Technology Management and Collaboration - Assignment Example

Technology Management and Collaboration: A Case Analysis Introduction Technology has been a major catalyst of growth, progress, and innovation throughout human history. With developments in areas like biotechnology and information and communication technology (ICT), the speed of growth and innovation is expected to rise even more in the near future. This creates numerous challenges for organisations, individuals, and communities. Specifically, the management is confronted with difficult choices regarding how best to distribute and use scarce resources, with regard to the risk, uncertainty, and complexity of technology ventures. This paper is therefore set to discuss the following issues: (1) the Gregory framework of technology management and its five generic process; (2) the importance of a holistic approach to technology management; (3) a recent ‘exploitation’ of technology in a company [Cisco Systems, Inc. and the UN Development Programme (UNDO)] through collaboration; (4) how the collaboration was conducted and managed; and (5) the outcome of this collaboration. Gregory Framework of Technology Management The general objective of the Gregory framework is to enhance knowledge of the way commercial and technological know-how come together to reinforce operational, innovative, and strategic practices in the company, within the setting of both the external and internal environment (Treat 2011). The numerous specific processes and objectives that are related to the practice of technology management in companies rely on the specific goals and condition. Comprehensive frameworks have been formulated to help activities and decision-making in certain sectors—for instance, technology intelligence and innovation. At the core of the framework is the organisation’s technology foundation, which makes up the capabilities, capacities, and know-how that facilitate the creation and provision of competitive goods and/or services, as well as other corporate objectives. Five key processes of technology management work on the technology base, which work together to facilitate the creation and use of the organisation’s technology base: (1) identification, (2) selection, (3) acquisition, (4) exploitation, and (5) protection. When a company ‘identifies’ technology, it would definitely require human resources that possess the appropriate or needed technical expertise, understanding, and know-how. People still inhabit a world where an individual’s technical ability and instinct determines the worth of technology. Gaining knowledge of technological management is a human work and requires experienced and qualified individuals to examine this (Dauda 2009). Human intelligence produces ideas for new products and/or services, which produces the requirement to ‘identify’ technology. Hence (Moehrle 2013, p. 17): Identification of technologies that are not currently part of the firm’s technology base, but may be important in the future (for example, by attending conference, reading journals, visiting trade fairs, questioning suppliers and conducting pure research. Each time a technology is ‘selected’, the company has to always remember who will manage and operate such technology. Human resources are an important determinant for this ‘selection’, for they should possess the eagerness, knowledge, and capability to sustain this technology (Treat 2011). Hence (Moehrle et al. 2013, p. 17): Selection of those technologies that the firm needs for its future products and technologies (for example, by using portfolio-type methods, expert judgement, pilot studies and financial methods). Likewise, HR participation is a crucial component in all the phases of IT acquisition programme So as to guarantee an effective and efficient application of the acquired IT, HR participation is needed the most in the process of pre-acquisition so as to successfully deal with later phases. Customers’ acceptance of IT is also influenced by users’ perception of IT; the company’s decision-making process; outlook of strategic decision-makers; and policy (Dodgson et al. 2008). Hence (Moehrle et al. 2013, p. 17): “Acquisition of the technologies that have been selected (for example, by R&D, licensing, purchase of equipment, hiring of staff and acquisition of firms). It is the intelligence of the human mind that obtains various advantages from technology and thereby ‘exploits’ technology the most favourable way. If individuals do not team up with technology, such technology would not be able to generate any value. Capitalising on benefits and producing profits only facilitate business growth and expansion, thus if individuals are endowed with appropriate resources and training, with consistent improvement of capabilities and knowledge, this can contribute to the growth of the economy (Dauda 2009); hence, “Exploitation of the technologies that have been acquired (for example, by incorporating into products and services and licensing)” (Moehrle et al. 2013, p. 17). Lastly, applying for intellectual property and patents are human abilities and their ‘protection’ is carried out so that individuals can understand and gain from another people’s expertise or knowledge ( Handling people by providing them the appropriate environment to enhance their intellectual ability, is a task of HRM and also assists in the protection of inimitable technology in a company. Hence (Moehrle et al. 2013, p. 17): Protection of the technological assets of the firm (for example, by legal means such as patenting, contracts, trademarks, copyrights, together with security measures and retention of key staff). Gregory’s model was the outcome of a wide-ranging, thorough research which included the major components of technology management taking into consideration flaws in management practices (Moehrle et al. 2013). It tackled various aspects of organisations in technology management and offered a common system of evaluation. Holistic Approach to Technological Management Effective technological management should deal with the holistic aspect of the technological structure in terms of its central, organisational, and ordered decision-making process. To be taken into consideration as well are the different non-equal goals and sub-goals, as well as all forms of pertinent and major risks, the different end-users of the system, stakeholders, decision makers, and a set of socioeconomic factors, particularly legal and institutional (Howells 2005). Engineering systems are habitually planned, built, and run under inevitable circumstances of uncertainty and risk, and are generally presumed to attain diverse and contradictory goals. The processes of ‘identification, quantification, evaluation, and trading off of risks, benefits, and costs’ (Sage & Rouse 2009, p. 157) must comprise a vital and clear element of the whole process of management decision making, and not be a detached, superficial addition. Incorporating and fitting in technological management and risk evaluation in the wider holistic model of the management of technological processes also call for an evaluation of the expected-value notion when it is employed as the only sign of risk. Numerous people believe that proportionating low-frequency/catastrophic-damage and high-frequency/low-damage incidents sharply misrepresent their comparative value and outcomes as they are seen, assessed, and exchanged by the people, decision makers, and managers (Sage & Rouse 2009, p. 157). Some are becoming increasingly persuaded of the serious weaknesses of the long-established and widely applied expected-value model and are adding and matching it with qualified or uncertain probability, where choices about risky and disastrous episodes are not levelled out or equalised with more widely occurring incidents. As the term ‘holistic’ suggests, technological resources are handled in complete units instead of components separate from their environments. So as to have a conclusive description of the technologies being managed, companies start by identifying their whole. Such description includes a record of all the major actors or decision-makers engaged in managerial functions, the resources available to them, and the financial support accessible (Fukuda-Parr & Lopes 2013). From there, a comprehensive, in-depth holistic objective is created. The holistic objective involves a values-oriented class of life account, a record of types of production that will facilitate an acceptable standard of living, and a definition of how the technological base has to be developed, so as to maintain the system (Dodgson 1993). Identifying the whole and creating an objective is a potent practice. Individuals who have formulated objectives are much more expected to become successful than those who fail to do so. Because the holistic objective is rooted in the more embedded core values and ideals of the decision-makers, it motivates them to raise more relevant, useful issues, to raise the more profound and correct questions from which they can come up with more effective decisions (Harrison & Samson 2002). Creating a technological plan on such questions enables the development of a successful plan. The holistic objective is still the flagship of holistic technological management and is consulted or mentioned consistently when management choices are being created. Basically, the holistic approach to technological management integrates values-oriented goal setting, financial planning, technological application, and evaluation (Fukuda-Parr & Lopes 2013). All these factors are managed or addressed as an entire unit. The gains are stable profitability, financial strength, and stronger technological systems. It offers organisations ways to make technological decisions that more precisely reflect the way technology works in wholes, and thus guarantee that the technological system is really stable, supportable, and viable over time. Exploitation of Technology through Collaboration Operating outside organisational borders to co-create products and/or services is gradually becoming the working framework for R&D in a broad array of businesses. Greater division of value chains and the increasing demand to create state-of-the-art, comprehensive processes for all products work together to push organisations towards collaboration; in short, when an organisation cuts back to concentrate on its main capabilities and proficiencies it cannot, in theory, ‘accomplish everything’ and should at the same time enhance its capacity to collaborate to develop and launch comprehensive, useful processes to the marketplace (Dodgson et al. 2008). For numerous organisations, the drive to collaborate has emerged from time to time, motivated by a specific programme requirement or particular market conditions. In consequence, several firms are developing co-development competencies at the programme stage. Nevertheless, some organisations are currently transcending or going outside that boundary, making co-development a fundamental component of their corporate framework or business model and acquiring substantial benefits or advantages from the productivity and success of R&D. Several years ago, enhancing the efficiency of R&D was completely focused on forming interdisciplinary systems and practices to handle a whole collection of projects in a single organisation (Howells 2005). Today the task moves to creating cross-business solutions to let loose the productivity benefits that can arise from collaboration. Cisco Systems provides an excellent example of an organisation that has implanted collaboration into almost all components of its operations. According to Cisco, its strategy is to capitalise on the control or influence that partners provide to speed up and enlarge the markets for company’s products (Giese 2002). As stated by Cisco’s Technology Centre’s vice president Michael Frendo, “The ultimate benefit of collaboration is that we make the pie bigger, faster. By working with other folks we can accelerate the development of a new technology, or a new service, and, if we get to market sooner, we always get more of the market” (Deck & Strom 2002, p. 47). Once Cisco had implemented a co-development technique, it explored the divergent aspect of the relations among firms in the development chain. Dividing these relationships along a continuum of shallow to profound collaboration facilitates identification and focusing of co-development ventures on the most valuable, strategic relations. In collaborative technological management, organisations require a technique for selecting the appropriate companies to collaborate with, and for handling those relations to guarantee constant alliance of the development chain. Cisco applies a fundamental strategy for making a decision with whom to engage in an important collaborative attempt. The framework of Cisco integrates strategic high-level limitations that have been used at some firms that implement successful partner selection process. The four conditions of Cisco for selecting partners are (Deck & Strom 2002, p. 47): (1) Short-term returns for both companies. (2) Clearly defined long-term potential for both companies (3) Shared vision of technology and market developments. (4) Shared destiny of cooperation, not competition. Frendo explains, “First, we look to go out and win something together and get more tightly bound as companies within the first six to nine months—even sooner if possible” (Deck & Strom 2002, p. 47). He adds “that early win is essential. If we start out trying to do the ‘boil the ocean’ solution—something that’s many, many years out—somewhere along the line both companies will stray from the original goal and lose interest” (Deck & Strom 2002, pp. 47-48). When Cisco and another firm decide technically to embark on a co-development attempt, a succession of agreements and joint development contracts are carried out that identify all major components of the relationship. Protection of intellectual property, resolution of conflict, rules and processes for reinforcing the joint product, delivery schedules, job statements, duties and roles—all these should be agreed upon, understood, organised, and disseminated (McAfee 2009). Frendo explains that “it’s a starting point. Something to send out to potential partners to let them know that these are the guidelines we’re willing to work under” (Deck & Strom 2002, p. 48). The Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme develops connections created through NetAid—collaboration between Cisco and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) inaugurated in October 1999 to enhance public understanding and campaign against poverty (Barsky 2004). The core of the collaboration is the Cisco Networking Academy Programme, a structured international project that endows students with knowledge and skills in information technology (IT). Its goal is to form a new labour force with the abilities to create, construct, and sustain computer networks able to support global and national agencies, so as to create prospects for better involvement by developing nations in the international economy (Bridge et al. 2009). Description and Critical Examination of How Collaboration was Conducted and Managed Cisco Systems, Inc. and the United Nations Development Programme collaboratively introduced in July 2000 the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) Initiative. Ever since the declaration of the strategic collaboration, Cisco, UNDP, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the UN Informational Technology Service, and the UN Volunteer project have been collaborating to educate and prepare students for the Internet-based economy through launching the Cisco Networking Academy Program in most LDCs across the globe that endure economic hardships, as well as from poorly performing economy and human resources (Barsky 2004). The Networking Academy Program is a thorough, inclusive course intended to endow students with technical competencies and theoretical understanding that will allow them to design, create and manage computer systems. It includes instructor assistance and training, applied laboratories or activities, student performance monitoring and evaluation, online examination, and Web-based educational activities, and is provided at all educational institutions and community-based associations (Cisco Networking Academy 2013). At the culmination of the programme, students are equipped and ready for the Cisco Certified Networking Associate test (McAfee 2009). This LDC Initiative reveals the potentials of strategic collaboration and is an excellent case of the collaboration between a private company and the UN to fulfil the pressing demands of LDCs, by providing their students premium education in information technology. Cisco created a deployment technique for every LDC (Barsky 2004). Immediately after, the partners successfully built an effective communication networks at all levels, primarily by means of electronic mail. When issues, setbacks, and difficulties emerge, such as political upheavals, protests, or government’s refusal to release funding for education, Cisco and the UN’s development wing collaborated to deal with them immediately (Bridge et al. 2009). Individuals and collaborators of each LDC to fill the technological gap, and the results of this incomparable collaboration are not merely striking but also measurable. Cisco declared the result of the unusual collaboration at the Third UN Conference in 2001. The Chief Executive Officer of Cisco, John Chambers, asserted that “the tremendous efforts by the strategic partnership and development experts have contributed to the success of the LDC Initiative. No one organisation could have achieved this unilaterally” (Bridge et al. 2009, p. 53).The eagerness and resolve of the students to develop IT competencies to view in the Internet-driven economy also topped the project rapidly. As stated by UNDP’s administrator, Mark Malloch Brown, “Cisco’s commitment to the development of learning centres in the least developed countries has been central to the mission of the UNDP” (Barsky 2004, pp. 10-11). The collaboration has allowed students in LDCs to obtain the same training and education as those in rich countries, according to the head of the International Strategies and Partnerships and Worldwide Education of Cisco, Erin Walsh, further proclaiming that “the students are embracing it” (Barsky 2004, p. 11). At present, teachers and students in LDCs, as confirmed by Mr. Chambers, are high performers and achievers. He further said that “the LDC Initiative demonstrates that education and the Internet are the two great equalisers in life” (Cisco 2009, p. E12). Cisco has also engaged in programmes with other UN agencies. Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary-General, commented that “brain power is the one commodity that is equally distributed among world’s peoples” (Barsky 2004, p. 4). The collaboration between Cisco and the UN could be capable of developing and sustaining the fairly distributed asset of the world in the near future. Since it was introduced in 1997, the Cisco Networking Academy project has turned out to be an example of collaboration between the private and public sectors. The Academy program curriculum, considered as one of the biggest e-learning ‘experiments’ in the world, applies technologies related to the Internet and networking to communicate and instruct ways to plan, create, and disseminate those networks to learners (Bridge et al. 2009). Cisco offers online instruction and learning through a collaborative management of technological system, professional growth prospects, and instructional materials for teachers, certification exam rebate coupons, and reductions on lab tools fees (Cisco Networking Academy 2013). Through collaboration with different organisations and groups, Cisco has taken part in a number of programmes to assist in the expansion of services for those who confront social and economic hardships. In collaboration with UN Volunteers, Youth for Habitat, and UNDP, Cisco Networking Academy provides free ICT courses to women and youngsters. Cisco collaborates with IT Works in Israel to provide free technological education to women (Cisco 2009). In Kenya, Cisco collaborates with the Norwegian group Deaf Aid to provide training in ICT networking to those who have hearing impairment and assist them in looking for jobs. Cisco also collaborates with penitentiary structures in Europe to provide ICT education to prisoners (Cisco 2009). And finally, Cisco collaborates with the Human Resource Development Fund of the Saudi government to deliver technical education. All these collaborative activities of Cisco were successful at best (Bidgoli 2010). Cisco has created an inclusive discursive framework endorsing its digital divide and philanthropic operations, with diverse programs and long reports. Cisco delegates take part regularly in policy discussions of the UNDP. In such collaborative settings, Cisco consistently applies the ‘plumbing’ rationality (Graz & Nolke 2007, p. 137). The company introduces itself as an educational and informational institution on technological concerns relating to the Internet. In an online conference held by UNDP’s Asia Pacific Development Information Program, the executive editor of Cisco’s Internet Protocol Journal claimed that “The technical stuff that makes the Internet work OPERATIONALLY is called COORDINATION, and it is specifically different from governance in that it depends on collaborative processes rather than mandates, laws and rules… the Internet… operates just fine without any governance” (Graz & Nolke 2007, p. 137). With processes, procedures, and strategy established, the relationships that enable management evaluation, data sharing, and instantaneous communications become the groundwork that enables successful collaboration between Cisco and the UNDP. This groundwork integrates ways to trade both management information and product. At present, the degree of IT-facilitation of collaborative relations differs from organisation to organisation. Cisco claims web-based instruments are especially valuable for the process of management evaluation of collaborative attempts (Khosrowpour 2006). Since all of the important, pertinent programme information is accessible in real-time, wherever in the globe, the management on both organisations—Cisco and UNDP—can track progress and problems at their ease, and plan ahead for the next stage evaluation discussion. However, although the IT infrastructure is an important facilitator of collaborative development, Cisco warns organisations not to concentrate only on the IT feature when making plans for collaborative programmes (Treat 2011). Attempting to systematise or mechanise undeveloped or mismatched practices will not produce the benefits collaborative partners want. Outcome of the Cisco and UNDP Collaboration Both Cisco and the UNDP believe that the collaboration is successful. They accomplished the target time frame of Cisco ahead of time, and in only a few years have trained and educated 486 teachers and 7,314 students in LDCs (Barsky 2004, p. 12). This is comparable to what is given or offered at any Academy in developed countries, like the United States and those of Western Europe. By now, academies have been launched in most LDCs and are operating in several of the most difficult settings, such as Bhutan, Nepal, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Haiti (Barsky 2004, p. 12). Most of the graduates already have jobs, positively contributing to the filling of the huge gap in the availability of qualified IT practitioners and helping in the provision of competencies that can generate high-paid jobs and entrepreneurial prospects (Bridge et al. 2009). For instance, absence of competency in the IT sector has been a serious problem for sub-Saharan Africa, which is one of the most populated regions in the world but insufficiently provided with global Internet services. An essential objective supporting the collaboration has been to tackle the unavailability of qualified Africans in the field of emerging technologies (Chow & Schoenbaum 2010). As stated by the information technology consultant for UNDP’s Africa Strategic and Regional Initiatives Unit, Richard Kerby, “For Africa to fully take part in the new economy it must have a prerequisite of people that can work in IT. It is not just a question of being able to compete, but whether they take part in trade and investment at all” (Barsky 2004, p. 13). Collaborating with Cisco and African governments and educational institutions, Mr. Kerby declares that the mission is being accomplished successfully through the Networking Academies. So far, hundreds of Academies assist and support thousands of students in several African countries. Mr. Kerby claims that “these Academies not only strengthen the information technology capacity of Africans but provide a steady flow of an IT savvy workforce to the private sector” (Barksy 2004, p. 14). In consequence, African organisations will have a larger pool of qualified IT practitioners to choose from and take part in the Internet-driven global economy. The graduates are already employed in companies, assisting them in becoming more involved in international markets, in civil society groups, and in government agencies, where they are engaging in the wide array of financial and information resources outside their boundaries (Graz & Nolke 2007). Cisco, in particular, believes that in the short-term, the Academy has been very successful in technology education and in creating a pool of service technicians able to support the products of the company in a cost-effective way. It has also improved Cisco’s reputation and brand image and privilege to do business domestically and globally with the community groups, academic organisations, and governments with which it collaborates (Moehrle et al. 2013). The strategic rationale underlying this hands-on, positive model of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the chance to cultivate new markets while simultaneously making the Cisco brand known all over the world (Farrukh et al. 2000). As stated by Ms. Walsh of Cisco, “We do not get an immediate financial return on our investment and we have no projections when that will happen. But we are committed to this project because we see huge results for a small amount of money when an individual walks away with a certificate that enables them to work anywhere in the world and a country begins to build an IT trained workforce, prepared to meet economic and social development challenges” (Chow & Schoenbaum 2010, p. 324). Hence, she thinks that the Cisco-UNDP collaboration is a smashing success. She also admits that her people are now more knowledgeable of and experienced in development and technological management. The cultural familiarity or understanding being acquired from working in these difficult business settings will be a valuable corporate gain as these new markets emerge (Cisco 2009). Both Cisco and the UNDP believe that such a laborious and geographically varied programme would not have been successful without the powerful, influential image UNDP delivers and consistent, regular, and efficient communication. Ms. Walsh explains that “this is not a programme you can do from halfway across the world. We are in so many countries together that there is constant communication between the UNDP Resident Representatives in the field, Cisco’s regional Academies, and headquarters” (Barsky 2004, p. 15). Therefore, she declares that successful collaboration depends on both the organisation and its collaborators. She also reveals that putting the programme into effect has not been simple at all times because of the diverse cultural orientations of different individuals, groups, and organisations involved: “The speed at which Cisco works and our demand for measurable results was very challenging for many of the field offices at first, but every day we are finding ways to improve our effectiveness” (Barsky 2004, p. 15). Conclusions Based on the case of Cisco and its collaboration with the UNDP to launch the Networking Academy programme, it is apparent that strong and well-organised collaboration together with evolving development chains will progress. In certain industries, where organisations are recently adopting best practices and organised practices that have become widespread over the years, collaboration will emerge in the near future since interdisciplinary practices are preconditions for collaboration. Cisco and the UNDP can transfer immediately to this new framework by creating a strategy for collaboration, organising the needed procedures and management, and formulating an IT plan to give the instruments that drive collaboration all over the development chain. Creating a collaborative strategy obliges the management to wrestle with core issues about their business goal and where value is built. They should create a strong objective and plan to direct their collaborative activities. However, even with a strong strategic plan, collaboration attempts can simply be ruined by implementation errors. Collaborations usually collapse at the execution state due to irreconcilable objectives and expectations, inefficient communications, lack of trust, and poorly defined tasks and obligations. But all of these challenges were surpassed by the Cisco-UNDP partnership through leadership and commitment to social investment. To facilitate the success of their collaborative activities, the management of Cisco and the UNDP first defined their strategy and executed the measures that will guarantee that their collaboration is not an unfamiliar, unchartered venture, but rather a strategic leverage thoroughly organised for success. Cisco enhanced the competencies of its human resources to deal with the challenges and opportunities of a networked life. Addressing these problems is never plain and simple, but taking them for granted is not a sustainable and wise move. Sooner or later, competitive processes will shove almost every company in technology-based industries into the collaboration framework for it will determine the setting for productivity benefits in the near future. Frendo of Cisco says, “Co-development and other forms of collaboration will remain a core element of Cisco’s strategy, because it helps grow Cisco’s business. Despite all the things that have happened, and all the talk of technology slowing down, this business is still about accelerating the development of technology” (Deck & Strom 2002, p. 49). He adds, “Collaboration opens the door for our equipment to be applied sooner and in ways that we probably didn’t even dream of ourselves” (Deck & Strom 2002, p. 49). These statements say it all. References Barsky, J 2004, UNDP and the Private Sector, Building Partnerships for Development, viewed 3 May 2014, < file:///C:/Users/Bryan/Downloads/undp%20and%20the%20private%20sector%20-%20building%20partnerships%20for%20development%20may%202004%20(1).pdf>. Bidgoli, H (2010) The Handbook of Technology Management: Supply Chain Management, Marketing and Advertising, and Global Management. UK: John Wiley & Sons. Bridge, G. et al 2009, Creating a Collaborative Enterprise, CISCO, viewed 2 May 2014, < http://users.tpg.com.au/adsl6i4e/jawk/Harvard%20and%20plagiarism/essay-Tasmania.pdf>. Chow, D & Schoenbaum, T (2010) International Business Transactions: Problems, Cases, and Materials. UK: Aspen Publishers. Cisco 2009, CSR and Society, Corporate Social Responsibility Report, viewed 3 May 2014, http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac227/csr2009/pdfs/CSR_09_Society.pdf. Cisco Networking Academy (2013) Introduction to Networks Companion Guide. New York: Cisco Press. Dauda, Y (2009) Managing Technology Innovation. UK: Peter Lang. Deck, M & Strom, M (2002) “Model of Co-Development Emerges: Executives at Cisco Systems, Flextronics and Millennium Pharmaceuticals Illuminate Key Practices for Successful Collaborative Development”, Research-Technology Management, 45(3), 47+ Dodgson, M (1993) Technological Collaboration in Industry: Strategy, Policy and Internationalisation in Innovation. London: Routledge. Dodgson, M et al (2008) The Management of Technological Innovation: Strategy and Practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Farrukh, C et al (2000) Technology Management Assessment Procedure: A Guide for Supporting Technology Management in Business. New York: IET. Fukuda-Parr, S & Lopes, C (2013) Capacity for Development: New Solutions to Old Problems. UK: Taylor & Francis. Giese, X et al (2002) Cisco Networking Academy Program. New York: Cisco Press. Graz, J & Nolke, A (2007) Transnational Private Governance and Its Limits. London: Routledge. Harrison, N & Samson, D (2002) Technology Management: Text and International Cases. New York: McGraw-Hill. Howells, J (2005) The Management of Innovation and Technology. London: SAGE. Khosrowpour, M (2006) Emerging Trends and Challenges in Information Technology Management. New York: Idea Group Inc. McAfee, A (2009) Enterprise 2.0: New Collaborative Tools for your Organisation’s Toughest Challenges. New York: Harvard Business Press. Moehrle, M. et al (2013) Technology Roadmapping for Strategy and Innovation: Charting the Route to Success. New York: Springer. Sage, A & Rouse, W (2009) Handbook of Systems Engineering and Management. UK: John Wiley & Sons. Treat, T (2011) Technology Management. UK: John Wiley & Sons. Read More