MOT in transition: From technology fusion to technology-service convergence

In the technical revolutions such as “mechatronics” and “optoelectronics,” the concept of technology fusion, fusion among different kinds of technologies, had been critical in the management of technology. In this type of management, the joint research among different industries was the most important element. In 1990s, however, modularization had progressed drastically and rapidly. To confirm this progression, a qualitative measurement in the Personal Computer and Automobile Industries is presented. When we entered into 2000s, however, the technology-service convergence phenomenon had become conspicuous. In this regards, two illustrative examples are presented from the Japanese experiences. Then, these examples are used to conduct a kind of thought experiment to draw a vision of the future. By reviewing the transition in MOT (Management of Technology), from technology fusion to technology-service convergence via the age of modularity, we reach the conclusion that the essential nature of technology-service convergence is technical evolution, rather than technology revolution .I n order to establish a method to view this convergence as an evolutionary process, therefore, we will bring in the argument on the design rule of modular structures. Through the arguments described above, we will come to a conclusion that the “porting” operator is a critical element of this evolution. By applying the porting operator within the modular structures consisting of technology and service modules, we explore how the technology-service fusion may become a reality.

[1]  F. Kodama Technology fusion and the new R & D: Harvard Business Review, 70 (4), 70–78 (July/August 1992) , 1993 .

[2]  F. Kodama,et al.  Japanese innovation in mechatronics technology , 1986 .

[3]  Jeremy Howells,et al.  Innovation, consumption and services: encapsulation and the combinatorial role of services , 2004 .

[4]  I. Chen,et al.  IT‐based services and service quality in consumer banking , 2002 .

[5]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Product development performance : strategy, organization, and management in the world auto industry / Kim B. Clark, Tahahiro Fujimoto , 1991 .

[6]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  Perspectives on technology , 1977 .

[7]  H. Yen,et al.  Introduction to the special cluster on managing technology–service fusion innovation , 2012 .

[8]  Margaret Craig-Lees,et al.  Technology‐enabled service delivery: An investigation of reasons affecting customer adoption and rejection , 2002 .

[9]  F. Kodama,et al.  Measuring emerging categories of innovation: Modularity and business model , 2004 .

[10]  Carliss Y. Baldwin,et al.  Managing in an age of modularity. , 1997, Harvard business review.

[11]  F. Kodama,et al.  Technological Diversification of Japanese Industry , 1986, Science.

[12]  Helena M. M. Lastres,et al.  Emerging Patterns of Innovation: Sources of Japan's Technological Edge , 1994 .

[13]  R. Wise,et al.  Go Downstream: The New Profit Imperative in Manufacturing , 1999 .

[14]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Design Rules: The Power of Modularity , 2000 .

[15]  Tomoatsu Shibata Product innovation through module dynamics: A case study , 2009 .

[16]  Norma Harrison,et al.  Technology management , 2001 .

[17]  Andrew S. Grove,et al.  Only the Paranoid Survive: How to Exploit the Crisis Points that Challenge Every Company and Career , 1996 .

[18]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  Perspectives on Technology. , 1978 .