IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v39y2019i2d10.1007_s10669-019-09732-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A framework of practices supporting the reuse of technological knowledge

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Stenholm

    (Chalmers University of Technology)

  • Daniel Corin Stig

    (Chalmers University of Technology)

  • Lars Ivansen

    (Mycronic AB)

  • Dag Bergsjö

    (Chalmers University of Technology)

Abstract

Technology-intensive companies invest considerable of resources in product development to bring competitive products to market. Since market demand is continuously changing, the capability to renew offerings quickly and at low cost is an important source of competitive advantage. Even if components and designs may need to be updated when releasing new products, their underlying technologies and designs can usually be reused to enable fast and cost-efficient development. To be proficient in practices that support reuse of technologies thus constitutes an important organizational capability, but identifying and assessing these practices has not been a straightforward task for technology developers and managers. This paper presents a literature review regarding technology reuse in four main dimensions; Strategy, Process, Culture, and Information Technology. The dimensions are further decomposed into a framework with twelve principles that supports this technology reuse capability, including technology platform strategy and reusability assessment. Besides providing a theoretical overview of practices supporting the reuse of technology, the framework can also be used in practice to facilitate the assessment of the current reuse capability of an organization. Industrial cases, illustrating real technology development issues, are used to highlight the principles of the framework. Further, a self-assessment scorecard is demonstrated with data from two companies that develop and manufacture high-tech products.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Stenholm & Daniel Corin Stig & Lars Ivansen & Dag Bergsjö, 2019. "A framework of practices supporting the reuse of technological knowledge," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 128-145, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:39:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s10669-019-09732-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-019-09732-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-019-09732-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10669-019-09732-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew H. Van de Ven, 1986. "Central Problems in the Management of Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 590-607, May.
    2. Burgelman, Robert A. & Siegel, Robert E., 2008. "Cutting the Strategy Diamond in High-Technology Ventures," Research Papers 1987, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    3. Dave Yates & Christian Wagner & Ann Majchrzak, 2010. "Factors affecting shapers of organizational wikis," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(3), pages 543-554, March.
    4. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    5. Ellen Thomas & Michael Obal, 2018. "Type Of Knowledge Sharing And Its Impact On Collaborative New Product Development," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(02), pages 1-24, February.
    6. Bozeman, Barry & Rimes, Heather & Youtie, Jan, 2015. "The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 34-49.
    7. Molas-Gallart, Jordi, 1997. "Which way to go? Defence technology and the diversity of 'dual-use' technology transfer," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 367-385, October.
    8. Robert J. Cloutier & Dinesh Verma, 2007. "Applying the concept of patterns to systems architecture," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 138-154, June.
    9. Van de Ven, Andrew R., 1986. "Central Problems in the Management of Innovation," Agricultural Research Policy Seminar 139708, University of Minnesota Extension.
    10. Sharon Watson & Kelly Hewett, 2006. "A Multi‐Theoretical Model of Knowledge Transfer in Organizations: Determinants of Knowledge Contribution and Knowledge Reuse," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(2), pages 141-173, March.
    11. Armin P. Schulz & Don P. Clausing & Ernst Fricke & Herbert Negele, 2000. "Development and integration of winning technologies as key to competitive advantage," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(4), pages 180-211.
    12. Dave Yates & Christian Wagner & Ann Majchrzak, 2010. "Factors affecting shapers of organizational wikis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(3), pages 543-554, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Peter A. Beling & Cody H. Fleming & William T. Scherer, 2019. "Systems engineering in context," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 109-110, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brion, Sébastien & Mothe, Caroline & Sabatier, Mareva, 2007. "What impacts more on innovation : Organizational context or individual competences ?," MPRA Paper 10595, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Sébastien Brion & Caroline Mothe & Maréva Sabatier, 2010. "The Impact Of Organisational Context And Competences On Innovation Ambidexterity," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(02), pages 151-178.
    3. Jan Mattsson & Helge Helmersson & Katarina Stetler, 2016. "Motivation Fatigue As A Threat To Innovation: Bypassing The Productivity Dilemma In R&D By Cyclic Production," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(02), pages 1-23, February.
    4. Andrew Hargadon & Angelo Fanelli, 2002. "Action and Possibility: Reconciling Dual Perspectives of Knowledge in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 290-302, June.
    5. Leone, Maria Isabella & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio & Natalicchio, Angelo, 2022. "Boundary spanning through external technology acquisition: The moderating role of star scientists and upstream alliances," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    6. Karl Aschenbrücker & Tobias Kretschmer, 2022. "Performance-based incentives and innovative activity in small firms: evidence from German manufacturing," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 11(2), pages 47-64, June.
    7. Po‐Hsuan Hsu & Hai‐Ping Hui & Hsiao‐Hui Lee & Kevin Tseng, 2022. "Supply chain technology spillover, customer concentration, and product invention," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 393-417, April.
    8. Burger-Helmchen, Thierry, 2009. "Option chain and change management: A structural equation application," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 176-186, June.
    9. Yan Anthea Zhang & Zhuo Emma Chen & Yuandi Wang, 2021. "Which patents to use as loan collaterals? The role of newness of patents' external technology linkage," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(10), pages 1822-1849, October.
    10. Justin J. P. Jansen & Frans A. J. Van Den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2006. "Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(11), pages 1661-1674, November.
    11. Kotaro Kuwada, 1998. "Strategic Learning: The Continuous Side of Discontinuous Strategic Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(6), pages 719-736, December.
    12. Amrita Lahiri & Anu Wadhwa, 2021. "When do serial entrepreneurs found innovative ventures? Evidence from patent data," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 1973-1993, December.
    13. Mohan, Mayoor & Voss, Kevin E. & Jiménez, Fernando R., 2017. "Managerial disposition and front-end innovation success," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 193-201.
    14. Dovev Lavie & Israel Drori, 2012. "Collaborating for Knowledge Creation and Application: The Case of Nanotechnology Research Programs," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 704-724, June.
    15. Onexy Quintana-Martinez & Antonio-Rafael Ramos-Rodriguez, 2016. "Changes in the Axes of Convergence of Innovation Management Research," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(5), pages 1-96, April.
    16. Susanne Hügel & Markus Kreutzer, 2019. "The Impact Of Organisational Slack On Innovative Work Behaviour: How Do Top Managers And Employees Differ?," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 24(03), pages 1-44, April.
    17. Dirk Deichmann & Jan van den Ende, 2014. "Rising from Failure and Learning from Success: The Role of Past Experience in Radical Initiative Taking," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 670-690, June.
    18. Lin, H.E., 2010. "Effects of strategy, context and antecedents and capabilities on the outcomes of ambidexterity : A multiple country case study of the US, China and Taiwan," Other publications TiSEM c0eab7d6-d6c7-4b55-9822-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Yu-Shan Su & Eric Tsang & Mike Peng, 2009. "How do internal capabilities and external partnerships affect innovativeness?," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 309-331, June.
    20. Christina E. Shalley & Lucy L. Gilson, 2017. "Creativity and the Management of Technology: Balancing Creativity and Standardization," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 26(4), pages 605-616, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:39:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s10669-019-09732-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

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

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

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.