R24 - Managerial Perceptions of Factors

8/2/2019 R24 - Managerial Perceptions of Factors

1/17

Technovation 23 (2003) 719735

www.elsevier.com/locate/technovation

Managerial perceptions of factors influencing technologymanagement in South Africa

Ian Hipkin a, David Bennett b,

a School of Business and Economics, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4PU, UKb Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK

Abstract

A challenge for developing countries is to become part of the global economy. Their economic well being is dependent on theirability to attain the levels of technological development which could make them globally competitive. Infrastructural and educationalproblems pose immediate barriers which should be addressed as these countries embark on projects to enhance their technologicalbase. The technology selected should be appropriate for the countrys level of development and expertise. The implementation ofthat technology will place a new set of demands on managers and workers. This paper describes an investigation of perceptionsof technology management in South Africa, a country which is developed in certain areas, but which remains desperately poor inother respects. South Africas politics and history have always confronted managers with unique demands. The paper examines theperceptions of 132 South African managers regarding technology management by studying the relationship between the importanceof different factors in managing new technology, and the extent to which a manager can control them. An importance-control gridframework is used to isolate individual parameters and to assess these in relation to the complexity of a managers environment.The research highlights imbalances between importance and control, and suggests reasons therefor. Some broader implications formanagers are also discussed. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Technology; Technology transfer; Developing countries; South Africa; Management

1. Introduction

The role of technology in the advancement ofdeveloping countries (DCs) is complex and contro-versial. There is wide acceptance that technologicalknowledge and competence are essential for global com-petitiveness (Barbosa and Vaidya, 1997; Husain andSushil, 1997), but forces promoting global integrationmay conflict with creating and sustaining local auto-nomy. This struggle is not against globalisation; rather,efforts must be made to establish the terms under whichparticipation in globalisation can take place (Marcus,1992). A more sanguine view of the dominant and irre-versible role of technology in DC development is takenby Kahn (1995: 139) who maintains, it is an articleof faith that the application of science and of industrial

Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-121-359-3611; fax: +44-121-

359-5271.

E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Bennett).

0166-4972/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00031-7

organisation would bring untold material benefits to themodern world. Kuper (1999: 210) provides further sup-port as civilisation advances, it will impose sacrifices.There is no guarantee that it will promote individual hap-piness or advance the common good ... but the capitalof humanity increases.

The technological world is characterised by rapidchanges in resource utilisation, increasing levels ofdecision complexity and intense competition (Sharif,1997). Reduced development cycles and the pace oftechnological change place greater urgency on the needto adopt new technology if DCs are to begin to competeglobally (Jegathesan et al., 1997), although DCs will notfind it easy to beat the hard-won technological advantageof the developed world. The extent to which DCs partici-pate in the global economy will therefore depend on theirability to invest in and utilise technology. The manage-ment of knowledge and technical information, equipmentand software comprising the physical technology itself(Wang, 1997) are areas of interest in technology transfer(TT) in general. In DCs other issues assume even greater


2/17

720 I. Hipkin, D. Bennett / Technovation 23 (2003) 719735

importance, typically including human resources, skills

and training, unique organisational issues, and lore(Adjibolosoo, 1994).

This paper describes part of a broader study into the

management of technology in DCs. The approach usesan importance-control grid to reflect the perceptions of

a sample of South African managers regarding the man-agement of technology. The following section reviews

some of the literature relating to technology in DCs. The

sample and the importance-control grid are then

described, and the results are analysed and their impli-

cations are discussed.

2. Literature review on factors influencing

technology management

Technology transforms operations, facilitates the

emergence of new industries, and creates new sets of

economic activities. Low cost, low level technologies,

which produce low value items only for their home mar-

kets no longer meet the broadening needs of DCs (Moor,

1994). Although innovation and technology develop-

ment are concentrated in relatively few countries and

organisations, corporate and political technology policiesare now based on global considerations (Lall, 1993:

104). It may be argued that efforts in DCs should be

directed at the provision of basic services to impover-

ished populations, but it is unlikely that adequate econ-

omic growth can be generated solely by internal demand.

For example, more than 30% of South Africas exports

are from manufactured goods competing in the globalmarketplace (South African Reserve Bank QuarterlyReview, March (2001). Even if countries gave priority

to issues, such as Aids, they would still need technology

and expertise from the developed world. In order to gain

significant entry to world markets, the technology stra-tegies of private enterprises in DCs will have to reflectthe trends, and meet the priorities found in the developed

world: shorter product life-cycles, greater product diver-

sity, more rigorous quality standards and demanding cus-

tomers, fragmented markets and environmental con-sciousness (Sharif, 1997). New technology, whether

imported or developed at home, is a key requirement for

expanding the export base of a developing country.

The TT literature discusses a range of factors, such as

culture, economic and political issues, knowledge, and

strategic, operational and supply chain arrangements(Eldred and McGrath, 1997; Gupta et al., 1997; Tyre,

1991). The literature deals extensively with the socio-

cultural dimension, and cultural proximity between sup-

plier and adopter (Hemais, 1997). Kuper (1999: 210)

suggests that cultural differences persist in a changingworld: distinct ways of life once destined to merge intothe modern world reassert their difference, in novelways. Gergen and Whitney (1996: 333) see technology

as a mechanism for transformation, creating new forms

of social construction arising from the adoption of alienbeliefs, values and practices...undermining of traditions,

colonisation of perceptions, attitudes and actions by thedominant party in a business relationship. BowmakerFalconer et al (1998: 225) believe that a failure to

understand cultural and other differences can lead tomisguided assumptions, poor working relations, under-

performance and discrimination. Mbigi and Maree(1995: 106) agree that cultural dimensions seem to havea significant impact on the management of transform-ation.

In considering the transformation brought about by

technology in DCs, Lessem (1996: 86) refers to cross-ing the north-side divide, where the three interrelated

facets of society, namely authority, economy and com-munity, form an interrelated whole...the authority pole

stands for the rationality of the north, and the community

pole for the humanism of the south, the economy rep-

resents a force of pragmatic integration. Pragmatismwould accommodate competing cultural identities in

their quest for dominance (Oliver, 1998), and supportive

distinctiveness, where, for example, African modernitycomplements the European and the new world mod-

ernity, yet it cannot be identified with it (Matustik,1998: 112). There is a balance between ignoring culture

and allowing the study of technology management to be

subsumed by it (Kuper, 1999: 212). Peppard (1996)

ascribes the divergent findings of researchers to the dif-ferent contexts in which research is conducted, and

claims that wide differences in opinion do not permit

simple and definitive conclusions to be drawn.Differences in cultures, industries and individuals are

compounded by diverse political and economic systems,

requiring the transfer of core techniques as well as busi-

ness and management philosophies. Several authors(Adjibolosoo, 1994; Kahen, 1997; Kim, 1998; Lado and

Vozikis, 1996) emphasise the influence in technologyplanning of social and political factors, government poli-

cies, the acquiring countrys level of economic develop-ment, the absorptive capacity of local firms, the lack ofresearch and test centres, IT infrastructure, and otherindustry linkages. Lall (1993) includes further barriers

such as a lack of acquirer skills and education, inad-

equate technical and managerial know-how, poor infra-

structure, inadequate intellectual property rights, govern-

ment requirements and commercial habits (Grant andGregory, 1997: 2).

TT is an interorganisational process with multiple out-

comes (Spann et al., 1995), requiring an assessment of

costs, benefits, and tangible improvements, (Hackmanand Wageman, 1995; Wilkinson and Wilmott, 1995;

Wilson, 1991). Assessments of success vary becauseobjectives are ambiguous and inconsistent measurement

standards render evaluation difficult (Armistead et al.,1995; Dixon et al., 1994). Less directly measurable are


3/17

721I. Hipkin, D. Bennett / Technovation 23 (2003) 719735

the non-quantifiable merits of TT, such as compatibilityfeatures of the technology, and the technical and com-

mercial effectiveness of the TT (Bennett et al., 1999:

511).

Proactive individuals and technology champions incarefully designed and well-managed organisational

structures advance TT through innovative ideas (Irwinet al., 1998). In accommodating interactions that result

from new technology, managers need to rethink organis-

ational processes that affect or are affected by the tech-

nology (Hart and Schlesinger, 1991; Sitkin et al., 1994;

Tuckman, 1994). Lall (1993:100) sees many implicitelements in technology that need a long period of learn-

ing to master. These are a function of experience, but

are enhanced by investment in training by the technology

owner1 and acquirer, the search for new technical andknowledge solutions, and developing organisational

capacities to create, communicate and diffuse knowl-

edge internally.

Successful TT depends on the cumulative experiences

of key personnel. Explicit knowledge, in the form of

hardware, procedures, and practices may form only asmall part of the sum of knowledge to be transferred

(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995), since the transfer of some

technologies requires subtle skills and knowledge that

are difficult to codify (von Hippel, 1994). The overalltechnological characteristics are the easiest to transfer

(the explicit issues), with operational fine-tuningpresenting the greatest challenges (Katz et al., 1996).

Knowledge creation requires an understanding of all pro-

ducts and processes. The technology owner is frequently

reluctant to reveal all about a technology, whereas theacquirer is keen to gain as much understanding as poss-ible. The result is described by Marcus (1992) as an

uncompromising sense of paradox between resistance

and accommodation, with the sophisticated acquirer

demanding greater access to codified knowledge andinsisting that the owner makes tacit knowledge more

explicit.

Knowledge transfer depends on the ability to evaluate

and learn all aspects of a technology. One functional

discipline where this is particularly important is mainte-nance, which now demands greater attention for a num-

ber of reasons: intensified competition requires strict costcontrol, with maintenance accounting for an increasing

share of operational costs (Paz and Leigh, 1994); safety

and environmental disasters are increasingly attributable

to equipment failure; maintenance itself is changing,with substantially different ways of understanding the

nature of failure (Moubray, 2001); automated facilities

operating in a just-in-time regime require higher avail-

1 Following the terminology of Bennett et al. (1999), a technology

supplier is referred to as the owner of the technology, and the recipi-

ent is the acquirer.

ability and reliability from plant and equipment; new

technology has introduced equipment and systems where

no operating and maintenance experience exists. High

levels of production competence and an understanding

of equipment failure patterns are essential before mainte-nance requirements can be determined (Jaikumar, 1986;

Cleveland et al., 1989; Ferdows and De Meyer (1990).The importance of appropriate technology, contextual

adaptation, and developing technological capabilities

and core technologies in TT to DCs is addressed by a

number of authors (Barbosa and Vaidya, 1997; Grant,

1996; Husain and Sushil, 1997; Kim, 1998; Plenert,

1994; Virasa and Tang, 1999). Leonard-Barton (1995)

sees technology activity between countries as a flow oftechnological capabilities, or knowledge-creating activi-

ties. Along a continuum of technological capabilityLeonard-Barton (1995: 221) identifies four levels in atechnology capability ladder: (1) assembly or turnkeyoperations, (2) adaptation and localisation of compo-

nents, (3) product redesign, and (4) independent design

of products. In DCs the first two levels are more likelyto predominate. The first level is a process of con-verting or transferring scientific or technological knowl-edge directly into the satisfaction of a customer need;

the product...(is) the carrier of the technology (Twiss,1986: 4). For example, an automated system installed as

a turnkey project may obviate the need for skilled oper-

ators and ensure consistently high quality, although it

may not necessarily be suitable in a DC environment.

Since it is not always possible to capture and describe

all activities in procedures, and the appropriate degree

of proceduralisation (and hence automation) depends onthe level of knowledge of a process (Bohn, 1994), toohigh a level of technology can be extravagant and may

render the process unworkable or worthless as intricate

operational procedures cannot be followed or break-

downs become irreparable.

The challenge at Leonard-Bartons second level is toidentify appropriate technology and to assess the extent

to which an owners technology needs to be modified foradaptation to local situations (Platt and Wilson, 1999). A

3-bridge mechanism for co-ordination (Katz et al., 1996)creates a structure for addressing problems of appropri-

ateness for TT. The procedural bridge involves joint

planning and staffing, and transferring know-how. Thesecond bridge is the human bridge relying on estab-

lishing direct interaction between people from different

organisations. Thirdly, organisational bridges use speci-ally constituted transfer teams and processes to formalise

TT. A facilitating feature of TT is the robustness of the

technology, where transfer to any environment takes

place without adaptation to local conditions: robustness

is recipient-independent (Grant and Gregory, 1997: 4).Incorporating technological considerations in strategic

decisions requires a balanced assessment of product

complexity (for value maximisation) and process com-


4/17


plexity (for cost minimisation) (Sharif, 1997: 314), but

resources, and financial and competency-based con-straints will restrict DCs in their selection of techno-

logies. Lennon (1997) discusses the need for continuous

updating of equipment and processes, and the relevancefor developing countries of attaining technological par-

ity, achieved in part, by skills and infrastructural devel-opment, research, and education in a knowledge context

(Davies, 1993).

A resource-based view of knowledge management

identifies distinct capabilities and knowledge as the basisof differential firm performance. Helfat and Raubitschek(2000: 961) speak of the coevolution of knowledge,capabilities and products. As supply chain managementbecomes part of technology policy, local adaptation of

technology invariably means greater involvement withnetworks and sourcing at second or third tiers in the local

supply chain, requiring a network of capabilities, rather

than networks of facilities (Leonard-Barton, 1995: 242).

The transformation of collaborative agreements into pro-

ductive and strategically effective relationships will be

the real challenge of strategic alliance management in

the 21st century (Irwin et al., 1998). The way in which

technology is transferred depends on the technology, the

strategy of the owner and the capabilities of the acquirer.South Africa exhibits some favourable attributes of a

developed economy as well as the negative character-

istics of the poorest countries. This study investigates

perceptions of technology issues in South Africa, a coun-

try in a dual world (Wang, 1993). The managementof technology in this study includes an investigation of

factors discussed in the literature as well as others thatmay be peculiar to South Africa, such as affirmativeaction, employment equity, empowerment and stake-

holder relationships (Pycraft and Bawden, 1996).

3. The study

The paper examines the perceptions of 132 South

African managers who were attending business school

management development and executive managementprogrammes at the University of Cape Town in 2000.

The breakdown of the sample by industry sector is

shown in Table 1. Although Table 1 gives racial and

gender details, analysis of results by race and gender did

not produce statistically significant differences. In laterdiscussions comments have been attributed to black orto white managers, as these can assist in explaining some

individual differences in viewpoints otherwise disguised

by averaged scores.

The 30 managers attending the first in a series of pro-grammes were first asked to list the issues that theybelieved were important in managing technology in their

organisations. The responses produced 96 items. Where

necessary, the authors clarified what the managers had

wished to convey in naming these. The authors then

eliminated overlapping items, resulting in a list of 60

items.

The managers in the first and subsequent groups werethen asked to score how important these items were inTT, and then to what extent they could control them.

Prior to the scoring, an explanation of each factor wasgiven to managers to ensure a consistent interpretation of

all items. We explained to managers that importancereferred to significant issues in the workplace, whereerrors and lack of adherence to desired performance

requirements might potentially carry serious conse-

quences. Control related to a managers power todirect, regulate and influence. The scoring was on aLikert scale of one (not important/no control) to five(most important/much control) for the following criteria:

How important this item is now, in so far as it affects

your working environment

How much control can be exercised over this item

now

How important this item will be in three years time

How much control can be exercised over this item in

three years time

Table 2 shows the items and their groupings under

factor headings (discussed later), with the average scores

from the 132 participants for each item. Factor scores

are weighted according to factor loadings derived from

a factor analysis of current importance scores, and

unweighted averages of the item averages are also

shown.The purpose of this study was to obtain the opinions

of, and insight into the perceptions of a strategically

important sample of managers. As Linz (1988) has

pointed out, in such situations sample size is lessimportant than are experience, competency and objec-

tivity of participants...the testimony of even a single

expert informant on a particular topic is still valuable if

treated with caution. Follow-up interviews of about 30minutes duration, structured around the factors, wereheld with 42 managers in order to clarify and explainemerging results. The purpose of the interviews was to

understand and interpret quantitative data through a

qualitative assessment. It is of course unrealistic to

expect verification or falsification to be absolutely cer-tain and conclusive.

4. The importance-control grid

The research follows the methodology of Naude et al.

(1990), and Naude and Hipkin (1998) in studying therelationship between the importance of different factors

in a managers operational environment, and the extentto which a manager can control them. Managers tasks


5/17


Table 1

Breakdown of sample of South African managers, N=132

Sector Number of respondents Percentage

Construction 14 11

Consumer goods manufacture 20 15

Financial institutions 19 14Heavy manufacturing 28 21

IT 8 6

Mining 21 16

Automotive 13 10

Retailing 9 7

Number of respondents Percentage

Males 74 56

Black males 51 39

White males 23 17

Females 58 44

Black females 41 31

White females 17 13

demand attention to important issues, but Naude et al.

(1990) show that, particularly in transitional environ-

ments, managers frequently find themselves without suf-ficient control of these factors. The framework enablesthe researcher to isolate individual parameters and to

study these in relation to the complexity of a managersenvironment. By plotting the scores on a grid, the fol-

lowing distinct areas may be identified:

core issues, which managers see as the most

important and over which they can exercise the most

control; these issues require the greatest management

time, effort and planning complex issues, which are perceived as being

important but over which managers can exercise lim-

ited control

simple issues, which are of lesser importance and

which are easily controlled by management

peripheral issues, which are generally of limited

importance and over which little control can be exer-

cised.

The grid provides a useful methodology for ident-ifying such problems, and can be extended to suggest

action for improving technology adoption. The terms

core, complex, simple and peripheral are labels for easy

reference to the quadrants. Such labels cannot fully

describe all possible combinations of complexity, impor-

tance, frustration, control and other challenges in mana-gerial decision-making. The form of the importance-con-

trol grid is shown in Fig. 1 on which the current and

future factor scores (see next section) have also been

plotted. Figs. 2 and 3 contain the current and future item

scores. Using factor analysis on the current importancescores, the items were grouped into ten factors: tech-

nology and operations strategy, political and economic

issues, knowledge and human resources, maintenance,

planning and infrastructure, supply chain partnerships,

financial, technology and technology transfer, tech-nology management interface, resistance to new tech-

nology.

The importance-control grid depicts the degree of

alignment between importance and control: the greaterthe distance of a factor from the diagonal, the larger the

degree of imbalance. This is likely to lead to frustration

or inappropriate managerial intervention. The frustrating

extremes for managers occur in quadrants two and four.

Spending disproportionate time on simple issues(quadrant two) represents poor utilisation of managerial

resources. The deemed importance of complex issues(quadrant four) cannot be matched by a managersability to control, since complex issues defy under-standing and manipulation, and can be expected to frus-

trate those dealing with them (Naude et al., 1990: 524).In using the framework to analyse managerial percep-

tions, these authors speak of an underlying dynamicnature to strategic issues implying a migration around

the grid (p. 524). Peripheral issues representing a bal-ance between importance and control are expected to be

relatively stable. Factors in other quadrants may respondto long-term trends or unexpected events, which result

in repositioning, particularly in the complex quadrant,

where high importance is not associated with commen-

surate control. The resulting misalignment will require

conscious management efforts to increase control over

these. Once balance has been achieved, importancerecedes, and managers need merely to maintain these

issues, rather than concentrate on their control. Move-

ment is towards the simple issue quadrant. The challenge

is then to address those issues that, over time, move from

the diagonal into the complex quadrant.The discussion below concentrates on those factors

that reflect greater degrees of imbalance, and significantdifferences between present and future scores.


6/17


Table2

Factorsinfluencingthemanagementofte

chnology

FACTORSANDITEMS

Factor

Code

Import

Control

ImportanceControl3

z-score

z-score

loading

ancenownow

3years

years

importancecontrol

TECHNOLOGYANDOPERATIONSSTRATEGY

Weightedfactorscore

26.7

22.3

28.1

25.2

Unweightedfactoraverage

S

4.3

3.6

4.5

4.1

Assimilationoftechnology

0.918

S1

4.3

3.1

4.5

3.5

1.79

2.02

Technologyasstrategicresourceforcom

petitiveadvantage/businesssuccessanddefencecorecompetences

0.850

S2

4.4

4.2

4.7

4.5

2.31

2.09

Technologyimplementedbecauseofmarketdemand(demand-pull)

0.841

S3

4.3

3.9

4.6

4.2

2.02

2.06

Theinternet

0.830

S4

4.1

4.0

4.7

4.2

3.45

1.67

Greateroutputthroughtechnology

0.816

S5

4.6

3.5

4.6

4.1

0.5

3a

3.45

Leadtimetoacquiretechnology/spares

0.758

S6

3.9

2.5

4.0

3.8

1.0

4

7.09

Betterqualitythroughtechnology

0.613

S7

4.6

3.4

4.6

3.8

0.5

4

2.45

Alignmentofbusinessgoals,systemsandtechnology

0.563

S8

4.4

4.4

4.6

4.6

1.80

1.77

POLITICALANDECONOMICISSUES

Weightedfactorscore

23.7

9.1

24.6

9.6


P

4.5

1.7

4.7

1.8

CrimelevelsinSouthAfrica

0.757

P1

4.8

1.4

5.0

1.4

2.62

0.5

2

Governmentregulationsandbureaucracy

(planningpermission,workpermits,etc.)

0.517

P2

4.0

1.2

4.4

1.3

2.24

1.2

5

Loweducationallevelsoflabour

0.840

P3

4.8

1.7

4.9

1.6

1.70

1.0

9

Overalllevelofeconomicdevelopmenta

ndinfrastructure

0.705

P4

4.2

1.4

4.5

1.3

2.06

1.3

4

Pressurefromlabourunions,affirmative

actionandemploymentequitypolicies

0.799

P5

4.7

2.0

4.4

2.4

1.99

2.50

Thebraindrainskilledpeopleleavingthecountry

0.910

P6

4.6

1.3

4.9

1.4

2.15

1.3

4

Effectsofglobalisation

0.727

P7

4.2

3.0

4.5

3.3

2.01

2.02

KNOWLEDGEANDHUMANRESOURCES

Weightedfactorscore

19.7

15.1

20.8

17.0


K

4.2

3.2

4.4

3.6

Lackoflabourcommitmentandproductivity/abilitytotakeresponsibility

0.589

K1

4.6

2.0

4.8

3.0

1.81

6.42

CommunicationsandITsystemsfordata

analysis

0.583

K2

4.3

3.9

4.3

4.2

0.5

3

1.97

Understandingcomplextechnologythrou

ghdirectinteractionandobservation

0.925

K3

4.4

3.5

4.6

3.2

1.75

1.85

Empowerment

0.565

K4

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.2

1.65

2.36

Thelearningorganisation

0.816

K5

3.5

2.2

4.1

2.9

3.99

4.04

Understandinghardwareandsoftware

0.788

K6

4.2

3.8

4.4

4.0

1.73

1.1

9

Costoftraininganddevelopinglocalwo

rkforce

0.483

K7

4.5

3.0

4.5

3.9

0.0

0

5.32

(continued

on

nextpage)


7/17


Table2(continued)

FACTORSANDITEMS

Factor

Code

Import

Control

ImportanceControl3

z-score

z-score

loading

ancenownow

3years

years

importancecontrol

MAINTENANCE

Weightedfactorscore

17.6

12.5

18.4

14.2


M

4.5

3.2

4.6

3.6

Availabilityandreliabilityofequipment

0.677

M1

4.8

3.6

4.8

4.2

0.3

1

3.33

Understandingofhowtechnologyworks

andhowitfails

0.781

M2

4.2

3.1

4.4

3.5

0.8

8

2.36

Failuredata

0.826

M3

4.4

3.1

4.6

3.6

1.88

3.16

Effectsoffailureonprocess

0.885

M4

4.3

2.6

4.6

3.0

2.07

2.00

Appropriatemaintenanceaction(time/conditionbased)

0.795

M5

4.6

3.5

4.8

3.8

1.88

1.84

PLANNINGANDINFRASTRUCTURE

Weightedfactorscore

15.8

14.6

16.7

15.9


PI

4.1

3.8

4.3

4.1

Promoters/championsofthetechnology

0.922

PI1

3.8

4.3

4.1

4.3

1.96

0.5

5

Beliefinneedforandcommitmenttotechnology,andestablishingclearobjectives

fortechnology

0.704

Pl2

4.7

4.0

4.8

4.3

0.7

4

2.39

Establishingsuppliernetworksandacces

singlocalinfrastructure

0.833

Pl3

3.8

3.1

4.1

3.6

1.99

2.53

Internalinfrastructuretointegrate/formalisetechnologythroughoutorg;createfeedb

ackmechanisms

0.668

Pl4

4.5

3.7

4.5

4.0

0.5

1

1.82

Processoptimisationsystemstosupporttechnology

0.743

Pl5

3.8

3.7

4.2

4.3

2.28

3.52

SUPPLYCHAINANDPARTNERSHIPS

Weightedfactorscore

15.5

13.5

16.1

14.1


Sc

4.4

3.8

4.6

4.0

Assistancefromtechnologypartners

0.866

Sc1

4.6

3.9

4.7

4.1

0.5

7

1.73

Contractualarrangements

0.875

Sc2

4.7

4.4

4.6

4.5

0.4

2

0.5

3

Compatibilitybetweensupplieranduser

0.894

Sc3

4.0

3.2

4.5

3.4

2.92

1.76

Appropriatetechnologybaseestablished

frompartnership

0.896

Sc4

4.3

3.8

4.4

4.0

1.1

5

1.65

FINANCIAL

Weightedfactorscore

12.6

6.0

12.8

8.1


F

4.4

2.1

4.5

2.9

Costoftechnologyacquisition

0.855

F1

4.6

1.9

4.7

2.1

0.5

8

1.68

Shorttermprofitabilityrequiredfromtec

hnology

0.725

F2

3.5

2.3

3.6

3.0

0.4

7

4.29

Hiddencostsoftechnology(includingTT,HRdevelopment,environmental,etc)

0.535

F3

4.6

2.4

4.8

3.6

1.70

7.30

Justificationoftechnologyonacost/benefitbasis(lowerproductioncosts)

0.775

F4

4.7

1.9

4.7

2.8

0.1

5

5.21


8/17


Table2(continued)

FACTORSANDITEMS

Factor

Code

Import

Control

ImportanceControl3

z-score

z-score

loading

ancenownow

3years

years

importancecontrol

TECHNOLOGYANDTECHNOLOGY

TRANSFER

Weightedfactorscore

11.6

6.7

11.7

6.7


T

4.0

2.4

4.0

2.4

Adaptabilityoftechnologytolocalconditions

0.558

T1

4.3

3.5

3.9

3.3

2.06

1.83

Useofexpertsystems/intelligentmachines

0.713

T2

3.5

3.1

4.1

3.4

3.48

1.77

Robustnessoftechnology:installationwithoutadaptation

0.798

T3

3.9

1.6

3.8

1.3

0.6

6

1.83

Sensitivityoftechnologyintermsofdesign,fabrication,operationandmaintenance

0.849

T4

4.2

1.5

4.2

1.7

0.0

0

-1.72

TECHNOLOGYMANAGEMENTINTE

RFACE

Weightedfactorscore

7.0

4.0

7.2

4.2


TI

4.6

2.6

4.7

2.7

Capacityofrecipientcompanytomanagechangeandnewtechnologywithtechnologypartners

0.538

TI1

4.2

3.8

4.4

4.1

1.66

1.77

Complexityoftechnology

0.450

TI2

4.6

2.4

4.8

2.0

0.9

5

2.49

Shortageofskilledpersonnel

0.538

TI3

5.0

1.7

5.0

2.0

0.0

0

2.01

RESISTANCETONEW

TECHNOLOGY

Weightedfactorscore

2.7

5.1

2.0

5.3


R

1.7

3.2

1.3

3.3

Difficulttoacceptotherwaysofworking

0.844

R1

1.7

3.0

1.3

3.4

2.36

2.31

Resistancetotechnologybecauseitisno

tlocal

0.750

R2

1.7

3.4

1.2

3.2

3.30

0.9

6

a

z-scoresin

italics:differencebetween

importanceorcontrolnowandinthefutu

reisnotstatisticallysignificantat95%significancelevel.


9/17


Fig. 1. The importance-control grid: current and future perceptions (factor scores).

Fig. 2. Current perceptions of importance and controlitem scores.

5. Factor analysis results

Factor analysis was used to group the items into anumber of factors that would indicate the most signifi-cant components in technology management. In this dis-

cussion factors (or components, which is the term fre-

quently encountered in factor analysis) will refer to

clusters...that could be measuring aspects of the sameunderlying dimension (Field, 2000: 423). Details of thefactor analysis are not included here, but some of the

significant findings are summarised. Using the currentimportance scores, 16 eigenvectors with eigenvalues

greater than one gave 16 factors that explain 85% of the

total variance. A scree plot revealed a point of inflexionafter ten factors (with eigenvalues, which happen to be

greater than two, explaining 71% of the variance). Rela-

tively high communality values after extraction (ranging

from 0.682 (Contractual arrangements) to 0.952

(Technology as a strategic resource) indicate that the

variance associated with each item has a high common

variance.

From the rotated component matrix calculations, 16factors are identified where variables load highly ontothese components (Field, 2000: 463). Ten of these havebeen selected as the remaining six have only one or two

variables associated with them, with low factor loading

scores. The items and factors with factor loadings are

shown in Table 2. Although respondents scored 60

items, the rotated component matrix results do not

include 11 of these items in the 10 factors selected, so

these items have been excluded from further analysis and

discussion (with one exception, Aids, which this will be

mentioned later).


10/17


Fig. 3. Perceptions of importance and control in 3 years timeitem scores. Key to abbreviations: S, Technology and operations strategy; P,

Political and economic issues; K, Knowledge and human resources; M, Maintenance; PI, Planning and infrastructure; Sc, Supply chain and partner-

ships; F, Financial; T, Technology and technology transfer; TI, Technology management interface; R, Resistance to new technology; current

perceptions; + future perceptions.

6. Results and discussion

The first group of managers was asked to list issuesimportant to them, so it is expected that most factors

here would lie on the right hand side of the grid

(quadrants three and four). This section discusses the

scores and suggests explanations therefor. While the stat-

istical analysis was useful in determining the factors and

providing an indication of their relative importance, ref-erence is also made to the interviews conducted with 42managers during the research.

6.1. Technology and operations strategy

The current weighted importance score for this factor

is the highest (26.7), indicating that the items included

in this factor are statistically the most significant in tech-nology management. Apart from the item relating to the

current lead-time to acquire spares, all other technologyand operations strategy items are in the core quadrant in

the importance-control grid. It is also estimated that the

items will become more important, and more control will

be possible in the future. In the interviews, managers

indicated that control of spares availability and lead-time was limited because of South Africas geographicalposition. This situation would improve as business-to-

business transactions and the internet became more

widespread. The high scores for better quality and

greater output, strategic alignment of business goals and

technology, the use of technology as a strategic resource,and a general desire to achieve customer sovereignty(Baines et al., 1999), all support findings in the literature(see, for example, Bolden et al. (1997).

6.2. Political and economic issues

Political and economic items lie firmly in the complexquadrant, all receiving high importance, but low control

scores. These issues potentially constitute the greatest

cause of frustration to managers who see an increase in

the importance of these items, but envisage only a mar-

ginal improvement in control in the next three years. The

scepticism on the part of business and commercetowards much of the South African governments labourlegislation has been widely reported (for example, von

Holdt, 2000). Most managers saw little chance of this

changing in the next three years (although changes to

some labour legislation have been announced

(Government Gazette, 27 July (2000)).

The frustration expressed by managers confirms whathas been said in many instances regarding the relation-

ship between business and the government (Business

Day, 30 August, 2000). Much of the business com-munity has a different socio-economic perspective to that

of the government whose constituency lies to a large

extent with workers and poorer sections of the com-

munity (Sunday Times, 6 August, 2000). Some white

managers noted that affirmative action and employmentequity policies compounded their difficulties in con-trolling the work environment. The only individual fac-

tor appearing in quadrant three relates to the effects of

globalisation (P7). Managers explained that they could

control this by directing their businesses to be part ofthe global business environment.

During the interviews there was divided opinion

between black and white managers regarding political

and economic items. Black managers viewed govern-


11/17


ment regulations and bureaucracy, levels of economic

development and pressure from unions as having limited

significance, whereas white managers saw these asimportant. Neither group of managers saw that much

could be achieved through discussions with the govern-ment. Low education levels were of concern to black

managers at present and would become more importantin the future. Yet, some control of this factor was con-

sidered possible through better schooling, bursaries, and

education programmes funded by business, particularly

as the legacy of apartheid education worked its wayout of the education system. In contrast, white managers

considered education important, but envisaged little con-

trol over this item, particularly as the governments lim-ited resources would not be able to improve the edu-

cation system in the foreseeable future. They did not seea role for business in education. There was unanimity

from blacks and whites regarding the serious effects that

crime is having in South Africa.

While there was consensus that little could be done

about the brain drain, opinions about its importance

varied. Black managers recognised the problem of losing

skilled people, but also saw greater opportunities for

younger blacks to take up the positions of those who had

left the country. White managers saw the loss of thisexpertise as irreplaceable. As with certain other items,

black managers viewed these issues as being of lesser

importance, but something could be done to control them

(quadrant two, simple issues), whereas white managers

considered them of great importance, about which little

could be done (quadrant four, complex issues).

6.3. Knowledge and human resources

From the factor analysis, items relating to knowledge

and human resources are grouped as one factor. While

we did not initially expect this, it is perhaps not surpris-

ing as managers perceived the skills of the workforce,

training and knowledge to be closely related.

All items lie in the core quadrant except K1 (lack of

labour commitment, scored highest in importance) and

K5 (the learning organisation, scored lowest inimportance). Differences on a racial basis emerged

regarding control of commitment and productivity: black

managers saw better training and labour relations as the

solution, whereas white managers envisaged that mech-

anisation would reduce dependency on militant trade

unions and workers.Managers appreciated the importance of understand-

ing technology, but only some respondents recognised

that the deeper benefits of technology depend on theexploitation of knowledge. Managers saw the relevance

of tangible knowledge factors such as communicationand understanding hardware and software, but as indi-

cated in the literature (Inkpen, 1998; Nonaka and Takeu-

chi, 1995), the learning organisation remains elusive and

largely beyond control. It was clear that not all managers

fully grasped the concept of the learning organisation as

a path to knowledge, although some did appreciate its

potential contribution. Most respondents gave South

Africas poorly educated labour force and weak edu-cation systems as further reasons for not being able to

create a learning organisation2

.Empowerment received a moderate importance score

(3.7). Controlling empowerment was interesting as it is

a bargaining tool to persuade unions to agree to new

technology in return for promises of empowerment.

Some managers recognised the contradictions in an

empowerment process: implementing and operating a

new technology do not readily lead to participation as

employees actions are defined almost entirely by thetechnology, meaning that behaviour cannot beempowering and liberating (Argyris, 1998: 101). Wedid not interview employees to establish their feelings

on the subject. Managers believed that empowerment

could be controlled, with employees reluctantly toeingthe line (Argyris, 1998: 101) in accordance with well-defined processes and procedures.

During the interviews the small increase in the factor

control score was explained by managers predictionsthat some knowledge could be documented, transmittedand utilised, although they were vague on the mech-

anisms for achieving this. Several respondents saw that

middle managers would be an essential interface

between islands of information (Dutta, 1997), yetrecent downsizing exercises had reduced their number,

thus diminishing the extent to which the learning organ-

isation could be expanded.

6.4. Maintenance

The unweighted factor average for maintenance was

scored the second highest in importance (4.5). With one

exception (effects of failure on the process), all items

are in quadrant three, but well below the diagonal. Man-

agers were unanimous that maintenance is growing in

importance, particularly as maintenance costs increase

(this concurs with Moubray (2001)). Lower controlscores illustrated managers problems with new equip-ment, lack of experience and little or no failure data.

Understanding the functionality of equipment (present

control score of 3.1) could be controlled to some extent

by training, but lack of control over the effects of failure

meant that knowledge of true functionality was someway off.

2 Our study was undertaken shortly after the publication of a study

which showed that South Africas grade four pupils (1011 year olds)

rank lowest in numeracy, literacy and life skills compared with their

African counterparts. A Unesco report on global basic education found

that at least 13% of 614 year olds in South Africa do not attend school

(Finance Week, 21 July, 2000).


12/17


Several managers pointed to the link between knowl-

edge and maintenance: knowledge and documentation,

and understanding complex technology were essential

for good maintenance. The type of statement frequently

made was: you cannot fix something if you dont knowexactly how it works, and what the machine is required

to do. You are not going to put that much effort intomaintaining something if you dont know how importantit is, and what really happens when it breaks down.One manager clearly saw that extending learning and

knowledge concepts to maintenance would improve the

performance of equipment and would reduce the effects

of failure. She emphasised the importance of this way

of thinking, but was unsure of how to achieve it (the

control aspect). This is supported by the findings of Hip-kin and Lockett (1995) on the importance for mainte-nance of understanding equipment functionality and

achieving desired performance targets.

From our interviews it became clear that some man-

agers were unaware of the importance of knowledge in

a maintenance context. Further, they could do little to

improve availability and reliability, their failure data rec-

ords were of limited use, and the scope for appropriate

maintenance action was restricted. Some future mainte-

nance control scores are a little higher than currentscores, indicating limited improvement in maintenance

performance in the future (unless maintenance manage-

ment information systems could be implemented to

address uncertainties confronting the maintenance

function).

6.5. Planning and infrastructure

The unweighted factor average scores for planning

and infrastructure show the greatest alignment between

importance and control with both the present and future

factor scores lying near or on the diagonal: a perfect

balance for management. This is not surprising, as man-

agers should be able to control the planning issues they

have identified as being important. Item scores revealsome deviation from the diagonal. Establishing supplier

networks is important but presently difficult to control.Managers ascribed this to a lack of a network culturein South Africa, in that suppliers were still instinctively

seen as adversaries, rather than partners.

The importance scores for commitment to, and objec-

tives for, technology (PI2) and internal infrastructure

(PI4) were by far the highest. Several managersrecounted previous experiences where technology had

been introduced for technologys sake without clearobjectives, and such instances had been expensive fail-

ures. There was a strong feeling that technology should

not be introduced just to be fashionable, and it wouldonly be useful if local infrastructure were capable of

accommodating the new technology. Often this referred

to IT and communications, but other instances such as

internal reporting and performance measurement sys-

tems were cited.

6.6. Supply chain and technology partners

The current and future importance scores indicate that

some form of technology partnership is essential for new

technology implementation, and that can be controlled

through good supply chain selection and contractualagreements (the highest control score in this grouping).

Managers did not see significant benefits from a simplecontractual agreement whereby, say, a machine was pur-

chased. The challenge was to transform collaborative

agreements into productive and strategically effective

relationships. The importance of user and supplier com-

patibility (average scores increase from 4.0 to 4.5) is

supported by Inkpen (1998) who claims that as users

gain experience in using partnerships, they became moreadept at using technology partners for learning and

knowledge acquisition.One respondent believed that South African managers

were still learning how to deal with (and control) tech-

nology partners, and did not fully appreciate the signifi-cance of compatibility between user and supplier (Sc3).

Some managers felt that control effectively meant

obtaining assistance from technology partners, as greater

input from them would ultimately result in better control

of technology.

6.7. Finance

The present and future importance scores for financialitems are consistently high. Low control scores show

finance to be a complex issue in quadrant four. Frus-tration derives from the inability to do anything about

the cost of imported technology, aggravated by a declin-

ing currency. The future control score is higher as

respondents felt that greater choices of technology would

permit multi-sourcing of new technology. Through agreater understanding of the technology, managers felt

they would better be able to control the hidden costs of

technology implementation, which had so far bedevilled

their use of imported technology.

While justifying new technology would become more

important as costs continued to rise, some managers

remained sceptical about the reliability of certain cost

justifications. This is reinforced by Jelinek (1996: 810)who claims that traditional measures can be inappropri-

ate or wildly dysfunctional, and in the extreme caseold measures do not work on new technology. In theinterviews, some managers were confident that prudentmanagement would result in better cost control in the

future.


13/17


6.8. Technology and technology transfer

The importance scores relating to the technology itself

are relatively high, but control is low, as managers feel

rather powerless in relation to the adaptability, com-plexity or robustness of a technology. This is somewhat

of a contradiction as managers also believed they havea wide variety of technology suppliers to choose from,

could select the supplier that best suits the acquiring

firm, and thus exercise some control over the technologythat is finally installed.

Adaptability of technology (T1) is scored highest in

importance in this category, followed by sensitivity of

the technology in terms of design and operation (T4).

This is in line with the general comments of Grant and

Gregory (1997) regarding adaptability to local con-ditions. Managers felt that they could exercise some con-

trol over the adaptability of technology through specifi-cations at the design stage, but they have no control over

technology design and fabrication. Managers perceivedlack of control over operation and maintenance means

that they have no influence over how the designerintended the equipment to operate and how it should

be maintained.

Expert systems and intelligent machines were seen asimportant future developments, although control of these

would remain limited. Managers saw the intelligent

machine as a device which can store information and

permit retrieval for utilisation as knowledge, thus

allowing non-experts to solve problems beyond their

present expertise: using the machine to solve know-how

and know-why problems (Bohn, 1994). They acknowl-edged this was some way off, and that such technologymay be prohibitively expensive.

6.9. Technology management interface

Only three items are included in this factor, and these

have amongst the highest current and future importance

scores. Shortage of skilled personnel was the most frus-

trating item (importance score 5), but little could be done

in terms of controlling this. Complexity of technologyis also a complex item (in quadrant four). In the inter-

views this item was linked to knowledge acquisition and

maintenance. Managers were concerned that overly com-

plex equipment would be thrust upon them as fashion-able in a global environment. Their concern was thatthey would not be able to use the technology to itsmaximum potential (if at all), and if they did, they would

remain totally dependent on the technology supplier

for support.

6.10. Resistance

Two items appear under this heading. They have

extremely low importance scores, and higher control

scores, placing them in the simple quadrant. Managers

paid little heed to these in practice, as none of the inter-

viewees had encountered serious resistance to new tech-

nology. The importance weighted factor score for this

factor is by far the lowest, and this is intuitively sup-ported by the managers lack of interest in the factor.

6.11. Aids

In the scoring process, Aids received an importancescore of 5. This does not appear in Table 2 as low corre-

lations in the factor analysis eliminated this variable.

Aids-related illness and death were matters about which

managers could do little, but Aids was having a signifi-cant impact on succession planning and training. One

manager claimed that for every craftsman or skilledoperator that was required, three were trained, but even

with the additional people trained, he foresaw a shortage

of craftsmen because of aids-related illnesses and death.

The report of the South African Medical Research Coun-

cil (Dorrington et al., 2001) revealed that in 2000 40%

of all deaths in the age group 1549 were Aids related,and this is precisely the age group that would receive

technical training.

7. Implications in a broader context

The findings corroborate some of the research studiescited in the literature, but question others. An under-

standing of TT in South Africa was sought from the

interviews, the purpose of which was to interpretresponses and to give some impressions a meaning(Alvesson and Deetz, 2000: 21). Yet, drawing con-

clusions from a single individual can provide a distorted

view, so attention should shift to the shared cognitivereality experienced by organisational members (Jelinek,1996: 808). We were not in a position to seek the opi-

nions of other organisational members, nor did we inter-

view anyone other than managers, so our conclusions

are limited to managerial perceptions.

Technology has the best chance of being transferredsuccessfully if it is co-ordinated at strategic level and

aligned with corporate goals and internal capabilities

with the purpose of achieving competitive advantage

(Leonard-Barton and Deschamps, 1988; Martinsons and

Schindler, 1995). The results further support authors

such as Burcher et al. (1999) and Grant and Gregory

(1997) that technical interface management requires

integration of systems and human resources with the

technology itself.

An interesting finding relates to culture, which fre-quently appears in the literature on TT to DCs. The orig-inal list of important issues for TT from the first groupof managers contained several items pertaining to cul-

ture. The factor analysis revealed that these did not cor-


14/17


relate with other variables, so they were eliminated.

Some interviews were held before all data had been col-

lected and the factor analysis was performed when all

data had been collected. This meant that we discussed

cultural matters in the interviews. Our findings concern-ing the relationship between cultural factors and tech-

nology management showed the greatest divergence withsome of the literature. We found little evidence that cul-

tural variables in South Africa are significant in the man-agement of technology.

One interviewee pointed out that African culture is

different from, say, European culture at a social anthro-

pological level, but in the business world, any such dif-

ferences play no part. A black manager commented:

We downplay the importance of culture, as its notfashionable in business to talk about culture. Its notwestern or modern. One of the previous govern-ments justifications for apartheid was cultural differencebetween blacks and blacks, and between blacks and

whites. We do not want to talk about those things. Asecond respondent claimed that the South African busi-

ness climate is based on market-driven western values

(comparable to the cultural homogeneity discussed by

Phillips et al., 1994), so no cultural barriers arise. This

corresponds to Lessems (1996: 36) contention thatSouth African economic and educational institutions aremodelled on Anglo-Saxon heritage more than any

other(and that) business has drawn on a pragmaticwestern-ness for its material body and upon arational northern-ness for its organisational mind. Athird manager commented, The outside world is not

interested in our culture. We may pride ourselves thatwe are a rainbow nation, but that is an internal matterwhich we can practise at home. If we want to compete,

which we must, we must accept the outside worlds wayof doing business. This indicates apparent acceptanceof the western way and illustrates how local actionsexperience fit with a global perspective (Marcus,1992: 311).

With the current mood of Afro-pessimism, oneblack manager commented that it would be expected to

find managers who are frustrated by political and econ-omic matters. The wide divergence between importance

and control scores demonstrates this, supporting the con-

tention of Heald and Rakusin (1996: 37) that economic

and political indicators of deep-rooted conflict can leadto impotency and powerlessness. Managers acceptedthat throughout the world businesses have been subjectto a degree of government legislation, and this is not

a new phenomenon since businesses were required to

implement the apartheid legislation of the previous

South African government for more than four decades.

Several white managers complained that the inter-national trend was to have less regulatory interference.

Yet, in the South African context, affirmative action andemployment equity requirements were placing an unfair

burden on South African business, limiting even further

its international competitiveness.

Technology can play a valuable role in knowledge

management as it becomes increasingly important at a

strategic and operational level, but managers weredespondent at the dearth of managerial and technological

skill available from a poor educational system, and lowlevels of commitment by the workforce. Heald and

Rakusin (1996: 37) predict that the consequences of

inappropriate or non-existent education and training arefurther ignorance, incompetence and rolelessnesswitha very real sense of (being) frightened into doing nothing

through ineptitude. A shortage of skilled personnelremains one of the issues that shows the greatest imbal-

ance between importance and control scores. Herein lies

one of South Africas most formidable challenges.Jegathesan et al. (1997) see technological systems as

networks of agents, interacting in a specific economiczone, and operating within certain infrastructural para-

meters. The relatively low importance attached to net-

working by South African managers may lead to sub-

optimal TT, particularly from a knowledge acquisition

point of view. From the interviews it was clear that net-

working is a relatively new concept for South African

managers as they were denied access to many externalcontacts in the apartheid years. One manager commented

that the result was a drive for self-sufficiency, and todemonstrate this, almost as a matter of pride. Others

warned of over-dependence on imported technology,

leading to what Fohrbeck and Wiesand (1981) refer to

as over-development. Where managers do network,

force of habit makes them look within the country first.They must learn to look beyond its borders. This pride

also manifests itself as a form of arrogance. The majority

of managers interviewed claimed that no adaptation of

technology to South African conditions was necessary.A few managers pointed to the folly of such misguided

boasting, and were adamant that South Africans must

recognise that they are incapable of implementing tech-

nology of the most complex type.

The extent to which findings from this study can begeneralised is pertinent, as social phenomena relating toone situation may change too much in another to permit

meaningful generalisation (Patton, 1990). Findings may

therefore be construed as localised, and may apply only

in a limited social context. Generalising from a specificsituation becomes a working hypothesis, not a con-clusion (Cronbach, quoted in Patton, 1990: 280). It isthus not possible to replicate precisely the models which

are applicable in one country to another, but technology

management in one setting can offer useful guidance to

others for policy formulation and implementation

(Salami and Reavill, 1997). Both the methodology andthe findings of this study may prove useful to managersin developing countries.

The statistical results generally corroborate the senti-


15/17


ments expressed in the interviews and the findings fromthe importance-control grid plots. While the importance-

control framework provides no formal ranking of the

factors, the factor analysis results provide a useful sum-

mary of the most significant issues in TT. The factor inTable 2 which we have labelled Technology and oper-

ations strategy (weighted factor score 26.7) appears tobe the most critical, followed by Political and economicissues (score 23.7), Knowledge and human resources(score 19.7), Maintenance (score 17.6) Planning andinfrastructure (score 15.8), and Supply chain and part-nerships (score 15.5). These were the issues managerspreferred to discuss in the interviews. Other factors

(Financial, Technology and technology transfer, Tech-

nology management interface and Resistance to new

technology) included fewer items and had lowerweighted factor scores. This concurs with Samli et al.

(1992) who argue that managing technology in DCs has

more to do with macro conditions than micro issues. No

commonality can be detected in the items scored by

managers, but eliminated in the factor analysis: cultural

issues, Aids, intellectual property rights, technology

implemented because of supplier pressure (technology

push), back-up or diversity of suppliers, explicit

(codified) knowledge and documentation.Table 2 also contains z-scores for testing whether the

differences between present and future importance and

present and future control scores are statistically signifi-cant. The z-scores in italics (less than 1.645) indicate

that for =0.05 there is no significant difference. Thereis no clear pattern to indicate which items are significant,

but 29 out of 49 importance scores, and 38 out of 49control scores demonstrate a significant differencebetween present and future scores.

8. Conclusions

In this paper a study is described of South African

managers current perceptions of managing technology,and what they envisage for the future. The most signifi-cant issues in TT relate to technology and operationsstrategy, where assimilation of technology must yield

more and improved products. Limited financial resourceswill restrain technological adoption and expansion. A

poorly educated and inadequately trained workforce,

characterised by low productivity, will impose further

severe constraints. Knowledge management is in itsinfancy, and will require concerted efforts by managers

to create appropriate support frameworks before knowl-

edge can play its rightful role in achieving competitive

advantage. Operations and maintenance staff will be

challenged to handle new technology with existing sys-tems and procedures. Organisations must take the initiat-

ive to use suppliers and networks for a full range of

benefits to accrue from new technologies. With South

Africas history it is perhaps not surprising that man-agers are divided on the role of the government and poli-

tics in business. Those who mistrust political motives

seem resigned to accept that the political agenda will not

go away.The findings in this study suggest areas for further

research into TT in DCs. The high importance scores formaintenance support Leonard-Bartons (1995) assertionthat maintenance is one of the most problematic issues

in technology management. The results of this study pro-vide a basis for more detailed investigation of the

relationship between the maintenance function and TT,

particularly as skills and knowledge deficiencies in DCshave a significant impact on maintenance policies andpractice.

The role of technology in strategic decisions is stillill defined in South Africa, but global forces are likelyto pressurise managers to introduce new technologies

wherever possible. For the foreseeable future, South

Africa will import technology with limited local techni-

cal and operational input. This is to be expected in a

developing country where research and innovation

initiatives are limited, and whose economy is still greatly

dependent on technical expertise from abroad.

References

Adjibolosoo S.B.K. 1994. Promoting technology transfer for African

development. Fourth Conference on Management of Technology,

FebruaryMarch, pp. 15561564.

Alvesson, M., Deetz, S., 2000. Doing Critical Management Research.

Sage Publications, London.Argyris, C., 1998. Empowerment: the emperors new clothes. Harvard

Business Review MayJune, 98105.

Armistead, C., Harrison, A., Rowlands, P., 1995. Business process

engineering: lessons from operations management. International

Journal of Operations and Production Management 15 (12), 5975.

Baines, T.S., Whitney, D.E., Fine, C., 1999. Manufacturing technology

sourcing practices in the USA. International Journal of Production

Research 37 (4), 939956.

Barbosa, F., Vaidya, K., 1997. Developing technological capabilities

in an industrialising country: the cases of two Brazilian Steel Com-

panies. Technology Management: Strategies and Applications 3,

287298.

Bennett, D., Vaidya, K., Zhao, H., 1999. Valuing transferred machine

tool technology relating value to product attributes and preferences

of acquirers. International Journal of Operations and ProductionManagement 19 (5), 491514.

Bohn, R.E., 1994. Measuring and managing technological knowledge.

Sloan Management Review 36 (1), 6173.

Bolden, R., Waterson, P., Warr, P., Clegg, C., Wall, T., 1997. A new

taxonomy of modern manufacturing practices. International Journal

of Operations and Production Management 17 (11), 11121130.

Bowmaker-Falconer, A., Horwitz, F.M., Jain, H., Taggar, S., 1998.

Employment equality programmes in South Africa. Industrial

Relations Journal 29 (3), 222233.

Burcher, P., Lee, G., Sohal, A., 1999. Lessons for implementing AMT.

International Journal of Operations and Production Management 19

(5), 515526.

Business Day, 2000. Mboweni upbeat on SAs prospects, (30 August

(2000), Johannesburg.


16/17


Cleveland, G., Schroeder, R.G., Anderson, J.C., 1989. A theory of pro-

duction competence. Decision Sciences 20 (4), 655668.

Davies, H., 1993. The information content of technology transfers: a

transactions cost analysis of the machine tool industry. Technov-

ation 13 (2), 93100.

Dixon, J., Arnold, P., Heineke, J., Kim, J.S., Mulligan, P., 1994. Busi-

ness Process Reengineering: Improving in New Strategic Direc-

tions. California Management Review 36 (4), 93108.Dorrington, R., Bourne, D., Bradshaw, D., Laubsner, R., Timaens,

I.M., 2001. The impact of HIV/AIDS on adult mortality in South

Africa. South African Medical Research Council, Pretoria.

Dutta, S., 1997. Strategies for implementing knowledge based systems.

IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 44 (1), 7990.

Eldred, E.W., McGrath, M.E., 1997. Commercializing new technology

II. Research Technology Management 40 (2), 2934.

Ferdows, K., De Meyer, A., 1990. Lasting improvements in manufac-

turing performance: in search of a new theory. Journal of Oper-

ations Management 9, 168184.

Field, A., 2000. Discovering Statistics using SPSS for Windows. Sage

Publications, London.

Finance Week, 2002. SAs dismal education (21 July 2000), Johannes-

burg.

Fohrbeck, K., Wiesand, A.J., 1981. Wir Eingeborenen: Magie undAufklarung Kulturvergleich. Leske Verlag, Leverkusen (in

German).

Gergen, K.J., Whitney, D., 1996. Technologies of Presentation In The

Global Corporation. In: Boje, D.M., Gephardt, R.P., Thatchenkery,

T.J. (Eds.), Postmodern management and organisation theory. Sage

Publishers, Thousand Oaks.

Government Gazette Notice R756, GG 21407, 27 July 2000, Pretoria.

Grant, E., 1996. Adapting manufacturing systems for international

transfer. In: 3rd International Conference of the European Oper-

ations Management Association, London, 24 June, 1996, pp.

261266.

Grant, E.B., Gregory, M.J., 1997. Adapting manufacturing processes

for international transfer. International Journal of Operations and

Production Management 17 (10).

Gupta, A., Chen, I.J., Chiang, D., 1997. Determining organisationalstructure choices in advanced manufacturing technology manage-

ment. Omega 25 (5), 511521.

Hackman, J.R., Wageman, R., 1995. Total quality management:

empirical. conceptual, and practical issues. Administrative Science

Quarterly 40, 309342.

Hart, C., Schlesinger, L., 1991. Total quality management and the

human resource professional: applying the Baldrige framework to

human resources. Human Resource Management 30 (4), 433454.

Heald, G., Rakusin, G., 1996. Deep-rooted conflict and the industrial

relations interface in South Africa. South African Journal of Labour

Relations 20 (2), 2350.

Helfat, C.E., Raubitschek, R.S., 2000. Product sequencing: co-evol-

ution of knowledge, capabilities and products. Strategic Manage-

ment Journal 21, 961979.

Hemais, C.A., 1997. Model of international transfer of technology: atheoretical approach. Technology Management: Strategy & Appli-

cations 3, 213227.

Hipkin, I.B., Lockett, A.G., 1995. A study of maintenance management

technology implementation. Omega 23 (1), 7988.

Husain, Z., Sushil, 1997. Management of technology: learning issues

for seven Indian Companies. Technology Management: Strategy &

Applications 3, 109135.

Inkpen, A.C., 1998. Learning and knowledge acquisition through inter-

national strategic alliances. Academy of Management Executive 12

(4), 6980.

Irwin, H., More, E., McGrath, M., 1998. Relationship management

for innovation: the central role of communication in Australias

participation in two high-tech industries. Technology Analysis &

Strategic Management 10 (4), 467481.

Jaikumar, R., 1986. Post-industrial manufacturing. Harvard Business

Review 64 (6), 6976.

Jegathesan, J., Gunasekaran, A., Muthaly, S., 1997. Technology devel-

opment and transfer: experiences from Malaysia. International

Journal of Technology Management 13 (2), 196214.

Jelinek, M., 1996. Thinking technology in mature industry firms:

understanding technology entrepreneurship. International Journal

of Technology Management, Special Publication on Unlearningand Learning 11 (7/8), 799813.

Kahen, G., 1997. Technology transfer and a conceptual model for tech-

nological planning and decision making. Technology Management

Strategies & Applications 3, 229239.

Kahn, J.S., 1995. Culture, Multiculture, Postculture. Sage Publi-

cations, London.

Katz, R., Rebentisch, E.S., Allen, T.J., 1996. A study of technology

transfer in a multinational cooperative joint venture. IEEE Trans-

actions on Engineering Management 43 (1), 97105.

Kim, L., 1998. Technology policies and strategies for developing coun-

tries: lessons from the Korean experience. Technology Analysis

and Strategic Management 10 (3), 311323.

Kuper, A., 1999. Culture: the Anthropologists Account. Harvard Uni-

versity Press, Cambridge, MA.

Lado, A., Vozikis, G.S., 1996. Transfer of technology to promoteentrepreneurship in developing countries: an integration and pro-

posed framework. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 21 (2),

5573.

Lall, S., 1993. Promoting technology development: the role of tech-

nology transfer and indigenous effort. Third World Quarterly 14

(1), 95109.

Lennon, S.J., 1997. The management of technology in a South African

power utility. International Journal of Technology Management 13

(4), 413420.

Leonard-Barton, D., 1995. Wellsprings of Knowledge. Harvard Busi-

ness School Press, Boston.

Leonard-Barton, D., Deschamps, I., 1988. Managerial influence in the

implementation of new technology. Management Science 34 (11),

12521265.

Lessem, R., 1996. South Africas Business Sphere. In: Lessem, R.,Nassbara, N. (Eds.), Sawubona Africa. Zebra Press, Sandton.

Linz, S.J., 1988. Managerial autonomy in Soviet Firms. Soviet Studies

XL (2), 175195.

Marcus, G., 1992. Past, Present and Emergent Identities: Requirements

for Ethnographies of Late Twentieth-century Modernity World-

wide. In: Lash, S., Friman, J. (Eds.), Modernity and Identity.

Blackwell, Oxford.

Martinsons, M.G., Schindler, F.R., 1995. Organizational visions for

technology assimilation: the strategic roads to knowledge based

systems success. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management

42 (1), 918.

Matustik, M.J.B., 1998. Ludic, Corporate, Imperial Multiculturalism.

In: Willett, C. (Ed.), Theorizing multiculturalism. Blackwell,

Oxford.

Mbigi, L., Maree, J., 1995. Ubuntu: the Spirit of African Transform-ation Management. Sigma Press, Pretoria.

Medical Research Council September 2001. The Impact of HIV/Aids

on Adult Mortality in South Africa. Medical Research Council, Pre-

toria.

Moor, W.C., 1994. Technology transfer to developing countries: the

Oman experience. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Con-

ference on Management of Technology, February 27-March 4,

Miami, Florida,, pp. 406415.

Moubray, J.M., 2001. Reliability-Centred Maintenance. Butterworth-

Heinemann, Oxford.

Naude, P., Hipkin, I.B., 1998. Managerial and educational perceptions

of the future in changing societies: the Commonwealth of Inde-

pendent States. Management Learning 29 (4), 467484.

Naude, P., Human, P., Malan, L., 1990. Managerial perceptions of the


17/17


future in a volatile society: the South African case. Omega 18 (5),

521528.

Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., 1995. The Knowledge-reating Company.

Oxford, New York.

Oliver, K., 1998. Identity, Difference and Abjection. In: Willett, C.

(Ed.), Theorizing multiculturalism. Blackwell, Oxford.

Patton, M.Q., 1990. Qualitative Evaluations and Research Methods.

Sage, Newbury.Paz, N.M., Leigh, W., 1994. Maintenance scheduling: issues, results

and research needs. International Journal of Operations and Pro-

duction Management 14 (8), 4769.

Peppard, J., 1996. Broadening visions of business process re-engineer-

ing. Omega 24 (3), 255270.

Phillips, L.A., Calantone, R., Lee, M.T., 1994. International technology

adoption behaviour structure, demand certainty and culture. Journal

of Business & Industrial Marketing 9 (2), 110.

Platt, L., Wilson, G., 1999. Technology development and the

poor/marginalised: context, intervention and participation. Tech-

novation 19, 393401.

Plenert, G., 1994. Technology transfera developing country perspec-

tive. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on

Management of Technology, February 27-March 4, Miami, Flor-

ida,, pp. 415419.Pycraft, T.H., Bawden, N.M., 1996. Improvement priorities for process

industry manufacturing in South Africa. In: 3rd International Con-

ference of the European Operations Management Association, Lon-

don, 24 June, 1996,, pp. 519524.

Salami, R., Reavill, L.R.P., 1997. International technology transfer

policies and the industrialisation of developing countries. Tech-

nology Management: Strategies and Applications 3, 195211.

Samli A.C., Grewal D., Berkman H. 1992. Macro aspects of tech-

nology management in third world countries. Third International

Conference on Management of Technology, February, (no page

numbers).

Sharif, M.N., 1997. Technology strategy in developing countries:

evolving from comparative to competitive advantage. International

Journal of Technology Management,/3/4) 14 (2), 309343.

Sitkin, S.B., Sutcliffe, K.M., Schroeder, R.G., 1994. Distinguishingcontrol from learning in total quality management: a contingency

perspective. Academy of Management Review 19 (3), 537564.

South African Reserve Bank Quarterly Review, March 2001, Pretoria.

Spann, M.S., Adams, M., Souder, W.E., 1995. Measures of technology

transfer effectiveness: key dimensions and differences in their use

by sponsors, developers and adopters. IEEE Transactions on Engin-

eering Management 42 (1), 1929.

Sunday Times Redefining the dangerous fringe, (6 August, 2000,

Johannesburg.

Tuckman, A., 1994. The yellow brick road: total quality management

and the restructuring of organizational culture. Organization Stud-

ies 15 (5), 727751.

Twiss, B., 1986. Managing Technological Innovation. Longman, Lon-

don.

Tyre, M.J., 1991. Managing the introduction of new process tech-nology: internal differences in a multi-plant network. Research Pol-

icy 20, 5776.

Virasa, T., Tang, J.C.S., 1999. The role of technology in international

trade: a conceptual model and application to the automobile indus-

try in developing countries. Technology Management: Strategies

and Applications 5, 931.

von Hippel, E., 1994. Sticky information and the locus of problem

solving: implications for innovation. Management Science 40,

429439.

von Holdt, K., 2000. The new union visionreconstruction in a demo-cratic South Africa. South African Labour Bulletin 24 (2), 6065.

Wang, H., 1993. Technology management in a dual world. Inter-

national Journal of Technology Management 8 (1,2), 108122.

Wang, W., 1997. Technology transfer to and absorption in a

developing worldcase studies of Ericsson in Malaysia and China.

In: The Sixth International Conference on Management of Tech-

nology, 25-28 June, 1997,, pp. 12871299.

Wilkinson, A., Willmott, H., 1995. Introduction. In: Wilkinson, A.,

Willmott, H. (Eds.), Making quality critical: new perspectives on

organizational change. Routledge, London, pp. 132.

Wilson, T., 1991. Overcoming barriers to the implementation of infor-

mation system strategies. Journal of Information Technology 6,

3944.

Ian Hipkin teaches in the School of Business

and Economics at the University of Exeter. Priorto this he taught Operations Management at theUniversity of Cape Town, South Africa, andManchester Business School. He has consultedin engineering management to firms in Europe,North America and Africa, with specific empha-sis on asset management and knowledge trans-ference. His research interests include the stra-tegic use of technology and its transfer to lessdeveloped countries, and the problems of usingand maintaining new technology. He is currently

doing his PhD at Aston University studying technology transfer todeveloping countries.

David Bennett is Professor of TechnologyManagement at the Aston Business School,Birmingham, UK, and Deputy Head of Schoolfor External Affairs. His research interestsinclude the transfer of technology betweenindustrialised and developing countries,especially in the Asian region. He is also anAdjunct Professor with the University of SouthAustralia involved in the universitys offshoredoctoral programme in Singapore and HongKong. Previously he has been a faculty memberat the China-Europe Management Institute in

Beijing and the China-Europe International Business School in Shanghai.His industrial experience periods in the automotive components and elec-trical equipment industries. He holds MSc and PhD degrees from the Uni-versity of Birmingham.

Documents

R24 - Managerial Perceptions of Factors