Using DEMATEL Method to Analyze the Causal Relations on Technological Innovation Capability Evaluation Factors in Thai Technology-Based Firms

Publish in

Articles & News Stories

22 views

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 23
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Share
Description
This study analyzes the technology innovation capabilities (TICs) evaluation factors of enterprises by applying the Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method. Based on the literature reviews, six main perspectives and sixteen criteria were extracted and then validated by six experts. A questionnaire was constructed and answered by eleven experts. Then the DEMATEL method was applied to analyze the importance of criteria and the casual relations among the criteria were constructed. The result showed that the innovation management capability perspective was the most important perspective and influenced the remaining perspectives. This work also presents the significant criteria for each perspective.
Tags
Transcript
  *Corresponding author (P.Anuntavoranich). Tel: +66-2-657-6334. E-mail: dettoy999@gmail.com, p.idchula@gmail.com. 2013. International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies. Volume 4 No.2 ISSN 2228-9860 eISSN 1906-9642. Online Available at http://TuEngr.com/V04/081-103.pdf      81   International Transaction Journal of Engineering,   Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies   http://TuEngr.com, http://Go.to/Research  Using DEMATEL Method to Analyze the Causal Relations on Technological Innovation Capability Evaluation Factors in Thai Technology-Based Firms Detcharat Sumrit  a , and Pongpun Anuntavoranich  a*   a  Technopreneurship and Innovation Management Program, Graduate School, Chulalongkorn   University, Bangkok, THAILAND. A R T I C L E I N F O   A B S T RA C T  Article history : Received 25 September 2012 Received in revised form 28 December 2012 Accepted 14 January 2013 Available online 18 January 2013  Keywords : Technology Innovation Capability; TIC evaluation factors; DEMATEL method; Cause and effect relationship .  This study analyzes the technology innovation capabilities (TICs) evaluation factors of enterprises by applying the Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method. Based on the literature reviews, six main perspectives and sixteen criteria were extracted and then validated by six experts. A questionnaire was constructed and answered by eleven experts. Then the DEMATEL method was applied to analyze the importance of criteria and the casual relations among the criteria were constructed. The result showed that the innovation management capability perspective was the most important  perspective and influenced the remaining perspectives. This work also presents the significant criteria for each perspective. 2013 INT TRANS J ENG MANAG SCI TECH. 1.   Introduction   Innovation’s importance has continuously increased and aligns with global business growth. Bessant et al  ., (2005), and Huang (2011) clearly stated that Technological Innovation Capabilities (TICs) play a crucial part in the initiation of firms’ competency and as the source of sustainable competitive advantage. The enterprises, thus, are strongly required the periodical monitoring their TICs and have to continuously strengthen their weak capabilities in order to   2013 International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies.  82   Detcharat Sumrit and Pongpun Anuntavoranich facilitate the competitive advantage. This study mainly focuses on the technological-based firms since they rely significantly on innovation development to pursue their business growth. Although TICs were accepted as a main part of enhancing competitive advantage, TICs assessment is rather complicated due to multi-dimensionality. The measuring indicators of TICs are also diverse and difficult to assess by any single-dimension scale as they involve the interaction among various resources (Chiesa  et al  ., 1998, Hansen, 2001, Guan and Ma, 2003, Burgelman et al. , 2004). Guan et al.,  (2006) defined TICs measurement framework as  benchmark audition on the quantitative evaluation based on traditional DEA approach, which relies on both technological capability and critical capabilities in the area of manufacturing, marketing, organization, strategy planning, learning and resources allocation. However, Wang et al  ., (2008) proposed the evaluation of high-tech firms’ TICs under both quantitative assessment (by applying new fuzzy multi-criteria analytical approach) and qualitative assessment (using five main aspects of capabilities i.e. R&D, innovation decision, marketing, manufacturing and capital). Wang et al.,  (2008) viewed that the traditional multi-criteria were not wholly suitable for TICs assessment. They also stated that the TICs assessment was considered as subjective and ambiguous. To clarify and reduce the subjective and ambiguous information, this study uses both qualitative and quantitative methods. In this study, TICs’ critical evaluation perspectives and criteria as well as the causal relations among them are presented. The result will aid the managements in the determination of the degree of importance of critical factors/ criteria and their influences on these factors. Following this introduction, literature reviews of TICs and DEMATEL method were illustrated in Section 2. Research methodology (including research framework, and the  procedure and results) was proposed in Section 3. Discussion and results were conducted in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 drew the conclusion.  *Corresponding author (P.Anuntavoranich). Tel: +66-2-657-6334. E-mail: dettoy999@gmail.com, p.idchula@gmail.com. 2013. International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies. Volume 4 No.2 ISSN 2228-9860 eISSN 1906-9642. Online Available at http://TuEngr.com/V04/081-103.pdf      83   2.   Literature   Review   2.1   Technological   innovation   capability   (TICs)   TICs was defined as an enterprises’ ability to improve their technological innovativeness in order to create new customer value through the introduction of new products and services, the exploitation of new technologies and the exploration of new skill and competencies (Perdomo-Ortiz et al  ., 2009, Wang et al  ., 2008, Huang, 2011). TICs assessments were also included the aspects of multi-dimensionality, complexity, interactive innovation activities with resource allocation to enhance competitive advantage (Wang et al  ., 2008, Chiesa et al  ., 1996). Various researchers have developed the technological innovation framework, approaches and components to evaluate a firm’s technological or innovation capabilities. For instance, Baark et al  ., (2011) classified the assessment of a firm’s TICs into four approaches: (i) the asset approach (Christensen, 1995), (ii) process approach (Chiesa et al  ., 1996; Burgelman et al  ., 2004), (iii) output-based (Romijin and Albaladejo, 2002), and (iv) functional approach (Guan and Ma, 2003; Yam. et al  ., 2004). Yam et al  ., 2004 developed an audit innovation capability model by using functional approach, which consisted of seven components: learning capability, R&D capability, resource allocation capability, manufacturing capability, marketing capability, organizing capability and strategic planning capability. These studies of technological innovation capability development are basically related to our research in view of providing an overall framework for understanding the importance of such capability. Based on the extensive literature review, overall TICs evaluation factors were concluded in Table 1.  84   Detcharat Sumrit and Pongpun Anuntavoranich Table 1: Summary of the perspectives and criteria of TICs’ evaluations Perspectives/ Criteria Author  Innovation Management Capability  (  P 1 ) Strategic Management Capability   ( C  1 ) Burgelman et al  ., (2004), O’Regan et al.,  (2006), Ceylan and Koc (2007), Dobni (2008), Yam et al.,  (2004), Yam et al.,  (2011), Türker (2012). Organization Capability ( C  2 ) Guan et al.,  (2006), O’Regan et al.,  (2006), Burgelman et al.,  (2004), Yam et al.,  (2004), Yam et al.,  (2011), Ceylan and Koc (2007), Dobni (2008), Spyropoulou and Kyrgidou (2012), Türker (2012). Resource Allocation Capability ( C  3 ) Chiesa et al.,  (1996), Barney and Clark (2007), Burgelman et al.,  (2004), Guan et al.,  (2006), Dobni (2008), Wang et al.,  (2008), Ceylan and Koc (2007), Yam et al.,  (2011), Spyropoulou and Kyrgidou (2012), Voudouris et al.,  (2012). Risk Management Capability ( C  4 ) Amabile et al.,  (1996), Isaksen et al.,  (1999), Forsman (2011), Yang (2012).   Collective Learning Capability (  P  2 )   Learning Capability ( C  5 ) Guan et al.,  (2006), Chiva and Alegre (2007), Teece (2007), Alegre and Chiva (2008), Yam et al.,  (2004), Yam et al.,  (2011), Camisón and Villar-López (2012). Absorptive Capacity ( C  6  ) Ceylan and Koc (2007), Zahra and George (2002), Lane and Koka (2006), Camisón and Forés (2010), Forsman (2011), Wonglimpiyarat (2010), Kim et al.,  (2011), Gebauer et al.,  (2012), Lin et al.,  (2012). Knowledge Management Capability ( C  7  ) Forsman (2011), Yang (2012).    Innovation Sourcing Capability (  P  3 )    Network Linkage Capability ( C  8 ) Lin (2004), Chesbrough (2004), Tidd (2006), Kim and Song (2007), Spithoven et al.,  (2010), Shan and Jolly (2010), Zeng et al.,  (2010), Huang (2011), Forsman (2011), Mu and Benedetto (2011), Kim et al.,  (2011), Voudouris et al.,  (2012). Technology Acquisition Capability ( C  9 ) Chiesa et al.,  (1996), Ceylan and Koc (2007), Lee et al.,  (2009).   Technology Development Capability (  P  4 )   R&D Capability ( C  10 ) Guan et al.,  (2006), Wang et al.,  (2008), Yam et al.,  (2004), Yam et al.,  (2011), Zahra and George (2002), Levitas and Mc Fadyen (2009), Kim et al.,  (2011), Forsman (2011), Lin et al.,  (2012). Project Cross Functional Team Integration Capability ( C  11 ) Martins and Terblanche (2003), Lin (2004), Camisón and Forés (2010), Kim et al.,  (2011), Yam et al.,  (2011). Technology Change Management Capability ( C  12 ) Jansen et al.,  (2005), Garrison (2009), Forsman (2011).    Robustness Product & Process Design Capability (  P  5 )   Product Structural Design and Engineering Capability ( C  13 ) Chiesa et al.,  (1996), Christensen (1995), Zhang et al.,  (2000), De Toni and Nassimbeni (2001), Antony et al.,  (2002), Nassimbeni and Battain (2003), Lin (2004), Ho et al.,  (2011). Process Design and Engineering Capability ( C  14 ) Chiesa et al.,  (1996), Zhang et al.,  (2000), De Toni and Nassimbeni (2001), Antony et al.,  (2002), Nassimbeni and Battain, (2003).   Technology Commercialization Capability (  P  6  )   Manufacturing Capability ( C  15 ) Lin (2004), Yam et al., (2004), Guan et al  . (2006), Wang et al.,(  2008), Yam et al.,  (2011), Kim et al.,  (2011), Yang (2013). Market Capability ( C  16  ) Lin (2004), Yam et al.,  (2004), Guan et al.,  (2006), Dobni (2008), Wang et al.,  (2008), Yam et al.,  (2011), Forsman (2011), Mu and Benedetto (2011), Kim et al.,  (2011).
Related Search

Previous Document

farmakologi

Next Document

daspen

We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks