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45: 1424 –1447. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. 2001. Academic tribes and territories. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Carlile, R. P. 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13: 442– 455. Inkpen, A., & Tsang, E. 2005. Social capital, networks and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30(1): 146 – 165. Koh, W., & Phan, P. In Press. The National Innovation System in Singapore. In V. K., Narayanan, & G. O’Connor, (Eds.), Encyclopedia for Technology, Innovation and Management, Blackwell Press: U.K. Locke, R., & Schone, K. 2004. The entrepreneurial shift: Ameri¨ canization in European high-technology management education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Markman, G., Phan, P., Balkin, D., & Gianiodis, P. 2004. Entrepreneurship from the ivory tower: Do incentive systems matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3– 4): 353–364. Markman, G., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. 2008. Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45: 1401–1423. Meyer, M. 2008. University patenting and IP management approaches in Europe. Brighton: SPRU, University of Sussex. Muller-Camen, M., & Salzgeber, S. 2005. Changes in academic work and the chair regime: The case of German business administration academics. Organization Studies, 26(2): 271– 290. Mustar, P., & Wright, M. 2009. Convergence or path dependency in policies to foster the creation of university spin-off firms? A comparison of France and the United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Transfer, forthcoming. Nambisan, S., & Willemon, D. 2003. A global study of graduate
management of technology programmes. Technovation, 23: 949 –962. Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. 2002. The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(1): 78 –95. Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. 2004. The business school “business”: Some lessons from the U.S. experience. Journal of Management Studies, 41(8): 1501–1520. Phan, P., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. 2005. Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2): 165–182. Siegel, D. S., & Phan, P. 2005. Analyzing the effectiveness of university technology transfer: Implications for entrepreneurship education. In G. D. Libecap, (Ed.), Advances in the study of entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic growth, volume 16: University entrepreneurship and technology transfer: 1–38. JAI Press: Oxford, UK. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. N. 2003. Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1): 27– 48. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., Atwater, L., & Link, A. N. 2004. Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1–2): 115–142. Siegel, D. S., & Wright M. 2007. Intellectual property: The assessment. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4): 529 –540. Souitaris V., Zerbinati, S., & Al-Laham, A. 2007. Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intentions of science and engineering students? The effects of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4): 566 –591. Starkey, K., Hatchuel, A., & Tempest, S. 2004. Rethinking the business school. Journal of Management Studies, 41(8): 1521–1532. Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. 2001. Colonizing knowledge: Commodification as a dynamic of jurisdictional expansion in professional service firms. Human Relations, 54: 933–953. Szulanski, G. 1996. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 27– 43. Van Burg, E., Romme, G. L., Gilsing, V. A, & Reymenk, I. M. M. J. 2008. Creating university spin-offs: A science-based design perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25: 114 –128. Wright, M., Piva, E., Mosey, S., & Lockett, A. 2009. Academic entrepreneurship and the role of business schools. Journal of Technology Transfer.
Phillip Phan is professor and vice dean for Faculty and Research at The Johns Hopkins University Carey Business School. Between 2000 and 2007, he was the Warren H. Bruggeman ’46 and Pauline Urban Bruggeman Distinguished Professor of Management at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Phil is associate editor for the Journal of Business Venturing, the Journal of Financial Stability, and the Journal of Technology Transfer. His most recent books are Theoretical Advances in Family Enterprise Research (InfoAge Press); Entrepreneurship and Economic Development in Emerging Regions (Edward Elgar); and Taking Back the Boardroom: Thriving as a Director in the 21st Century (Imperial College Press). Donald Siegel is dean of the School of Business and professor of management at the University at Albany, SUNY. Don is editor of the Journal of Technology Transfer, associate editor of
336
Academy of Management Learning & Education Journal of Business Venturing, Journal of Productivity Analysis, and Academy of Management Learning & Education. His most recent books are Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Technological Change (Oxford University Press); and the Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (Oxford University Press). He has received grants or fellowships from the Sloan Foundation, National Science Foundation, NBER, American Statistical Association, W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, and the U.S. Department of Labor. Professor Siegel is a member of the Advisory Committee to the Secretary of Commerce on “Measuring Innovation in the 21st Century Economy.” Mike Wright has been professor of financial studies at Nottingham University Business School since 1989 and director of the Centre for Management Buy-out Research since 1986. He has written over 25 books and more than 250 papers in academic and professional journals on management buy-outs, venture capital, habitual entrepreneurs, corporate governance, and related topics. He served two terms as an editor of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (1994 –1999) and is currently a consulting editor of Journal of Management Studies and an associate editor of Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. Mike is also program chair of the Academy of Management Entrepreneurship Division. His latest books include Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe and Private Equity and Management Buyouts.
September
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Essay about New MBA Program development Proposal
  • New Venture Development and Management Essay
  • Essay on Technology Management
  • Technology Management Essay
  • Essay on Foundation of Development Management in Comparison
  • People Management Development at Unilever Essay
  • Project Management: New Product Development Essay
  • TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS FOR HR DEVELOPMENT & MANAGEMENT Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free