Dominique R. JOLLY Chinese vs. foreign views regarding technology assessment: Convergent or...

Dominique R. JOLLY

Chinese vs. foreign viewsregarding technology assessment:

Convergent or divergent?

IACMR, NanjingJune 2006

Chinese vs. foreign views regarding technology assessment

Sophia Antipolis Techno Park



Background

1. A change in technology sourcing: from technology transfer to the developpement of indegeneous capabilities (Yam et al., 2004; von Zedtwitz, 2004)

2. Importation of soft managerial skills (Warner, 2002; Björkman, 2002; Wong and Slater, 2002)



Research question

• A move towards Westernization?

• Does a tool developped in a Western context is used the same way by Western and Chinese managers?

Contribution of this research: Application to technology auditing



Two opposite theses

Localization of the technology auditing tool?

.

Towards universal technology auditing model?



Two opposite theses


• Chinese cultural values (Sheh, 2001; Weber et al., 2005; Lockett, 1988; Pun et al., 2000)

• Different environmental situations and different companies (De Bruijn and Jia, 1997)

• Chinese companies have stopped learning from the West




Two opposite theses


• Chinese cultural values (Sheh, 2001; Weber et al., 2005; Lockett, 1988; Pun et al., 2000)

• Different environmental situations and different companies (De Bruijn and Jia, 1997)

• Chinese companies have stopped learning from the West


Globalization process / « best practices » and international business models

• Business education in China with foreign inputs

• China entrance in WTO



Technology Assessment

Technology Managt• Abernathy and

Utterback, 1978; Foster, 1986; Teece, 1986; Roussel et al., 1991; Utterback, 1994; Combes, 1996; Bond and Houston, 2003; Prahalad, 1993; Khalil, 2000

Technology Audit

• Harris et al., 1981; Sethi et al., 1985; Capon and Glazer, 1987; Brockhoff, 1992; Ernst, 1998; Hsuan, 2001

• Jolly, 2003



Potential value = Technological attractiveness

Accumulated value = Technological competitiveness




Potential value = Technological attractiveness

Accumulated value = Technological competitiveness


• Market• Competition• Technique• Socio-political

• Technological resources

• Complementary resources



Highattractiveness

Weakattractiveness

declining

low

narrow

high

difficult

threatening

spartan

emerging

high

wide

low

easy

supportive

generous

Market volume opened by technology

Marketfactors

Competitionfactors

Technicalfactors

Environmental factors over which the company has a weak control

Other criteriaPublic support for development

high

strong

low

low

exist

low

weak

high

high

non-exist

decreasing increasing

Competitors’ level of involvement

Competitive intensity

Impact of technology on competitive issues

Barriers to copy or imitation

Dominant design

Number of competitors

Potential for progress

Performance gap vis-à-vis alternative technologies

Threat of substitution technologies

Potential for unit-to-unit transfers

Societal stakes

Position of the technology in its own life-cycle

Span of applications opened by technology

Market sensitivity to technical factors

low

narrow

weak

high

wide

strong

Source: Jolly (2003)

MethodologyEvaluating technological attractiveness



Strong position

Weakposition

none

low

weak

weak

low

unfavorable

behind

strong links

high

strong

strong

high

favorable

ahead

Origin of the assets

Technologicalresources

Complemen-taryresources

Internal factors over which the company can exert a strong control

Timetable relative to competition

low

low

low

low

undiffused

high

high

high

high

diffused

none many

Value of laboratories and equipment

Fundamental research team competencies

Applied research team competencies

Development team competencies

Diffusion in the enterprise

Registered patents

Financing capacity

Quality of relationships between R&D & Production

Quality of relationships between R&D & Marketing

Capacity to protect against imitation

Market reaction to the company’s design

Capability to keep up with fundamental S&T knowledge

Relatedness to the core business

Experience accumulated in the field

external

unrelated

no experience

internal

related

world-classplayer

Source: Jolly (2003)

MethodologyEvaluating technological competitiveness



Methodology

Sample– Target: R&D / Sales > 4%, more than 100 employees– 50 companies = 10 Chinese + 40 foreign– 454 observations = 82 Chinese + 372 foreign

(463 before cleaning std < 1)

Statistical methods– Check for different perceptions: ≠ of means (t)– Check for underlying rationales: Factorial analysis

(Principal component analysis + Varimax) + Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test



Industry types in the sample

Industry types Number of Chinese companies

Number of foreign companies

Specialized chemicals 4

Pharmaceuticals 1 5

Biotechnologies 1 1

Semiconductor 2

Electronic products 3 1

Telecommunication equipment 3 5

Medical technologies 1

Software 1 8

Automotive suppliers 3

Equipment / service for the industry 1 7

Defence and space 3

Total 10 40



Attractiveness Origin N Mean t Signif. (bilat.)Market volume opened by technology C 82 6,76 ,340 ,734 F 371 6,68

Span of applications C 82 6,73 3,131 ,002 F 372 6,13

Market sensitivity to technical factors C 82 6,29 -2,416 ,017 F 371 6,84

Number of competitors C 82 5,37 -,105 ,916 F 371 5,39

Competitors' level of involvment C 82 5,16 -,066 ,948 F 372 5,17

Competitive intensity C 82 5,18 1,543 ,125 F 372 4,80

Impact of techno on competitive issues C 82 6,90 ,846 ,399 F 372 6,73

Barriers to copy or imitation C 82 5,84 -,159 ,874 F 372 5,88

Dominant design C 82 5,46 -,315 ,753 F 356 5,55

Position of the techno in its life-cycle C 82 6,00 -1,127 ,262 F 371 6,30

Potential for progress C 82 6,73 -,323 ,747 F 372 6,80

Performance gap / alternative technos C 82 6,12 -1,150 ,252 F 372 6,36

Threat of substitution technologies C 82 5,70 ,338 ,736 F 372 5,62

Ability to transfer the technology C 82 5,83 ,112 ,911 F 369 5,80

Societal stakes C 82 6,91 3,131 ,002 F 364 6,18

Public support for development C 82 6,17 8,439 ,000 F 362 3,77



Competitiveness Origin N Mean t Signif. (bilat.)Origin of the assets C 82 6,83 -2,374 ,019 F 364 7,49

Relatedness to the core business C 82 7,07 -3,286 ,001 F 372 7,84

Experience accumulated in the field C 82 6,15 -5,444 ,000 F 372 7,40

Registered patents C 82 4,27 -4,416 ,000 F 366 5,61

Value of laboratories and equipment C 82 6,06 -2,162 ,032 F 371 6,59

Fundamental research team competencies C 82 6,67 3,509 ,001 F 366 5,84

Applied research team competencies C 82 7,07 ,954 ,342 F 368 6,88

Development team competencies C 82 7,38 1,463 ,145 F 371 7,12

Diffusion in the enterprise C 82 6,00 -,107 ,915 F 372 6,03

Capability to keep up with S&T knowledge C 82 7,02 ,867 ,387 F 370 6,83

Financing capacity C 82 6,38 -3,427 ,001 F 364 7,07

Quality of relationships R&D & Production C 82 6,94 -,010 ,992 F 356 6,94

Quality of relationships R&D & Marketing C 82 6,90 ,888 ,376 F 372 6,72

Capacity to protect against imitation C 82 5,73 -1,183 ,239 F 372 6,02

Market reaction to the company's design C 82 6,79 -,080 ,936 F 361 6,81

Timetable relative to competition C 82 6,28 -,722 ,472 F 371 6,43



Results / Attractiveness

Chinese sample• six factors solution• 70% of variance• KMO = 0.541

Foreign sample• six factors solution• 63% of variance• KMO = 0.697



Factors Solution / Chinese data

1 2 3 4 5 6

Market volume opened by technology -,174 ,067 ,633 ,427 ,243 ,242

Span of applications -,193 ,003 ,152 ,648 -,241 ,344

Market sensitivity to technical factors ,064 ,312 ,000 ,811 ,138 -,205

Number of competitors ,728 -,107 -,015 ,190 ,069 ,045

Competitors' level of involvment ,768 ,001 -,057 -,100 ,023 ,002

Competitive intensity ,870 ,102 -,073 -,137 -,180 -,039

Impact of technology on competitive issues ,182 ,564 ,219 ,452 ,086 -,015

Barriers to copy or imitation ,485 ,148 ,485 -,006 -,238 ,269

Dominant design ,134 ,008 -,222 ,023 ,742 -,011

Position of the techno in its life-cycle -,059 ,834 ,127 ,202 -,182 -,140

Potential for progress -,103 ,795 ,043 ,080 -,049 ,152

Performance gap / alternative technologies ,055 ,075 -,157 ,018 ,030 ,851

Threat of substitution technologies ,378 ,609 ,074 -,110 ,317 ,310

Ability to transfer the technology -,293 -,088 ,147 ,000 ,740 ,037

Societal stakes -,043 ,023 ,867 ,120 -,040 -,183

Public support for development -,051 ,390 ,675 -,115 -,178 -,244

Results / AttractivenessFactors Solution / Foreign data

1 2 3 4 5 6

,093 ,786 -,162 ,063 ,045 ,056

,325 ,688 ,140 ,074 -,024 -,178

,339 ,375 -,179 ,112 ,517 -,013

-,178 -,066 ,021 ,121 ,786 ,153

-,045 -,002 ,924 ,042 ,039 -,047

,026 -,003 ,919 ,068 -,061 ,071

,370 ,322 ,091 -,093 ,478 -,031

,421 -,242 -,030 ,206 ,371 -,213

,090 -,087 -,004 -,046 ,122 ,877

,797 ,136 -,030 ,074 ,001 ,088

,714 ,303 -,018 -,079 ,051 ,058

,402 ,379 ,201 -,002 ,124 ,024

-,008 ,339 ,096 ,619 ,063 -,227

-,130 ,358 ,227 ,450 -,297 ,417

,575 ,006 -,074 ,431 -,060 -,066

,148 -,111 ,031 ,774 ,168 ,102




1 2 3 4 5 6









Dominant design ,134 ,008 -,222 ,023 ,742 -,011






Societal stakes -,043 ,023 ,867 ,120 -,040 -,183



1 2 3 4 5 6

,093 ,786 -,162 ,063 ,045 ,056

,325 ,688 ,140 ,074 -,024 -,178

,339 ,375 -,179 ,112 ,517 -,013

-,178 -,066 ,021 ,121 ,786 ,153

-,045 -,002 ,924 ,042 ,039 -,047

,026 -,003 ,919 ,068 -,061 ,071

,370 ,322 ,091 -,093 ,478 -,031

,421 -,242 -,030 ,206 ,371 -,213

,090 -,087 -,004 -,046 ,122 ,877

,797 ,136 -,030 ,074 ,001 ,088

,714 ,303 -,018 -,079 ,051 ,058

,402 ,379 ,201 -,002 ,124 ,024

-,008 ,339 ,096 ,619 ,063 -,227

-,130 ,358 ,227 ,450 -,297 ,417

,575 ,006 -,074 ,431 -,060 -,066

,148 -,111 ,031 ,774 ,168 ,102

1. Level of competition2. Maturity of technology3. Stake-holder support




1 2 3 4 5 6









Dominant design ,134 ,008 -,222 ,023 ,742 -,011






Societal stakes -,043 ,023 ,867 ,120 -,040 -,183



1 2 3 4 5 6

,093 ,786 -,162 ,063 ,045 ,056

,325 ,688 ,140 ,074 -,024 -,178

,339 ,375 -,179 ,112 ,517 -,013

-,178 -,066 ,021 ,121 ,786 ,153

-,045 -,002 ,924 ,042 ,039 -,047

,026 -,003 ,919 ,068 -,061 ,071

,370 ,322 ,091 -,093 ,478 -,031

,421 -,242 -,030 ,206 ,371 -,213

,090 -,087 -,004 -,046 ,122 ,877

,797 ,136 -,030 ,074 ,001 ,088

,714 ,303 -,018 -,079 ,051 ,058

,402 ,379 ,201 -,002 ,124 ,024

-,008 ,339 ,096 ,619 ,063 -,227

-,130 ,358 ,227 ,450 -,297 ,417

,575 ,006 -,074 ,431 -,060 -,066

,148 -,111 ,031 ,774 ,168 ,102

1. Level of competition2. Maturity of technology3. Stake-holder support

1. Maturity of technology2. Market for technology3. Level of competition



Results / Attractiveness

Conclusion: the rationales of Chinese managers and foreign managers tend to diverge regarding « technology attractiveness » assessment.



Results / Competitiveness

Chinese sample• four factors solution• 68% of variance• KMO = 0.776

Foreign sample• four factors solution• 58% of variance• KMO = 0.847




Factors / Chinese data

1 2 3 4

Origin of the assets ,192 ,841 -,228 ,034

Relatedness to the core business ,516 ,040 -,014 ,494

Experience accumulated in the field ,797 ,036 -,173 ,137

Registered patents ,510 -,184 ,658 -,224

Value of laboratories and equipment ,734 ,115 ,212 ,222

Fundamental research team competencies ,096 ,043 ,703 ,492

Applied research team competencies ,418 ,254 ,219 ,743

Development team competencies ,182 ,256 -,004 ,778

Diffusion in the enterprise ,752 ,379 ,065 ,020

Capability to keep up with S&T. knowledge ,278 ,739 ,376 ,020

Financing capacity ,380 ,668 ,164 ,255

Quality of relationships R&D & Production ,654 ,118 ,217 ,292

Quality of relationships R&D & Marketing -,056 ,690 ,221 ,405

Capacity to protect against imitation -,158 ,307 ,717 ,093

Market reaction to the company's design -,044 ,630 ,277 ,229

Timetable relative to competition ,210 ,432 ,613 ,014

Factors / Foreign data

1 2 3 4

,291 -,033 ,542 ,246

,082 ,066 ,090 ,811

,277 ,139 ,379 ,503

-,110 ,632 ,329 ,176

,298 ,510 ,230 ,279

,813 ,056 ,277 ,000

,708 ,238 ,174 ,194

,768 ,195 ,142 ,151

,236 ,006 ,651 ,178

,734 ,208 ,200 ,002

,412 ,499 -,005 ,309

,212 ,757 ,148 ,044

,231 ,388 ,473 -,358

,312 ,688 ,013 -,177

,004 ,392 ,736 -,084

,237 ,276 ,555 ,104





1 2 3 4


















1 2 3 4

,291 -,033 ,542 ,246

,082 ,066 ,090 ,811

,277 ,139 ,379 ,503

-,110 ,632 ,329 ,176

,298 ,510 ,230 ,279

,813 ,056 ,277 ,000

,708 ,238 ,174 ,194

,768 ,195 ,142 ,151

,236 ,006 ,651 ,178

,734 ,208 ,200 ,002

,412 ,499 -,005 ,309

,212 ,757 ,148 ,044

,231 ,388 ,473 -,358

,312 ,688 ,013 -,177

,004 ,392 ,736 -,084

,237 ,276 ,555 ,104

1. Anteriority2. Market position3. Proprietariness4. HR competencies





1 2 3 4


















1 2 3 4

,291 -,033 ,542 ,246

,082 ,066 ,090 ,811

,277 ,139 ,379 ,503

-,110 ,632 ,329 ,176

,298 ,510 ,230 ,279

,813 ,056 ,277 ,000

,708 ,238 ,174 ,194

,768 ,195 ,142 ,151

,236 ,006 ,651 ,178

,734 ,208 ,200 ,002

,412 ,499 -,005 ,309

,212 ,757 ,148 ,044

,231 ,388 ,473 -,358

,312 ,688 ,013 -,177

,004 ,392 ,736 -,084

,237 ,276 ,555 ,104

1. Anteriority2. Market position3. Proprietariness4. HR competencies

1. HR competencies2. Proprietariness3. Market position4. Anteriority




Conclusion: Results give credit to a convergent model between Chinese and foreign managers regarding « competiveness assessment ».



Synthesis of results

(1) Chinese managers and foreign managers do not value their technology portfolio at the same level:

• Perceptions of attractiveness are similar;• But, competitiveness is perceived as higher by

foreigners.

(2) Practices of chinese companies differ from those of companies from abroad:

• Rationales for technology attractiveness assessment are distinct;

• Rationales for technology competitiveness tend to follow similar lines.



Limits

• Two sub-samples with different sizes (82 vs. 372)

• Chinese sample size did not allow to check for intra discrepancies

• Chinese sample just enough to carry a factorial analysis (16 x 5 = 80)



Q&AAbstract (161 words). This paper tries to identify whether Chinese

and foreign assessments of their respective technology portfolios differ. A first question relates to the perceived levels of competitiveness and attractiveness of each technology portfolio. A second question relates to the underlying rationales to technology audit practices: does each of these practices tend to a unique and general model or do they exhibit some idiosyncratic features? Technology audits conducted in ten Chinese companies and forty foreign companies produced 454 assessments: 82 Chinese and 372 foreign. There are two conclusions: a) Comparison of means show that attractiveness of technologies does not differ in the Chinese and the foreign samples; however, Chinese technological competitiveness was clearly perceived as much lower. b) Factorial analyses show that rationales for assessment of technology attractiveness tend to diverge but that rationales for assessment of technological competitiveness tend to follow similar lines in both sub-samples; this is possibly because attractiveness is a culture-based concept while competitiveness is more and more global.



Results / AttractivenessFactors C/F C1 F3 C2 F1 C3 F2 C4 F5 C5 F4 C6 F6

Market volume opened by technology -,174 -,162 ,067 ,093 ,633 ,786 ,427 ,045 ,243 ,063 ,242 ,056

Span of applications -,193 ,140 ,003 ,325 ,152 ,688 ,648 -,024 -,241 ,074 ,344 -,178

Market sensitivity to technical factors ,064 -,179 ,312 ,339 ,000 ,375 ,811 ,517 ,138 ,112 -,205 -,013

Number of competitors ,728 ,021 -,107 -,178 -,015 -,066 ,190 ,786 ,069 ,121 ,045 ,153

Competitors' level of involvment ,768 ,924 ,001 -,045 -,057 -,002 -,100 ,039 ,023 ,042 ,002 -,047

Competitive intensity ,870 ,919 ,102 ,026 -,073 -,003 -,137 -,061 -,180 ,068 -,039 ,071

Impact of technology on competitive issues ,182 ,091 ,564 ,370 ,219 ,322 ,452 ,478 ,086 -,093 -,015 -,031

Barriers to copy or imitation ,485 -,030 ,148 ,421 ,485 -,242 -,006 ,371 -,238 ,206 ,269 -,213

Dominant design ,134 -,004 ,008 ,090 -,222 -,087 ,023 ,122 ,742 -,046 -,011 ,877

Position of the techno in its life-cycle -,059 -,030 ,834 ,797 ,127 ,136 ,202 ,001 -,182 ,074 -,140 ,088

Potential for progress -,103 -,018 ,795 ,714 ,043 ,303 ,080 ,051 -,049 -,079 ,152 ,058

Performance gap / alternative technologies ,055 ,201 ,075 ,402 -,157 ,379 ,018 ,124 ,030 -,002 ,851 ,024

Threat of substitution technologies ,378 ,096 ,609 -,008 ,074 ,339 -,110 ,063 ,317 ,619 ,310 -,227

Ability to transfer the technology -,293 ,227 -,088 -,130 ,147 ,358 ,000 -,297 ,740 ,450 ,037 ,417

Societal stakes -,043 -,074 ,023 ,575 ,867 ,006 ,120 -,060 -,040 ,431 -,183 -,066

Public support for development -,051 ,031 ,390 ,148 ,675 -,111 -,115 ,168 -,178 ,774 -,244 ,102



Results / CompetitivenessFactors C/F C1 F4 C2 F3 C3 F2 C4 F1

Origin of the assets ,192 ,246 ,841 ,542 -,228 -,033 ,034 ,291

Relatedness to the core business ,516 ,811 ,040 ,090 -,014 ,066 ,494 ,082

Experience accumulated in the field ,797 ,503 ,036 ,379 -,173 ,139 ,137 ,277

Registered patents ,510 ,176 -,184 ,329 ,658 ,632 -,224 -,110

Value of laboratories and equipment ,734 ,279 ,115 ,230 ,212 ,510 ,222 ,298

Fundamental research team competencies ,096 ,000 ,043 ,277 ,703 ,056 ,492 ,813

Applied research team competencies ,418 ,194 ,254 ,174 ,219 ,238 ,743 ,708

Development team competencies ,182 ,151 ,256 ,142 -,004 ,195 ,778 ,768

Diffusion in the enterprise ,752 ,178 ,379 ,651 ,065 ,006 ,020 ,236

Capability to keep up with S&T knowledge ,278 ,002 ,739 ,200 ,376 ,208 ,020 ,734

Financing capacity ,380 ,309 ,668 -,005 ,164 ,499 ,255 ,412

Quality of relationships R&D & Production ,654 ,044 ,118 ,148 ,217 ,757 ,292 ,212

Quality of relationships R&D & Marketing -,056 -,358 ,690 ,473 ,221 ,388 ,405 ,231

Capacity to protect against imitation -,158 -,177 ,307 ,013 ,717 ,688 ,093 ,312

Market reaction to the company's design -,044 -,084 ,630 ,736 ,277 ,392 ,229 ,004

Timetable relative to competition ,210 ,104 ,432 ,555 ,613 ,276 ,014 ,237

Dominique R. JOLLY Chinese vs. foreign views regarding technology assessment: Convergent or...

Documents

Transcript of Dominique R. JOLLY Chinese vs. foreign views regarding technology assessment: Convergent or...