A Strategic Technology Planning Framework: A Case of Taiwan's Semiconductor Foundry Industry

The increasingly important role that technologies play in today's business success is well known. To ensure proper selection and development of the key technologies, a deliberate technology plan is needed. In this paper, a strategic technology planning framework is proposed. A hierarchical decision model and its sensitivity analysis are presented as two major steps of the framework to provide effective technology assessment and to generate technology scenarios. The hierarchical model links an organization's competitive goals and strategies in evaluating the technology alternativespsila overall contributions to business success; the sensitivity analysis helps to forecast and implement possible future changes in the economic environment, industry policies, and organization strategies. With the proposed framework, organizations can start to implement their technology plans synoptically and follow up with incremental adaptations as necessary. A case study on Taiwan's semiconductor foundry industry is presented to demonstrate the model in detail.

[1]  J. Fredrickson.  The Comprehensiveness of Strategic Decision Processes: Extension, Observations, Future Directions , 1984 .

[2]  Valerie Belton,et al.  On a short-coming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies , 1983 .

[3]  Jonathan Barzilai,et al.  POWER RELATIONS AND GROUP AGGREGATION IN THE MULTIPLICATIVE AHP AND SMART , 1997 .

[4]  Lawrence C. Rhyne.  The Relationship of Strategic Planning to Financial Performance , 1986 .

[5]  R. E. Jensen.  An alternative scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures , 1984 .

[6]  H. Ansoff.  The Changing Shape of the Strategic Problem , 1977 .

[7]  N. Gerdsri.  An analytical approach to building a technology development envelope (TDE) for roadmapping of emerging technologies , 2005, A Unifying Discipline for Melting the Boundaries Technology Management:.

[8]  Terence Reilly,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis for Dependent Variables , 2000, Decis. Sci..

[9]  Alex Miller.  A taxonomy of technological settings, with related strategies and performance levels , 1988 .

[10]  Robert H. Ashton,et al.  Aggregating Subjective Forecasts: Some Empirical Results , 1985 .

[11]  R. L. Winkler,et al.  Averages of Forecasts: Some Empirical Results , 1983 .

[12]  Charles C. Snow,et al.  Fit, failure, and the hall of fame : how companies succeed or fail , 1994 .

[13]  Henry Mintzberg.  Musings on management. Ten ideas designed to rile everyone who cares about management. , 1996, Harvard business review.

[14]  Donald W. Collier.  Linking business and technology strategy , 1985 .

[15]  A John Rush,et al.  STAR*D: what have we learned? , 2007, The American journal of psychiatry.

[16]  R. Rivera,et al.  The Concept of Corporate Strategy , 2009 .

[17]  Henry Mintzberg.  Strategy-Making in Three Modes , 1973 .

[18]  Hongyi Chen.  Sensitivity analysis for hierarchical decision models , 2007 .

[19]  J. B. Quinn,et al.  Strategic Change: "Logical Incrementalism.". , 1978 .

[20]  M. Bohanec,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2004 .

[21]  Hongyi Chen,et al.  A sensitivity analysis algorithm for hierarchical decision models , 2008, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[22]  C. Lindblom.  THE SCIENCE OF MUDDLING THROUGH , 1959 .

[23]  R. LaForge,et al.  The Impact of Comprehensive Planning on Financial Performance , 1979 .

[24]  Nathasit Gerdsri.  An analytical approach to building a technology development envelope (TDE) for roadmapping of emerging technologies , 2005 .

[25]  Dundar F. Kocaoglu,et al.  A participative approach to program evaluation , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[26]  Henry Mintzberg.  Patterns in Strategy Formation , 1978, International Studies of Management & Organization.

[27]  Charles R. Johnson,et al.  Right-left asymmetry in an eigenvector ranking procedure , 1979 .

[28]  M. Porter.  Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance , 1985 .

[29]  Bruce A. Vojak,et al.  Product attribute bullwhip in the technology planning process and a methodology to reduce it , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[30]  Yiannis E. Spanos,et al.  An examination into the causal logic of rent generation: contrasting Porter's competitive strategy framework and the resource-based perspective , 2001 .

[31]  Robert Phaal,et al.  Technology roadmapping: linking technology resources into business planning , 2003, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[32]  Victoria L. Mitchell,et al.  Endogenous Adaptation: The Effects of Technology Position and Planning Mode on IT-Enabled Change , 2006, Decis. Sci..

[33]  Thomas G. Bifano,et al.  Management of R&D projects under uncertainty: a multidimensional approach to managerial flexibility , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[34]  T. Ramsha Prabhu,et al.  Technology choice using FHDM: a case of iron-making technology , 2001, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[35]  Rita Gunther McGrath.  A Real Options Logic for Initiating Technology Positioning Investments , 1997 .

[36]  R. Kalaba,et al.  A comparison of two methods for determining the weights of belonging to fuzzy sets , 1979 .

[37]  Still Muddling , 2007 .

[38]  Frederick Betz,et al.  Managing Technological Innovation: Competitive Advantage from Change , 1997 .

[39]  C. Lindblom.  Still Muddling, Not Yet Through. , 1979 .

[40]  T. Mitchell,et al.  Strategic Decision Processes: Comprehensiveness and Performance in an Industry with an Unstable Environment , 1984 .

[41]  E. Pesavento.  What Have We Learned ? , 2006 .

[42]  Varun Grover,et al.  Profiles of Strategic Information Systems Planning , 1999, Inf. Syst. Res..

[43]  Robert T. Clemen,et al.  Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis , 1997 .

[44]  Alfred D. Chandler.  Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise , 1962 .