Design and Testing of a systematic technology application selection process – losing the awe

Problem and theoretical Foundation
Technology push (TP) represents an important innovation strategy to exploit technology and technological knowledge to transform it into value (Maier et al. 2016). While they have the potential to lead to breakthrough innovations (Herstatt and Lettl, 2000), it also involves high uncertainty. Identifying and selecting applications for new technologies is challenging and risky since the appropriate market is often not clear and no guarantee of success can be estimated (Terzidis and Vogel, 2018). Furthermore, systematic, and consistent approaches for identifying application fields are sparse (Henkel and Jung, 2009).
Despite the high demand for technological innovations in industry and research, few practical approaches supporting the TAS process are known (Terzidis and Vogel, 2018), while several exist for market pull innovations, like design thinking (Leavy, 2012). Furthermore, there is hardly any specific investigation on the process of TAS for new technologies. Literature reviews focusing on the TAS process have been conducted by several authors, investigating different kinds of influential factors in the process (e.g., Abd Rahim et al. ... mehr2021), perceived meaning of opportunity with its underlying process (e.g., Ojala and Puhakka, 2013), and the whole TP process (e.g., Gbadegeshi, 2018). Additionally, studies explored the theoretical underpinnings in practical settings, testing the derived factors and contributions in the business environment (Wohlfeil and Terzidis, 2015; Okhli et al. 2019). Associated research topics, like methods to support the identification and selection process of applications for technology, have been covered by e.g., Hartelt et al. (2015) and Veilleux et al. (2018). Few authors address the development and testing of practical approaches to identify and select applications for new technologies, despite the continuous interest in tackling the challenge of TP innovations leading back to Roberson and Weijo (1988), being followed by various studies until today (Moncada-Peternò-Castello et al. 2003; Bianchi et al. 2010; Terzidis and Vogel, 2018). A scientific way to design a practical approach is design science research, which was up until now only carried out by Terzidis and Vogel (2018).
The current state of research shows that several TAS approaches exist, while most studies investigate mostly parts in the TAS process with theoretical and practical approaches. Only few address the design and testing of practical approaches to support the discovery of new applications for technology. Besides that, these approaches still lack consistency and scientific evaluation, even though a high need for a systematic and scientifically tested TAS process was identified (Kuo et al. 2011; Platzek et al. 2012). Consequently, more comprehensive guidance on understanding and executing the TAS process is needed. The goal of this research is to develop and validate such comprehensive guidance. By that, this work is based on the hypothesis that existing approaches for the TAS do not best support this task and need to be revised.
Methodology
A Design Science Research (DSR) approach is used in this work to answer this practical problem with a scientific approach, following the proposed frameworks by Hevner et al. (2004) and Peffers et al. (2007). According to Johannesson and Perjons (2014), design science is the scientific study and creation of artefacts as they are developed and used by people with the goal of solving practical problems of general interest. As pointed out beforehand, the evaluation part is a highly critical and essential part of design science research. Hence, in this paper the focus lies on the second evaluation part of a developed TAS artefact. The evaluation strategy was developed based on the FEDS Framework (Venable et al. 2016). This study covers the second evaluation cycle of the developed TAS artefact. The first evaluation cycle was conducted with an expert group based on an interview guideline to analyse the first version (alpha) in-depth and derive adjustments for the Beta version, which will be tested in the field experiment as the essential method (Bhattacherjee 2012). Hereby, the artefact will be tested in workshops with students to identify an application for a given technology, further developing it into a valid business idea. A standardized questionnaire, in-depth interviews, and an external observation supplement the field experiment to uncover manipulations and extraneous effects and filter them out to evaluate the artifact itself.
Expected Results
The findings will be analysed regarding their improvement potential for the artefact, including negative assessments, improvement suggestions as well as neutral remarks. Furthermore, the requirements of the artefact will be evaluated. Based on these findings the gamma version of the artefact will be designed and tested in another field experiment, as well as discussed with experts in the field.
Implications
The study contributes to the current discussion of Technology Push Innovations and the design of practical implications. Based on Hevner et al. (2004), the design evaluation is a crucial step in DSR: The utility, quality, and efficacy of a design artifact must be rigorously demonstrated via well executed evaluation methods, which will be executed by this study. The TAS artefact provides a foundation and guidance for educators and practitioners, who aim to conduct a systematic TAS process. It may also serve as basis for entrepreneurship programs and education, where the curriculum can be enriched by TP programs, aiming to identify applications for a given technology.
References
Abd Rahim, N., Mohamed, Z., Amrin, A., and Masrom, M. (2021). Impact of Self-Regulated Learning on Entrepreneurial Opportunity Recognition and Academic Entrepreneurship Performance. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), 18(04), 1-30.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2012): Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices.
Bianchi, M., Campodall'Orto, S., Frattini, F., and Vercesi, P. (2010). Enabling open innovation in small‐and medium‐sized enterprises: how to find alternative applications for your technologies. R&d Management, 40(4), 414-431.
Gbadegeshin, S. A. (2018). Lean commercialization: A new framework for commercializing high technologies. Technology Innovation Management Review, 8(9).
Hartelt, R., Wohlfeil, F., & Terzidis, O. (2015). Process model for technology-push utilizing the task-technology-fit approach. In 19th Interdisciplinary Entrepreneurship Conference.
Henkel, J., and Jung, S.: "The technology-push lead user concept: a new tool for application identification."
Herstatt, C., and Lettl, C.: "Marktorientierte Erfolgsfaktoren technologiegetriebener Entwicklungsprojekte."
Hevner, A.; March, S.; Park, J; Ram, S. (2004): Design science in information systems research. In Management Information Systems Quarterly 28 (1), p. 6.
Johannesson, Paul; Perjons, Erik (2014): An introduction to design science: Springer.
Kuo, D. C. L., Lin, C. C., and Yang, J. L. (2011). Reconsidering the role of brainstorming in the marketing of technology-driven innovation. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 6(1), 4-16.
Leavy, B. (2012). Collaborative innovation as the new imperative–design thinking, value co‐creation and the power of “pull”. Strategy and Leadership.
Maier, M., Hofmann, M. and Brem, A. (2016). "Technology and trend management at the interface of technology push and market pull." International journal of technology management 72.4: 310-332.
Moncada-Paternò-Castello, P., Rojo, J., Bellido, F., Fiore, F., and Tübke, A. (2003). Early identification and marketing of innovative technologies: a case study of RTD result valorisation at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. Technovation, 23(8), 655-667.
Okhli, M., Didehkhani, H., Sharifzadeh, M. S., and Hosseini, S. M. R. (2019). Determinants of Opportunity Recognition in the Pattern of Agricultural Tech Startups in Northern Provinces of Iran. International Journal of Agricultural Science, Research and Technology in Extension and Education Systems, 9(2), 65-75.
Ojala, A., and Puhakka, V. (2013). Opportunity discovery and creation in cloud computing. In 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE.
Peffers, K.; Tuunanen, T.; Rothenberger, M..; Chatterjee, S. (2007): A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. In Journal of Management Information Systems 24 (3), pp. 45–77.
Platzek BP, Pretorius L, Winzker DH (2012). Sustainability in technology driven business environments: a company-level approach. In: Proceeding of the 2012 PICMET'12: technology management for emerging technologies, IEEE, Vancouver, 1195–1208.
Roberson, B. F., and Weijo, R. O. (1988). Using market research to convert federal technology into marketable products. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 13(1), 27-33.
Terzidis, O., and Vogel, L. (2018). "A unified model of the technology push process and its application in a workshop setting." Technology entrepreneurship. Springer, Cham. 111-135.
Veilleux, S., Haskell, N., and Béliveau, D. (2018). Opportunity recognition by international high-technology start-up and growth photonics firms. International journal of entrepreneurship and innovation management, 22(1-2), 126-151.
Venable, J.; Pries-Heje, J.; Baskerville, R. (2016): FEDS: a framework for evaluation in design science research. In European Journal of Information Systems 25 (1), pp. 77– 89.
Wohlfeil, F., and Terzidis, O. (2015). A critical success factors model for radical technological innovations. In ISPIM Conference Proceedings (p. 1). The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM).