From Technology Management to Strategic Technology Management – An Asian success story

From Technology Management to Strategic Technology Management – An Asian success story | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article From Technology Management to Strategic Technology Management – An Asian success story Dr ARIF SIKANDER This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5463769/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract While the environmental costs of economic success are becoming increasingly obvious, economic success remains a preoccupation for all firms and for the governments in whose countries firms conduct business. For those who manage firms, the crucial questions concern the reproduction of success achieved, by either like firms or by those in different industrial sectors. For those in government, the crucial questions concern the promotion or facilitation of success amongst all firms that operate in their country. One success story is that of the electronics and electrical industry in Malaysia. A survey instrument, developed from Strategic Technology Management (STM) literature, was administered to the Chief Executive Officers and senior management in these high-tech firms. The results were analyzed to identify technology strategy (TS) and technology management (TM) attributes within this industry at that time. The results demonstrated that key positioning and strategic R&D were positively correlated to the successful performance of firms, while technology leadership, up-to-date plants and facilities, technology consciousness, formal planning, and external technology acquisition were not. This has profound implications in terms of selecting and applying appropriate TS and for attempts to facilitate economic success. This research contributes empirical support to the field of STM research by developing a new model and strategies relevant to the Asian economy. Technology strategy Technology management Strategic technology management Sales revenue growth Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Introduction The literature in Technology Management, Strategic Management and Strategic Technology Management employs various definitions to key terms which suit the context of the authors. Definitions of some commonly used terms that appear in this paper are presented below so that their use is clear in the context of this study. They are further discussed in detail and acknowledged later in the other sections. Technology The types and patterns of activity, equipment and material, and knowledge or experience to perform tasks. Strategy A strategy represents the competitive efforts and business approaches that managers employ to compete successfully and to achieve organizational objectives. The term ‘factor’ in this study specifies the constituent of the strategy. Technology Strategy Technology strategy aims at conceptualizing, developing and using technology for economic advantage. Thus it could be argued that technology strategy is an articulation of the ways in which technology will be used to achieve business objectives. Technology strategy thus refers to the content aspects. Technology Management Organizational issues and processes involved in developing and implementing a strategic approach to technology. Technology management thus refers to the process aspects. Factors The factors in this study relate to those developed after performing factor analyses on the TS and TM elements. These extracted factors then define the respective TS and TM dimensions. Technology Policy Integration of technology strategy and technology management. It is used synonymously with the phrase ‘Strategic Management of Technology’ in this study. It is not to be confused with the term ‘Public Policy’ which is not the objective of this research. Strategic Technology Management Developing technology strategies and then evolving methods to implement and manage them. ‘Strategic Technology Management’ is used throughout this paper as a synonym for ‘Technology Policy’. West (or Western Culture) The term is used in this paper to apply to countries whose history is strongly marked by European immigration or settlement, such as the Americas, and Australasia, and is not restricted to Western Europe. It is used to distinguish from South East Asian countries like Malaysia which is considered as an Eastern culture. The speed of technology developments has created a new competitive scenario amongst firms, especially the technology intensive ones. The global economic situation with the price of fuel falling below the historical levels, has placed more demand on these firms to gain and sustain their cash flow. Effective management of technology to create value is of concern to the academics, to the technology planners in the governments and to the management of firms. However, “Management of technology must be purposeful rather than hopeful or "hands off' and must always be connected with the firm's overall business strategy” (Erikson et al 1990). Various models have been proposed in the literature of management theory for the incorporation of technology into corporate planning. These have been inspired by the success of Japanese firms and the success of technology-intensive firms. According to Zahra, the technology strategies employed to select appropriate technological resources will impact on the performance of the firm (Zahra, 1996A , p.289; Zahra, 1996B ). “The failure of the traditional techniques, like R&D, for exploiting technology has emphasised the need to address technology at a strategic level” (Drejer, 1996 , p.9). The technology strategies adopted by firm’s influence and drive their business level strategies, especially for technology-intensive firms. “A transition to strategic orientation significantly changes the variables which determine the success of the firm and one of the most important variables is the firm’s technological evolution” (Ansoff, 1987 , p.33). Here strategic orientation is defined by Ansoff as a “multifunction orientation as optimisation of performance in one functional area may not guarantee success, especially in a turbulent market place” (p.30). Thus, it can be seen that having only a technological strategic orientation is not the solution. Strategic management research has addressed the role of technology choices in the formulation and implementation of business strategies. Patterns of strategic behaviours of different firms have been analysed in the literature and ‘strategy types’ have been derived. “Although all studies of strategy types share common features, they generally employ different industry perspectives, research methodologies and study dimensions, which make it difficult to make comparisons among them” (Herman, 1998 , p.1). The content and process aspect of strategy has not been an area of interest with much of these studies. Like business strategy formulation and implementation, it is useful to analyse technology strategy formulation and implementation with a business focus. Zahra & Covin ( 1993 ) have indicated that although technology plays a vital role in the success of companies, there is a paucity of empirical studies in the literature on the relationship between technology policy and business strategy. Indeed, “few studies have been done to analyse the technology strategy types in high tech sector of the Western Countries, with even less effort on the types in non-Western countries” (Sikander, 2007, p.467). This study attempts to address this deficiency and to focus on the identification of some strategic technology management issues and their effects on company performance in an Asian context. It includes the content as well as the process aspects of technology, and it analyses firms within technology-intensive industries in an environment geographically and culturally different to those previously analysed. Integration of technology and business has been very nicely presented in the following quote by Business Technology Decisions ( 2006 ): Technology offers operational efficiencies and potential competitive advantages that can result in cost containment and lead to increased revenue. Identifying which processes, products, resources and technologies are right for a business can be challenging and, for some, overwhelming. The key to effective technology and business integration is aligning the technology resources with the business needs and service levels. This includes matching technologies, skill sets, resources, and IT priorities to business operations, processes, and priorities. It is almost impossible for firms to keep away from technology. “The primary fact about technology in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is that it has a momentum of its own. Although the technological stream can to some extent be directed, it is impossible to dam it; the stream flows on endlessly” (Pournelle, Possony & Kane, 1997 ). Business strategy can be apprehended through its content or its processes (Chandler, 1962 ). Content research mainly focuses and investigates strategic typologies. Process research puts more emphasis on how the strategy is formulated and implemented (Raymond & Croteau, 2009 , p.193). ‘Strategic Technology Management’ (STM) encompasses both the ‘content’ of technology strategy and the ‘process’ of technology management. Technological advances and the timing of their implementation have a considerable influence on the competitive standing of firms. Technology strategies could thus be regarded as important elements which could provide a competitive edge to organisations and also help in the development of their business strategies. Badawy (2007, p.359) observed that White and Bruton use a similar definition for the management of technology – that is “the linking of engineering, science and management disciplines to plan, develop and implement technological capabilities to shape and accomplish the strategic and operational goals of an organisation”. Malaysia experienced robust economic growth during the mid-80’s and 90’s. The manufacturing sector was the main driving force behind this excellent performance and contributed to growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), employment and exports. In 1986, the manufacturing sector value-added products accounted for 20.9% of the (GDP) and this jumped to 33.1% in 1995, giving an annual average growth rate of 13.5%, compared with a mere 4.9% between 1981 and 1985. The Industrial Master Plan (IMP) which was launched in 1985 provided a framework for the development of the manufacturing sector for the 1986-95 period. Various strategies and programs were implemented to support the plan (IMP 1986). Within non-resource-based industry, the electronics and electrical industries were the major contributors to increased exports, employment and GDP. The electronics industry of Malaysia contributed significantly to the industrialization of the economy. In 1992 the industry accounted for 33.2% of the output from the manufacturing sector, 30.3% of the total employment engaged in manufacturing activities, and 53.4% of the total exports of manufactured goods. This remarkable growth provides an opportunity to peep further into the firms in this sector and analyse if technology strategy contributed to their success. Among the sub-sectors which contributed most to this rapid development was the E&E manufacturing sector. Being a hi-tech industry, it might be assumed that technology strategies were applied to achieve the remarkable results that were attained. An analysis of the firms in this sector would allow for the characterization of the types of technology strategy factors that were developed and implemented by the sector as a whole. By identifying the effects of these technology strategy factors on a firm’s performance, it would then be possible to analyse if technology strategies contributed significantly to the performance of firms. The present study draws on previous research in its development of a decision-making framework that will capture information about technology strategies adopted by firms in the E&E manufacturing sector of Malaysia. These technology strategy factors and their management processes can then be used to determine their relationship with the firm’s performance. Building on the existing theories concerning strategic technology management, technology strategy, business strategy and firm performance, following two broad research questions were formulated and investigated: What ‘technology strategy’ factors were adopted by firms in the E&E sector of Malaysia, and which ‘technology management’ processes were used to implement these strategies? Which technology strategy factors and their associated implementation processes correlated with successful performance by E&E firms in Malaysia ? The existing literature on strategic technology management has been examined. Using that knowledge base as a starting point, the dimensions for firms operating in a different culture were explored. A comprehensive review of the literature on business strategy and technology strategy has also been undertaken in an effort to identify the constituent dimensions and items of strategic technology management. This in turn generated a more holistic understanding of the complexities of environment on technology strategy formulation and its management. A conceptual research model is proposed to investigate the influence (if any) of technology strategy factors and the background variables on the performance of firms and also the effect of the nature and size of firm on the acquisition of the successful technology strategy factors. A pilot study helped refine a survey instrument before the final survey was administered. Data was then collected and analysed using statistical techniques. This revealed a set of technology strategies (factors) typically used by the firms surveyed. It was then possible to compare these strategies with the technology strategies identified through prior studies for the manufacturing sector in the West. Theoretical background, Conceptual Model and Hypotheses The conceptual model for this research has been grounded to the existing theories on Strategic content in Technology Management, Business strategies and Technology strategies. A critical analysis of these areas is presented below before the hypothesized model is developed. The testable hypotheses are then elaborated. The Strategic Content in Technology Management The rapid change in technology over the last two decades has raised concern on two major issues. These have been defined by Mitchell ( 1988 , p.254) as (1), poor linkage between technology and strategy planning; and (2), over-reliance on short term measures, both of which masks the more strategic plans. Strategic importance of technology has been recognised as helping to provide competitive advantage. However, Mitchell ( 1988 ) states that Strategic management of technology has certain practical problems which are: There is no generally accepted language for defining the critical technologies. There is no way to manage these technologies. 3. There is no appropriate financial framework for allocating resources for strategic positioning.(p.256) Hence there are opportunities to explore how technology strategies are formulated by firms, how they are subsequently implemented, and how they contribute towards the firm’s growth. Though these issues have been addressed by a couple of studies in the West, this study sets out to investigate and analyse them in a culturally different environment (a country selected in the East). The need to create and use new technology to provide a competitive advantage has been ever increasing and has been a source of growth for many firms. This requires strategic thinking about technology beyond the simple development of new products and services. Hence, “the task of managing technology is integral to, and essentially synonymous with, strategic management” (Price, 1996 , p.38). Since 1980, the relationship between technology and business strategy has been considered important by companies, but its implementation has not. As highlighted by Chiarmonte ( 2003 ), “technology, although very important, was still often not considered in the process of strategy formulation, the essential reason being the trend that technology development takes longer time compared to other functions of the company like marketing” (p.542). Thus more than recognition of this issue is needed to determine what linkage mechanisms need to be established to provide the technology-strategy fit. Contrary to this argument, Thomas and Mcgee ( 1989 , p.205) suggest that the strategy literature treats technology as an implementation issue – that is, the technology to be used is defined by strategy. Thus, technology does not enter into the strategy formulation process and there is no clear direction on how to manage it. The authors further suggest that technology should be considered as the central part of a company’s thinking. Evan, Vasconcellos & Werther ( 1994 ) go a step further and suggest that “technology should be recognised as a strategic resource ... to ensure new technologies provide sources of strategic advantage. This has tempted cutting-edge firms [to] increasingly integrate technology management with their management processes” (p.54). However, this approach on its own is not sufficient; it may confine firms to an inward looking approach. There is also a need to explore those technology developments occurring outside the firm so that appropriate technologies can be matched to their management strategy. This emphasis by firms on both internal and external input – a key aspect of Strategic Technology Management – is explored in this paper, and both approaches are included as relevant variables in the survey instrument. According to Messina ( 1989 ): “Technology is recognized as potentially the single most important source of competitive advantage, but not all technology management is strategic. Acquiring a new technology leadership therefore does not automatically yield competitive advantage. What then constitutes a strategic application of technology?” According to her, it is one that meets three criteria which are: It is sustainable; It affects one of the three strategic variables – cost, differentiation or focus; and. 3. It produces effects that are visible to target customers. (p.50) Messina ( 1989 ) further suggests that for a technical manager to be sensitive to this is through development of a technology strategy, which must: Identify technologies that are critical to the achievement of strategic business objectives; 2. Produce leadership to achieve these objectives; and 3. Decide how to treat the remainder strategies.(p.51) This view expressed by Messina – that technology must be sustainable – is supported by Evan et al. ( 1994 ) who adds that “ad-hoc solutions may improve the contribution of technology, but technology must be managed strategically if long-range consequences are to be avoided” (p.53). Covin and Slevin ( 1998 ) go a step further and indicate that “adherence to strategic technology plans promotes sales growth” (p.210). This study aims to analyse this ‘strategic’ emphasis on technology management and its association with the growth rate of firms. “Industrial development can be understood to be a process of acquiring technological capabilities in the course of continuous technical change” (Kim L., 1998 , p.311). Significant benefits can be reaped by firms that integrate technological and innovation considerations at the business level (Affuah, 1999 ; Chakravarthy, 1997 ; Sharif, 1997 ). Specifically, process improvements can help firms to benefit from increased productivity through a more flexible style of doing things (Noori, 1997 ; Bessant, 1993 ) by improving a company’s capacity to process, restore, disseminate and analyze information (Foong & Alsagoff, 1994 ; Di Romualdo & Gurbaxani, 1998 ) and through product improvement activities (Rishel & Burns, 1997 ; Spital & Bickford, 1992 ). The question remains as to how to achieve the integration of technology strategy with business strategy. One method is to rely on roadmaps; these could provide a time frame as well. Talonen and Hakkarainen ( 2008 ) posit that a roadmap links all strategies together and is a glue that bonds them and should address the following questions: 1. What are our pacing, key and base technological competences, now and in the future? 2. Which technologies will be replaced and which technologies we should use? 3. What are the sources of our technologies and competences (make or buy)? (p.56) Even when these questions are addressed, Attaran ( 2001 ) opines that technology in itself does not guarantee success in increased efficiencies and reduced inventory turnover times. He further states that “management plays a fundamental role in the implementation of such initiatives which could include flexibility, customer service, employee welfare, quality and training” (p.269). Thus allocation of appropriate resources and provision of capital, both for product (development) and services (welfare, training etc) are important for the implementation of technologies – a point which has been borne out by one of the results of this research. Wilson ( 1986 ) regards “business strategy as a cable and the marketing, manufacturing and human resource strategies as the intertwined strands bound closely to give greater tensile strength to the whole” (p.21). He suggests that “technology strategy need to be conceived within the context of the overall strategic management of the business” (p.21). He also analyses the strategic management process of Bank of America and concludes that four major thrusts are included in the technology planning of its strategic management process. They are: “emphasis on focusing on technology to meet customer needs; investing in employees to build a diversity of skills and talent; applying technology to build a competitive advantage; and linking business and technology strategies to build a common value” (p.21). These values provide a useful set of Strategic Technology Management strategies for researchers. Wilson’s understanding of the subject is supported by Sahlman and Haapasalo ( 2009 , p.323) who regard Strategic Technology Management as the management of those technology activities which interact with a company’s socio-economic and technological environment, and help to formulate and implement that company’s overall strategy. This indicates that management of the technology activities would be influenced by the firm’s economic (home country economic environment) as well as the technological environment (within and outside the firm) and is worth exploring. This research capitalizes on this opportunity and attempts to analyse if the technology strategies applied by firms in the West are similar to those applied in the East and what are the factors which influence the adoption of these strategies. According to Thomas and Mcgee ( 1989 , p.207 ), “the evolutionary theory of the firm also provides an important framework for the strategic management of technology because the strategic capabilities evolved through experience reflect the ability of the organisation to adapt to changing technologies which provides profitability”. Although not exclusively naming the approach as Strategic Technology Management, Corey ( 1989 ) proposes that “technology management must accept the responsibility for managing its process with the associated strategic perspective otherwise the results could be catastrophic” (p.615). One of the definitions of technology management which integrates the elements of strategic management comes from the NRC Report (cited by White & Bruton, 2007 , p.17): “Management of technology is a linking block amongst engineering, science and management disciplines to plan, develop and implement technological capabilities to shape and accomplish the strategic and operational objectives of an organisation” (However, this definition does not address the aspect of technology awareness, nor does it identify the tools for measuring the success of technology implementation). This paper responds to this gap by analysing the impact of technology awareness (along with other factors) on company performance, and by determining the extent to which technology management factors were responsible for company growth. One of the key recommendations of the Strategic Management of Technology Conference ( 1987 ) was that firms needed to create a sustainable competitive position, one which requires strong linkages between the company’s business environment and the way that company develops and maintains its technological base. Despite this main focus remains on the way of acquiring new technology and how to improve the existing ones to gain competitive advantage. The underlying task remains how to find an answer to match technology to market. Another recommendation of this conference was that networks between people, functional departments and firms needed to be better integrated. Business Strategies Early work in this field was done by Fayol ( 1949 ), who considered broad management principles in defining and implementing business strategy. Chandler’s ( 1962 ) work, Strategy and Structure , established a relationship between the structure and the strategy of a firm. While dealing with the structure of organisations he advanced the concept of ‘fit’, often referred to as ‘contingency theory’. This concept has been an important addition to the strategic management literature. Many researchers have provided different understanding of this concept of ‘fit’. Amongst these is Rumelt ( 1972 ), who confirmed in his PhD thesis that a firm’s performance correlates with the fit between its strategy and its structure. This was an important result and has set the stage for future research in this area. According to Hofer ( 1975 ), the research up to that time was concerned with the processes by which strategies were developed and did not focus on the content of the strategies. He indicates that the main reason for this early emphasis on process, rather than content, was that far fewer variables were needed to describe the strategy formulation process than were needed to account for specific strategy content. Significant progress was made towards the understanding and implementing of strategic planning processes, but very little work was done on the development of business or corporate strategy theories. Hofer suggests that a lack of powerful research tools was one of the many reasons for this slow progress. In 1973, Mintzberg theorised on a link between business decisions with strategies. He distinguished three modes of strategy-making: entrepreneurial, adaptive and planning. “In the entrepreneurial mode, strategy-making is dominated by the active search for new opportunities. In the adaptive mode, strategy-making reflects a division of power among members of a complex coalition. In the planning mode, decisions and strategies are integrated” (p.44). Mintzberg ( 1973 ) also makes the important point that “planning is not a panacea for the problems associated with strategy-making. Rather than seeking panaceas, the mode of planning must fit the situation” (p.52). Thus, an ‘adaptive’ mode of planning could yield better results. This highlights the need for ‘strategic management of technology’, a process which comes under close scrutiny in this paper. This interest in the content side of a firm’s strategy has led to further research in this field. In 1977, Miller and Friesen conducted a study of strategy content in which they reviewed 81 cases on business organisations. The results of these were published in Fortune magazine and as part of the Harvard Case Clearing House series. The cases are vivid and often provide detailed accounts of the strategy-making activities of the included organisations. Miller and Friesen were successful in identifying ‘strategy archetypes’ that differed across three categories of variables: organisational, environmental and strategy-making. To enable understand the nature of business-level strategies, Hambrick ( 1980 ) identified four approaches: Textual description of strategy; Measurement of parts of strategy; 3. Multivariate measurement of strategy; and 4. Typologies of strategies.(p.573) According to Herman ( 1998 ), “the most common method employed to investigate strategy patterns in industries and business functions has been the fourth method: typologies of strategies. Due to availability of powerful computer-assisted statistical software, recent studies use this method to analyse data from a population of similar firms” (p.20). Hambrick ( 1980 ) went on to note that each of these approaches is a function of three questions: 1. How refined is the present understanding about the questions being researched? 2. What role does the strategy construct play in the investigator’s research design? 3. What is the investigator’s theoretical definition of strategy? (p.573) Cluster analysis is now in common use. Galbraith and Schendel ( 1983 , p.162) utilised cluster analysis and identified six strategy types for consumer products (harvest, builder, cash-out, niche, climber and continuity) and four strategy types for industrial products (low commitment, growth, maintenance and specialization). In 1996, Ketchen and Shook identified 45 published strategic management research reports in which cluster analysis was used. Similar studies on business strategies include: Gutmann ( 1964 ), Kitching ( 1967 ), Chevalier ( 1972 ), Fruhan ( 1972 ), Snow and Hrebiniak ( 1980 ), Porter ( 1980 ), Cool and Schendel ( 1987 ) and Fiegenbaum and Thomas ( 1990 ). A summary of business level strategy types developed by researchers, is presented in Table 1 . Table 1 Business strategy-types summary Author(s) Strategy Types Method Buzzell et al. 1975 Building Holding Harvesting Conceptual constructs Miller & Friesen 1977 1 Adaptive firm - moderate challenge 2.Adaptive firm – strong challenge 3.Dominant firm 4.Giant under fire 5.Entrepreneurial conglomerate 6.Innovator 81 cases were evaluated by panel and scored on a seven-point scale. Environmental, organizational and strategy variables subjected to Q-factor analysis with varimax rotation. Schendel & Hofer 1979 1. Share increasing 2. Growth 3. Profit 4. Market concentration 5. Turnaround 6. Liquidation Conceptual constructs Miles & Snow 1978 1.Defender 2.Reactor 3.Analyzer 4.Prospector A deductive definition of strategy patterns. Tested with study of 16 textbook publishers. Confirmed by studies of 52 electronics and food processing firms and 19 hospitals. Wissema et al 1980 1.Explosive growth 2.Expansion 3.Continuous growth 4.Slip strategy 5.Consolidation 6.Contraction Constructed a BCG type grid, which they called the product-market combination (PMC) grid. Identified 6 manager archetypes which corresponded to the 6 strategy types and discussed the need for proper matching. Porter 1980 1.Cost leadership 2.Differentiation 3.Focussed differentiation 4.Cost focus Constructed Competitive Advantage/Competitive Scope grid and analysed “value systems” as the source of firm competitive advantage (cost focus and focused differentiation strategies sometimes treated as one). Hambrick 1983 High Profit Archetypes: 1.Cost leader 2.Asset follower 3.High quality gendarme 4.Broad based differentiator 5.Prospector 6.Asset focuser Low Profit Archetypes: 1.Inefficient through dispersion 2.Passive anemics 3.Overexposed, under-competitive 4.Asset-heavy, value-light Studied 164 mature capital goods industry firms using data from PIMS database. Used panel to code strategic factors of firms and regressed it on ROI. Conducted factor and cluster analysis to identify high and low profit archetypes. Author(s) Strategy Types Method Galbraith & Schendel 1983 Consumer product archetypes: 1.Harvest 2.Builder 4.Cashout 5.Niche 6.Climber 7.Continuity Industrial product archetypes: 1.Low commitment 2.Growth 3.Maintenance 4.Niche Used PIMS database to study consumer and industrial product firms. Analysed 26 variables using principle components (SPSS) and cluster analysis (AQD). Mintzberg & Waters 1985 1.Planned 2.Entrepreneurial 3.Ideological 4.Umbrella 5.Process 6.Unconnected 7.Consensus 8.Imposed Developed theoretical strategy types that fit on a continuum beginning with most deliberate strategies and ending with the most emergent strategies. Cool & Schendel 1987 1.Large, R&D intensive, broad market and product base 2.Large, advertising intensive, diverse 1.Medium –sized, “me-too” product development and promotion intensive 2.Medium-sized, promotion intensive 3.Small firms, few products, few market segments, “me-too” product development 4.Very small, very focused, minimal R&D Used multiple databases to study US pharmaceutical firms. Used cluster analysis to identify strategic group formation and evolution markets, fewer segments and products over time. Robinson & Pearce 1988 1.Service reinsertion 2.No clear orientation 3.Service markets and brand/channel influence 4.Product innovation/development 5.Brand identification/channel influence and efficiency Studied 97 manufacturing firms in 60 industries to develop 5 strategy types. Analysed performance by strategy type vs. planning sophistication. Used top and bottom 20% of companies to identify performance differences. Stearns et al. 1995 1. Survival chances not significantly impacted by industry. 2. Survival associated with location and strategy (broadly focused strategies have greater chance of survival than narrow focused). Studied 1900 new firms to examined interaction of location, industry and strategy. Source: Compiled from literature, particularly Herman ( 1998 ) and Wilbon ( 1999 ) Technology Strategies (and their Management) “A Technology Strategy is the approach that a firm takes to obtaining and using technology to achieve a new competitive advantage, or to defend an existing technology-oriented competitive advantage against erosion” (Shane, 2009 , p.9). Despite this requirement managers fail to deal with technology as an integral factor in strategy formulation, which, according to Price ( 1996 ) is “due to the way the business strategy is studied and taught” (p.42). He claims that “since most economics models do not encompass change rather focus on equilibria, they do not hold technology in a central position”. Besides product development based on market demands, the need for process changes in technologies and in other functional areas should be considered as part of strategy formulation. The advantages of this are clearly articulated by White and Bruton ( 2007 ), “holding technology in a central position could provide efficiency to a firm by providing more profits” (p.8). Spital and Bickford ( 1992 ) define technology strategy as a “set of strategic decisions and actions through which managers seek to transform inputs into outputs, with the objective of achieving competitive advantage” (p.31). The strategy management literature, in part, addresses these linkages between strategy and firm performance. For example Snow and Hrebiniak ( 1980 ), Ford ( 1988 ) and Leonard-Barton ( 1992 ) identify the importance of core competencies as a source of competitive advantage and highlight the role that technology can play in the creation of core competencies. Leonard-Barton ( 1992 ) also agrees that “one of the core competencies of organisations should be the capacity to incorporate new technology into products; in short, the organisations should be run as learning organisations” (p.23). In learning organisations, patterns of organisational knowledge creation differ across various forms of organisations and that knowledge is created through a continuous dialogue between tacit and explicit knowledge with four patterns of knowledge conversion (Lee & Yoon, 2010 , p.555). Ford ( 1988 ) suggests that “the core competencies of companies reside not in their markets or products, but in their technologies, i.e. in what they know about their technologies and what they can do with them” (p.85). Clarke et al. ( 1989 ) surveyed 174 UK companies on their approach to managing their technologies. The results indicated that the companies did not accord much importance to their technology while formulating their strategies. According to Clarke et al. ( 1989 ), “academic approaches to technology strategy are over-simplified and do not help managers to understand the nature of their technology and the technological networks of which their firms form a part” (p.215). The role of technology in firms gaining competitive advantage has been addressed by several authors, including Frohman ( 1985 ), Fusfeld ( 1989 ) and Dvir et al. ( 1993 ). The latter mention that “the technological progress is positively correlated with success of firm; the progress being the ability to scan the environment, be aware of the new technology and incorporate them in their plants and products” (p.155). Similarly, Holland ( 1995 ) emphasises the role of technology strategies in achieving competitive advantage: “Technology has a competitive impact in two ways: it is a market advantage in terms of value addition and a cost advantage in terms of improving the system economics and this needs to be incorporated in the strategies of the companies” (p.4). Technology strategy, according to Wilson ( 1986 ), should cover at least three interrelated business areas: “1. Product development, 2. Process development and 3. Information systems; as all are related to technology” (p.21). For Porter ( 1991 ), “Competitive advantage is enhanced by strategic innovation in product or process generation and that technological change is the most common precursor of strategic innovation” (p.111). It can thus be concluded that there is growing recognition of the relationship between a firm’s technical knowledge and its ability to succeed in a competitive environment. Technology strategy according to Shane ( 2009 , p.9), is different from business strategy as it has to deal with “uncertainty issues, involves the use of intellectual capital, involves new products and services and creates new business dynamics”, while, more summarily, Messina ( 1989 ) writes of the subject: “Technology strategies, have been recognised as the strategic weapons in business level strategies” (p.49). As common sense as this may seem, Ansoff’s ( 1987 ) definition comes with a warning: “Technology strategy considerations, however, while important in the development of business level strategies, especially for medium and high-tech companies, ought not drive a company to adopt an exclusively technological strategic orientation” (p.37). Snow and Hrebiniak ( 1980 ) conducted a study in which they analysed the four strategy types of Miles and Snow and concluded that, “out of ten strategy variables analysed, none of the four strategy types could be distinguished on the basis of any single distinctive competence, apart from product research and development”. The research at the core of this paper is also inclined in this direction; it is aligned with the view that ‘technology [strategy] is a critical factor in the formulation of business level strategies’ (Kantrow, 1980 , p.21). In 1967, Ansoff and Stewart identified four strategy types: first to market, follow the leader, applications engineering and low cost, and in 1982, Freeman identified six generic innovation studies: offensive, defensive, initiative, dependent, traditional and opportunist. Then in 1988 Madique and Patch suggested six dimensions of technology strategy at the business-unit level (these are: “technology selection, level of competence, sources of technology, level of investment, competitive timing, and organisation and policies”). Cusumano and Rosenbloom ( 1989 ) proposed similar dimensions to those suggested by Madique and Patch. In addition to the development of strategy types, substantial work has also been undertaken towards analyzing the scope and role of technology strategies. Kotha, Dunbar & Bird ( 1995 ) analysed 22 generic competitive methods and reported on the ways in which American firms develop strategic positions to differentiate them from their competitors. This is in contrast to Japanese firms which technology strategies to help them establish a stable and defensible position. In their analysis of technology strategies, Goll and Rasheed ( 1997 ) determine that “Dynamism and complexity of the environment affects a firm’s performance” (p.589). Porter ( 1980 ) also addresses the nature of the environment in his study, while Miller and Friesen ( 1984 ), in looking into prior work done by researchers on the effect of industry environment on the development of technology strategies at the firm level, show that certain environments encourage certain strategies. Miller D. ( 1988 ) notes that “product innovation differentiation strategies are more frequent in dynamic environments”. In support of this theme, McCarthy and Spital ( 1987 ) report that CEOs in their study believed that “successful firms in dynamic environments are those that pursued product innovation”. Interestingly, despite the importance of technological innovation, McCarthy and Spital ( 1987 ) do not say anything about why companies need to develop strategies to manage innovation. Since the level of uncertainty around technology change is so great, it would be fair to suggest that technology strategy carries with it more responsibility than business strategy. The tools required to make informed decisions on technology related products and services are different to those required for generic products and services. Thus, technology strategy and its management could be explored in business organisations and could provide useful information to CEOs and other stakeholders. Moreover, technology strategy, according to Shane ( 2009 ), “does not occur in [a] vacuum but is affected by the environment in which it occurs” (p.11). Those technology strategies that work in one environment may not work in another, and it is this that provokes a need to study these strategies in the context of different cultures and environment; this is the prime focus of this study. Although there is great concern among researchers on the need to find a fit between strategy and structure and “few studies have focussed directly on the empirical relationship among business strategy and technology policy” (Zahra & Covin, 1993 , p.452), Zahra and Covin suggest an important area for future studies; this is “...the process by which content of technology policy is defined and its linkages with business strategy are established. .... there is a paucity of comprehensive empirical studies on technology policy ”. According to these researchers, previous studies have dealt separately with the strategy and management dimensions of business. Zahra and Covin ( 1994 ), state that literature on technology strategy has many areas that need to be addressed by researchers. First is the lack of empirical analysis as most of the work has been conceptual. Secondly the models should be multidimensional (which has been addressed by researchers) and lastly, financial performance implications of technology strategy are desperately needed. Adler ( 1989 ) and Utterback ( 1986 ) suggested that future research on technology strategy should focus at firm level. This study contributes to literature in providing empirical support for the multidimensional conceptual models on technology strategy and its influence on performance of firms. It also contributes by adding the dimension of firms operating in a different context (i.e. East) as most of the literature focused on the firms in the West. Previous research has provided the context for the investigation into the technology strategies of the E&E manufacturing sub-sector of Malaysia. The objective of this investigation is to identify those technology strategy ‘factors’ adopted by firms that contributed to their success. Identification of such strategy factors would be a useful contribution to the field of strategic management application in the high-tech sector. An understanding of the link between strategy factors and company performance in the E&E manufacturing sector would facilitate the development of technology management strategies by local firms in the E&E and other manufacturing sectors. Extension of this research to include testing the appropriateness of these strategy factors (framework) in another manufacturing sub-sector could provide technology strategists and researchers with an extremely useful means for comparative analysis of the growth process in the entire manufacturing sector. Hipkin’s (2004) view that “managers in a developing country will have an increased ability to control technology strategy may prove to be misguided, or even naive, unless mangers are able to take into account all organizational issues that link and affect their technology and business strategy” (p.258), is an optimistic one. His point is sound, though: the linkage between technology and strategy is influenced by non-technical, political and economic issues. These influences, however, do not form part of this particular study. Raymond and Croteau ( 2009 , p.194) opine that strategy is the mediating force between the firm and its environment, it constitutes in concrete fashion the basic alignment mechanism, and the organisational technology must be compatible with this strategy if one aims to create a significant competitive advantage. STM comprises more than choosing a device to produce a particular good or goods; it includes the control of technical and non-technical items that link technology to strategy. Technology strategy is realised in practice through various means like internal and external technology sourcing, deploying technology in product and process development and using technology in technical support activities. These activities enhance firm’s technical capabilities (Sahoo, Banwet & Momaya, 2010 , p.14) and it is expected should provide a competitive advantage. This research has included these dimensions in the development of the questionnaire. Of particular importance for the present study are those prior research efforts that sought to categorize the strategies adopted by companies competing in an environment of rapid technological change. These studies typically refer to ‘strategy’ types and do not recognise the distinction between strategy and management (TS & TM) that Herman ( 1998 ) has made. A summary of the technology strategy types that have been developed by different researchers in this field is included in Table 2 . The strategy (TS) and management (TM) dimensions for the present study were developed from this prior research. There are many intersections between elements of business level strategy (e.g. business framework, organization, products, markets and distribution) and the elements of technology strategy (e.g. technology type, rate of adoption and level of investment), as has been demonstrated by Miles and Snow ( 1978 ) and Porter ( 1980 ). This study does not attempt to address these similarities or differences, as the focus is primarily on technology strategies and associated management practices. Table 2 Technology strategy-types summary Author(s) Strategy types Method Ansoff & Stewart 1967 1.First to market 2.Follow the leader 3.Applications engineering 4.Me too (low cost) A deductive definition of technically intensive companies’ strategies for entry into an emerging industry. Freeman 1982 1.Offensive 2.Defensive 3.Imitative 4.Dependent 5.Traditional 6. Opportunist A deductive definition of innovation strategies for firms confronted with technological change. Galbraith & Schendel 1983 Consumer product archetypes : 1.Harvest 2.Builder 3.Cash-out 4.Niche 5.Climber 6.Continuity Industrial product archetypes : 1.Low commitment 2.Growth 3.Maintenance 4.Niche An inductive study. Used PIMS database to study consumer and industrial firms. Analysed 26 variables using principal components (SPSS) and cluster analysis (AQD). Mintzberg & Waters 1985 1.Planned 2.Entrepreneurial 3.Ideological 4.Umbrella 5.Process 6.Unconnected 7.Consensus 8.Imposed Developed theoretical strategy types that fit on a continuum beginning with most deliberate strategies and ending with the most emergent strategies. Ansoff 1987 1. Production-driven 2. Product-driven 3. Market-driven 4. Strategic orientation Theoretical strategy types based on the firm’s strategic conception. Horwitch & Thietart 1987 Industrial businesses 1.Established suppliers 2.Fast movers 3.High-tech job shops 4.Stalled giants Consumer businesses 1.Established diversifiers 2.Dominant specialists 3. Laggers An inductive study. Empirical analysis of high-tech PIMS companies studying influence of three interdependencies: 1. Vertical integration 2. Shared facilities 3. Shared marketing Miller, A 1988 1.Established batch 2.Innovative batch 3.Flexible line 4.Fixed line 5.Unaltered process 6. Modified process An inductive study. Empirical study of manufacturing strategies on three dimensions: 1.Production method 2.Rate of innovation 3. Production sophistication Radnor 1991 1.External and internal technology acquisition mix Study on make vs buy strategies Curry & Clayton 1992 1.Adapt-adopt strategy 2.Incremental innovation strategy 3.Break-through strategy Research study on innovation strategies Karlsson 1992 1.New technologies in mature industries 2.System integration technology 3.External sources reliance 4.Network collaboration Study on technology strategies and structures used in industrial networks Madique & Patch 1988 Identified four business strategies : 1.First to market 2.Second to market 3.Late to market 4.Market segmentation Conceptual study employing six technologies Robinson & Pearce 1988 1.Service orientation 2.No clear orientation 3.Service markets and brand/channel influence 4.Product innovation/development 5.Brand identification/channel influence and efficiency Studies 97 manufacturing firms in 60 industries to develop five strategy types. Analysed performance by strategy type versus planning sophistication. Used top and bottom 20% of companies to identify performance differences. Westhead 1995 1. Founders having more experience in non-manufacturing industries were more likely to survive. 2. Five characteristics associated with survival (age, employment size, regional development assistance, large-sized units and more than one shareholder). Examined the performances of 166 UK owner-managed high technology firms to determine which ones were more likely to grow and survive. Herman 1998 Strategy cluster : 1.Manufacturing technology leadership 2.Product leader 3.Technology neutral 4.New product leader 5.Non-technical 6.Product technology focused 7.Non-manufacturing new product focused Management cluster : 1.Non-technical market driven 2.Informed technology acquirer 3.Expert technology exploiter 4.Technology avoider 5.Technology gambler 6.Informed technology developer 7.External technology dependent Surveyed 534 firms in five industrial groups to develop seven strategy types and seven management types. Used cluster analysis to identify strategy types. Wilbon 1999 Technology strategy 1.Technology posture 2. Intellectual property rights 3. Technology sourcing 4.Technology portfolio 5. Scope of R&D 6. Technology experienced executives 7. R&D spending 8. Geographic focus Collected data of 168 firms from their IPO prospectus. Performed regression analysis on the technology strategy variables and IPO performance. Found that technology strategies of intellectual property rights, technology portfolio scope of R&D and technology experienced executives did not correlate with IPO performance. Source: Compiled from literature, particularly Herman ( 1998 ) and Wilbon ( 1999 ) Firm’s Performance Performance is a dependent construct associated with Miles and Snow’s strategy types (Miles & Snow, 1978 ). There have thus been different results in research done for different strategy types. Moreover, the performance parameter used (sales growth, market share etc) also influence the level of leverage the strategies provide. Such fluctuation in empirical results may be due to the fact that these studies were conducted in different industries (Raymond & Croteau, 2009 , p.194). As such it was decided to concentrate on one industry in this study and E&E sector in Malaysia was selected due to its remarkable growth during the first IMP period. Adler ( 1989 ) and Utterback ( 1986 ) also suggested that future research on technology strategy should focus at firm level, which this study attempts to address. Technology intensive firms employ S-curves as graphical representations of effort versus performance. These curves get their name from the shape of the curve (S-shaped). Initially performance improvements are low. Thereafter, once the knowledge of drivers which improve performance is learnt, rapid improvement results. When the technology reaches its physical limit, the curve flattens – indicating, more efforts are required to bring about even incremental improvements. Performance measures used for these S-curves include cost, speed, capacity, etc, whereas, effort might be measured in hours worked, R&D cost, etc. Shane ( 2009 ) believes that an understanding of how technology advances along an S-Curve could help in the formulation of effective technology strategies. Previous empirical research on the strategy/performance relationship has provided strong evidence that suggests technology strategies are associated with the performance of firms (Lee, 1987 ; Kotha & Nair, 1995 ). The S-curve concept could probably be used in future longitudinal studies to determine the effect of technology strategies (by replacing TS for effort on the curve) on a firm’s performance. This study, however, aims to analyse a given period (1986–1995) and to determine just the relationship between technology strategies and performance. Although other factors like level of R&D efforts and outcomes which are result of the strategies of the firm and the government initiatives, also determine the level of success (Mu & Lee, 2005 , p.765), this research focuses on the technology strategies at the firm level alone. As Edler, Meyer and Reger (2002) point out, sales growth rate has also been used as an indicator of effectiveness of technology strategies of the firm: “Linking technology strategy on the corporate level to corporate strategy seems to pay off, however, the strength of these linkages relates to various performance indicators which include sales growth rate” ( p.154). This study uses sales revenue growth to measure the performance of firms. Conceptual Model The literature review resulted in the identification of a number of elements for the dimensions of Technology Strategy (TS) and Technology Management (TM). This study examines the five elements that comprise TS, namely: technology posture, technology level, technology breadth, product development, technology timing and manufacturing, and process technology. It also examines the five elements that comprise TM, namely: technology awareness, technology acquisition, technology and product planning, organization and management of R&D, and investment in R&D. Although these elements have been validated in previous research, my aim was to observe their application in a culturally different environment. The dimensions were earlier applied in high technology industries in the West by Herman ( 1998 ). Of course even if one believed that technology management was a set of universally generalizable principles, we can probably agree that these principles are contingent on specific sets of contextual feature (Liker, Gibson & Wu, 1998 , p.210). This argument provides the incentive and opportunity to explore if the technology management strategies applied in West are really different than in the East and as such I selected Malaysia as the scene for my study. To investigate the various relationships between the factors of TS and TM dimensions, a firm’s performance and selected background variables two general hypotheses (which relate to the two research questions) were proposed as part of this study. The concepts discussed earlier leads to the development of an inclusive framework by drawing on the literature that has been reviewed earlier. The purpose of this framework is to present a conceptual model for STM in developing eastern countries. The model and hypotheses are based on the concepts grounded in the research on technology management explored as part of the literature review. The conceptual research model (Fig. 1) focuses on the types of STM factors adopted by the firms and their relationship with performance. The association between nature and size of the firm and the acquisition of these factors, and the relationship between the background variables and performance of firms also forms part of the model. The model has been built based on the discussions on technology strategy and strategic content in technology management including theories from Business Strategy in the previous sections. The conceptual model was developed to achieve the objectives of the big research, a portion of which forms part of this paper. The relationships between the TS and TM constructs and firm performance which have been tested in previous studies in the West are explored in this research based on this model. The constructs to be tested will be those evolved after data analysis. This is the significant contribution of this research as never before such a relationship has been tested in the East. The treatment of dimensions, elements and items is depicted in Fig. 2 . There are two research dimensions (technology strategy and technology management), each comprised of five elements with three to four items for each element. The detailed operationalized framework of STM in the model is given in Fig. 2 . Developed for this paper from the discussions based on literature review Research Hypotheses The following sections aim to develop the research hypotheses which could provide answer to the two research questions. Technology strategy and management factors and their impact on performance (Hypotheses H1a & H1b : Research Question 1&2) The literature has implicitly accepted the notion that TS and TM contribute to the performance of firms. Firms can benefit from increased productivity by improving their capacity to process and also through product improvements ( Di Romualdo & Gurbaxani, 1998 ; Rishel & Burns, 1997 ). According to Attaran ( 2001 ) technology only does not provide success but its management is equally important. Technology provides a competitive edge to firms and according to Dvir et al. ( 1993 ) technological progress is positively correlated with success of firm. In contrast out of the four strategy types of Miles and Snow, only research and development could be distinguished in providing a distinctive competence. Yuan et al ( 2013 , p.635) suggest that, a strategist’s rationality is not only bounded but also contingent on the context in which she or he makes decisions. It would be interesting to know if research and development contributes to the success of firms in the East as well (Malaysia in this study). Lately there has been a “shift from an R&D management focused attitude towards a combination of innovation, technology and strategy” (Chiaromonte, 2003). While analysing the effect of TS and TM on performance, it is possible that either both influence performance, or any one of them. Herman ( 1998 , p.111) in his research on electronics industries in the USA, determined that TM contributed to the growth rate of firm whereas TS did not. Thomas and McGee ( 1989 ) suggest that technology strategy should be regarded broader than the R&D process. Zahra and Covin ( 1993 ) suggest that previous studies have dealt separately with the strategy and management dimensions of business. It is the content of this study to deal with both the TS and TM dimensions simultaneously and determine if they correlate with the success of firms (This study included questions on both these dimension under one heading as such respondents were not biased towards any one of these). The expected relationship between STM (H1) factors and performance therefore leads to the following two testable hypotheses (H1a and H1b): H1: Application of STM by the E&E firms in Malaysia is correlated to their performance. H1a: The greater the focus on TS, the better the performance for E&E firms in Malaysia. H1b: The greater the focus on TM, the better the performance for E&E firms in Malaysia. Methods Sample and data collection procedures A mixed methods approach has been used to address the research questions. This method allows for flexibility in sample sizes that depend on the margin of sampling errors, and also allows the researcher to collect richer sources of information to clarify the quantitative outcomes. A survey instrument was developed based on that used in a study by Herman ( 1998 ). Qualitative data was also collected as part of this survey instrument. This was done in order to uncover perceptions concerning the local environment and was posed to selected chief executive officers and senior managers. The Department of Commerce USA ( 1984 , 1996) defines a high technology industry on the basis of the percentage of its investment in R&D relative to its sales revenue. As a general rule, technology-intensive industries are those that spend five percent or more of their sales revenue on R&D. However, since most of the companies in Malaysia are multinationals and do not usually carry out local R&D (which is only done at their headquarters) this criterion has not been employed in this study. Rather, Button’s ( 1988 ) approach, which identifies the electronics & computer industries as high-tech industries, has been used. Although MNCs in the E&E sector outnumbered other types, this study chose to include all types of firms within this sub-sector: multinationals (MNCs), joint ventures (JVs), foreign-owned (FO) and locally-owned (LO). The further classification of firms was inspired by Thomas and Mcgee ( 1989 ) who define firms in terms of modes of innovation: “mode 1 as small high technology firms, mode 2 as large multi-product, multi-market, and multi-divisional corporations and mode 3 as huge multinational enterprises that usually involve public and private sector collaboration on mission-oriented programs” (p.266). The scope of this study is restricted to strategies adopted during the first IMP period. The strategies developed would help researchers to apply these (rather the ones from the West) and test their applicability in the East in different manufacturing sectors. The list of electrical and electronic firms in existence was extracted from the FMM Industry Directory made available by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry ( 1995 ), Malaysia. Only electrical and electronics firms were included in the survey. The electrical sector is made up of companies that manufacture electrical appliances, wires, cables and electrical industrial apparatuses. The electronics sector includes computers, semiconductors and components, telecommunications equipment and consumer electronics. There were a total of 380 E&E firms listed, including 169 dealing with electronics only. However, about 80 of these manufactured items outside the sector of interest, so they were excluded, leaving about 300 firms for the survey. This sample was considered as a probable one and it was thus possible to “extrapolate beyond the sample to establish findings for the wider population of interest” (Ahmed & Tsu, 1999, p.184). Because of their familiarity with technology management and strategy issues in their firm, the CEO or the technology manager of each firm was expected to complete the questionnaire. The research was designed in three phases. The first phase involved the development of a survey instrument. The survey instrument was developed in line with the objectives of the research and so as to maximize information extraction from the respondents (Kinnear, 1991 , p.29). Five types of data were gathered for the study. These related to the respondent’s Individual's profile; Organisation/business; Competitive environment; Technology (strategy and management); and Management issues. Advantage was taken of prior surveys in selecting the variables chosen for the study, especially Herman ( 1998 ). Data was gathered with respect to five strategy and five management elements. Individual profile and organisational data was used to check for response bias and content validity. Competitive environment data was gathered as an indication of markets in which these firms operate. Technology data was used to identify the existence (or absence) of technology strategies and the respondent’s level of knowledge about technology. Respondents were asked to indicate any specific management issues their firm faced, and these comments were then used to develop appropriate variables for statistical manipulation. The second phase involved the pilot testing of the survey instrument. The pilot study involved ten firms and sought to assess the clarity and usefulness of the questionnaire items. The pilot study included face-to-face interviews with CEOs of the selected E&E companies. Based on feedback from these participants, it became apparent that the questionnaire would need some modification, especially in the section which asked for financial information (CEOs’ responses indicated that companies not listed on the stock exchange would be reluctant to provide this information). Questions relating to company type and job position were modified from open-ended to categorical, based on responses from the pilot survey. Additional questions were also included based on respondents’ feedback, including asking respondents about an indicative figure of the performance of the firm’s post-IMP1 period. Phase three of the study involved the administration of the survey. The final paper-and-pencil questionnaire was administered in Malaysia using first class mail with a postage-paid return envelope enclosed. The support of a colleague from the University of Science in Malaysia was enlisted, and a request to return the completed questionnaire to her was included in the covering letter. This was expensive and time-consuming, as it required a number of visits to Malaysia. It proved to be the best option, however, after two years of attempts to administer the survey had failed. This was for two reasons: first, because the researcher lived overseas, which was at a distance from the research setting and, second, because senior executives were reluctant to share the sensitive information requested with a foreigner. Working with the colleague’s imprimatur helped to overcome these problems. The response rate was initially 18%, this increased to 26.5% (useful rate being 20.7%) after two follow-up letters were sent. Measure of key constructs According to Jones et al. ( 1994 ), “Successful technology strategy management must go beyond content, implementation is as important” (p.158). Consistent with this, Strategic Technology Management (STM) in this study encompasses both technology strategy (content) and technology management (process). There are ten elements of Strategic Technology Management that were selected for this study. Each element is measured through inductively developed items in order to develop a richer description of the element and to triangulate on the element value. A 4-point modified Likert scale was chosen due to its inherent advantages over the original odd-numbered Likert scale. This was because some researchers have found that the middle category in the Likert scale with its odd number of points can result in biased response sets, and that “comparing an even number of scale options would eliminate this problem” (Chang, 1994 , p.206). As previously mentioned, the technology strategy and management elements chosen were taken from Herman ( 1998 , p.53). Technology strategy dimension was measured via a four-item scale which addressed the following elements: 1. Technology posture : refers to a firm's preference for or propensity to use technology proactively in positioning itself (Oster, 1990 ; Zahra & Covin, 1993 ). 2. Technology level : refers to the “sophistication of the technology employed by the firm relative to the state-of-the-art” (Maidique & Patch, 1988; Clark et al., 1989; Miller A, 1988 ; Herman, 1998 ). 3. Product development intensity : refers to the number and rate of new product introductions (Zahra & Covin, 1993 , p.457; Dvir et al., 1993 ; Clark et al., 1989; Herman, 1998 ; Miller A, 1988 ). 4. Technology timing : refers to a firm's propensity to lead or follow competitors in introducing new products (Maidique & Patch, 1988). 5. Manufacturing and process technology : refers to the “degree to which new technology is incorporated into the firm's manufacturing plants and processes” (Miller A, 1988 , p.241; Zahra & Covin, 1993 ). Technology management dimension was measured via a five-item scale, which addressed the following elements: Technology awareness : refers to a firm's environmental scan processes – that is, the emphasis it places on acquiring information about emerging technology threats, opportunities and sources (Dvir et al., 1993 ; Herman, 1998 ; Clark et al., 1989). Technology acquisition : refers to the methods and techniques employed by firms to acquire technology; that is, internally (R&D) or externally (by licensing, partnering or purchase) (Maidique & Patch, 1988; Clark et al., 1989). Technology and product planning : refers to the formal planning processes that firms utilize to select and manage R&D programs (Maidique & Patch, 1988). R&D organization and management : refers to the methods firms employ to organize, empower and offer incentives to R&D personnel (Maidique & Patch, 1988). R&D investment : refers to the methods by which firms fund R&D activities and the emphasis placed on achieving a specified return on investment (Clark et al., 1989; Herman, 1998 ). More detailed information about the items underlying these elements is presented in Table 3 . Table 3 Labels for TS and TM Variables TS Variables TS Labels TM Variables TM Labels 1.Pursuing high technical risk TPO1 1.Awareness of existing technologies TAW1 2.Having reputation for technology innovation TPO2 2.Awareness of emerging technologies TAW2 3.Dominance in key technologies TPO3 3.Awareness of innovative technologies TAW3 4.Importance of advanced qualifications TLL1 4.Awareness of competing technologies TAW4 5.Striving for technology development TLL2 5.Technology acquisition-within firms in Malaysia TACQ1 6.Employing pacing technologies TLL3 6.Technology acquisition-Universities, Labs TACQ2 7.Using state-of-the-art tools TLL4 7.Technology acquisition-from outside firms within Malaysia TACQ3 8.Reducing product development time PDI1 8.Market-driven programs TPP1 9.Increasing no. of products PDI2 9.Product-driven programs TPP2 10.Continuously improving products PDI3 10.Formal planning processes TPP3 11.First in discovering technologies TTIM1 11.R&D integrated programs RDOM1 12.First in introducing new products TTIM2 12.Researchers empowered RDOM2 13.First to introduce low cost products TTIM3 13.Rewarding R&D success RDOM3 14.Unique products manufacturing capability MPT1 14.High R&D investment RDI1 15.Low manufacturing cost MPT2 15.Ensuring high return on R&D investment RDI2 16.Improving production flexibility MPT3 16.External R&D funding RDI3 Source: Developed for this paper Firm’s Performance Dimensions The success of strategy implementation can be deduced from the organisation’s ability to achieve its strategic performance, which is measured through financial performance, and market performance, as well as through its success in achieving its overall goals (Shrivastava, 1994 ). Performance can be captured through various measures, including growth, return on assets and return on equity. In this study firm performance was measured using Sales Revenue Growth (SRG); that is, by considering the annual sales revenue at the start and end of the period of this study. SRG reflects the effects of technology strategy decisions. Herman ( 1998 ) indicates that “there are certain exogenous variables that also affect SRG, such as inflation and varying industry segment growth rates, SRG is less subject to distortions caused by internal decisions or definitions than some other indicators” (p.57). He further elaborates that by restricting the study to a single industry – the E&E industry – it is possible to minimize the variation effects of inflation and market growth. Although SRG is not a perfect measure, various researchers have found it adequate for performance, especially for developing countries (Buzzel et al., 1975 ). Kim & Lim (1998) used SRG, along with other measures, in their study on the growth of the electronics industry in Korea, and averaged the growth over a three year period. Parker & Helms ( 1992 ) have also used SRG in their study which focussed on firm performance in declining industries. Habib and Victor ( 1991 , p.597) analysed the performance of MNCs and the measure used for this purpose was the Return on Assets i.e. firm’s relative efficiency in the utilization of its assets. They used ROA for two years and then took the average. For the purposes of this study SRG (as a percentage) was used as the measure which is given by the following formula: Data Analysis The data-analysis phase had the following objective: To analyze the data using statistical methods, and to explore relationships between strategy and management factors and a firm’s performance. Although 101 responses were received, only 62 of these contained usable data. The unusable responses were either blank or inconsistent. Within these 62 responses some respondents did not answer some of the questions. These were treated as missing variables for the purpose of analysis. This response rate of 20.6% is considered highly satisfactory, since responding to mail questionnaires has not been a widely accepted practice among firms in Malaysia. The response rate was relatively high compared with other studies involving Malaysian firms (Mohamad & Wheeler, 1996 , p.17). It also matches the response rate of 21% achieved in a survey of 196 electronic firms in Singapore (Campbell & Foo, 1997 ), a response rate of 11% achieved in a survey of 297 firms on strategic management issues by Penaloza, Brooks and Marche ( 2001 ), a response rate of 21% achieved in a survey on strategic management research by Daniels ( 1998 ) and a response rate of 21% achieved in a survey of 339 firms on sourcing practices in the Malaysian E&E sector (similar sample as in my survey) by Sidin and Cheng ( 1998 , p.35). In some developed countries – for example the study of the current engineering practices in the manufacturing sector by Huang and Mak ( 1999 , p.25) in the UK – the response rate was only 10%. Thus, a response rate of 21% in a developing country is encouraging. Twenty-six of the questionnaires were completed by CEOs/Managing Directors and 75 by others. The responses were entered as suitable variables in the SPSS software (Coakes & Steed, 1999 ). This package was used for all further data analysis. A cross-tab analysis was performed, comparing respondents from MNC, JV, FO and LO organisations to determine and compare their levels of technology awareness. This was important because a lack of technology awareness when answering questions about technology management issues might undermine the utility of the answers received. The results indicated that the respondents were quite clear about what technology was, and hence were able to provide valid responses to the main questionnaire items. Factor analysis was used to reduce the original number of items in the survey and to evolve the factors underlying the Technology Strategy and Technology Management dimensions. There were 16 variables used in the technology management analysis and a similar number in the technology strategy analysis. The 62 useful responses provided a 4:1 ratio of observations to variables; thus, it could be used for factor analysis, being close to the “required 5:1 and minimum absolute sample size to be 50” as recommended by (Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black, 2006 , p.113). Correlation analysis was employed to test the strength of the relationship between variables, while multiple regression analysis was also used to test the nature of the relationships between the variables of interest. The multiple regression was performed with few variables (after factor analysis was performed), therefore, the rule of thumb i.e. 10 times as many observations as variables is still observed (n = 62). However, it is should be noted that estimates in the regression need to be considered with caution given the small sample size. Results Although the survey was sent to CEOs, 26% of those who completed the survey were general managers, 21% were managing directors, and 13% were factory managers (as shown in Fig. 3 ). This is an improvement on a study by Edler et al. ( 2002 ) where only senior R&D Managers were included in a benchmarking study of technology management. Factor Analysis Factor analysis was used to reduce the original number of items in the survey. The literature review identified several variables which could be used to measure two dimensions which define strategic technology management. These two dimensions are referred to as technology management (TM) and technology strategy (TS). A thorough analysis of the environment in which the survey was carried out revealed that 32 items could be used to measure these dimensions. According to the respondents to the pilot study, these items were deemed suitable for use in the main questionnaire. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was selected for extracting the factors. PCA helped in the evolution of a new set of factors and some new combinations of factors. The PCA is a data reduction technique that helps identify a structure within data (Dillon & Goldstein, 1984 ) while retaining the original information as much as possible. In order to determine the appropriateness of the factor analytic framework, a number of methods were employed. These included Bartlett’s test of sphericity and Kaiser-Meyer-Oslen’s (KMO) test. The 16 strategy items were factor analysed using the PCA method. Kaiser’s criterion with an Eigen value of greater than 1.0 was used to determine the number of factors to be extracted (1985). Since the simplification rather than the minimization of factors was the goal, and since these factors were subsequently to be used in regression analysis which required that they be independent, it was decided to rotate them using Oblimin with Kaiser normalisation (as can be seen in Table 5 ). The extraction using PCA for the technology strategy variables revealed that three components accounted for 71.3% of the total variance. Table 5 TS items: rotated factor loading Items Components 1 2 3 1.Pursuing high technical risk 0.644 2.Having reputation for tech. Innovation 0.852 3.Dominance in key technologies 0.897 4.Importance of advanced qualifications 0.567 5.Striving for technology development 0.786 6.Employing pacing technologies 0.803 7.Using state-of-the-art tools 0.861 8.Reducing of product development time 0.575 9.Increasing no. of products 0.597 10.Continuously improving products 0.531 11.First in discovering technologies 0.831 12.First in introducing new products 0.811 13.First in introducing low cost products 0.790 14.Unique products manufacturing capability 0.866 15.Low manufacturing cost 0.901 16.Improving production flexibility 0.790 Source: From analysis of SPSS data of this research Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black (1992, p.239) suggest that loadings of 0.5 and above can be considered very significant, although loadings of 0.19 and 0.26 (at 5 and 1 percent level of significance) can be significant if the sample size is below 100. The factor analysis revealed three factor components. The first component had 10 items that reflected technology posture, technology level, and product development intensity of the firm. This amounts to treating technology as a key positioning factor. This factor was named technology positioning . The second component had three items that relate to the firm’s position on leading in the discovery of new technologies and introducing innovative and low cost products at the right time. This factor was named technology leadership . The third component had three items about manufacturing unique products in reduced times with lower process costs. These could be grouped under the category of the incorporation of new technology into the firm’s plant and facilities . However, this factor was named up-to-date plants and processes . The extraction using PCA for the technology management variables revealed that four components accounted for 83.2% of the total variance. The rotated factor loadings are presented in Table 6 . Of the four components which were extracted, the first component had seven variables that reflected aspects such as ‘R&D investment’, its ‘organization and management’ and a ‘focus on acquisition of technology within firms’. Thus, as this component was about the emphasis placed on R&D and its linkage with other business operations and it was named s trategic R&D. The second component had four variables on ‘technology awareness’ and one on ‘market driven programs’; these relate to the emphasis placed on keeping abreast with emerging technologies, and so the component was branded technology consciousness. The third component had two variables and was about ‘technology and product planning’, reflecting a firm’s attitude to using formal processes to plan and select technology; this component was termed formal planning. The fourth component, which concerns the in-country external acquisition of technology, had only two variables; these related to the acquisition of technology through universities or through other companies in Malaysia. This new element was named as external technology acquisition. As the third and fourth components each had only two variables, there may be a problem with content validity. This is a limitation which is acknowledged, and it is considered later in the study. Table 6 TM items - rotated factor loading Items Component 1 2 3 4 1.Awareness of existing technologies 0.930 2.Awareness of emerging technologies 0.932 3.Awareness of innovative technologies 0.922 4.Awareness of competing technologies 0.922 5.Technology acquisition-within firms in Malaysia 0.806 6.Technology acquisition-Universities, Labs 0.729 7.Technology acquisition-from outside firms within Malaysia 0.902 8.Market-driven programs 0.556 9.Product-driven programs 0.837 10.Formal planning processes 0.657 11.R&D integrated programs 0.940 12.Researchers empowered 0.956 13.Rewarding R&D success 0.909 14.High R&D investment 0.935 15.Ensuring high return on R&D investment 0.954 16.External R&D funding 0.772 Source: From analysis of SPSS data of this research These newly conceptualized factors that define the Technology Strategy and Technology Management dimensions appear are somewhat different to those proposed in the original framework and to those developed by Herman ( 1998 ). It is this difference that could well be so useful for making comparisons with those developed for the West, and for the development of technology strategies that are conducive to the operating environment. Reliability tests were conducted next so as to determine the robustness of these measures. Correlation Analysis The sample size for this study was small, so it was decided to use Pearson’s product moment coefficient method (Williams, 1983 and Cohen, 1988 ) to test the strength of relationships between variables. “This method provides a better chance of an accurate measure when the sample size is small” (Wilbon, 1999 , p.164). Table 7 summarizes the results of the correlation analyses of: 1) firm characteristics, including company type, company position, employee numbers, products produced, product type, R&D people, performance benchmark, major market and SRG; 2) technology management facets of strategic R&D, technology consciousness, formal planning and external technology acquisition ; and 3) technology strategy facets of technology positioning, technology leadership and up-to-date plants and processes . Following Cohen’s ( 1988 ) approach, the strength of correlations were defined as low for ‘r’ values between 0.10 and 0.29, moderate for values between 0.30 and 0.49, and high for values above 0.50. The relationship between the 10 background variables was investigated using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. Preliminary analyses were performed to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity. There were significant medium positive correlations between the category of product and the type of company (r = 0.475, p < 0.01), between the category of product and the number of employees (r = 0.385, p < 0.01) and between the category of product and the products produced (r = 0.370, p < 0.01). There was a statistically significant high positive correlation between the capital investment and the number of employees in a company, indicating more capital investment association with larger companies (r = 0.796, p < 0.01), as expected. There was a statistically significant high positive correlation between SRG and number of employees (r = 0.753, p < 0.01) as well as between SRG and capital investment(r = 0.729, p < 0.01). This indicated that SRG was associated both with the size of the company and its capital investment. This implies that besides TS and TM dimensions, capital investment and the size of a firm also influences company performance and therefore should be used as control variables in further analyses. There was a statistically significant (r = 0.34, p < 0.01) moderate positive correlation between strategic R&D and SRG, with more SRG associated with greater emphasis on R&D. There was a positive high and significant correlation between strategic R&D and capital investment (r = 0.496, p < 0.01), indicating an association between a firm’s capital investment and its technology management emphasis on R&D. There was a statistically significant high negative correlation between strategic R&D and the number of people employed in the R&D department (r=-0.786, p < 0.01), with lower number of people in the R&D department associated with more emphasis in R&D Management. This result supports the strategic intent of most MNCs, who typically rely on their parent headquarters for R&D; it is a useful outcome of this study. There was a statistically significant moderate positive correlation between strategic R&D and the number of employees in a company (r = 0.425, p < 0.01), indicating an association between the size of a company and its emphasis on R&D Management. There was a statistically significant moderate negative correlation between strategic R&D and the type of company (r=-0.311, p < 0.01). This indicates that some type of companies place more emphasis on strategic R&D compared to others, and this could provide an answer to the question as to why the locally owned firms did not engage much in R&D. There was a statistically significant moderate negative correlation (r=-0.366, p < 0.01) between the factor of external technology acquisition and the number of people in the R&D department, indicating greater emphasis on external technology acquisition associated with companies employing fewer people in R&D. There was a statistically significant moderate positive correlation (r = 0.405, p < 0.01) between SRG and technology positioning , with more SRG associated with more emphasis on employing strategies to position the technology. There was a statistically significant moderate positive correlation (r = 0.370, p < 0.01) between technology position strategy and capital investment – an indication there was an association between companies laying more emphasis on technology positioning with those having greater capital investment initiative. There was a statistically significant moderate positive correlation (r = 0.307, p < 0.01) between technology position strategy and number of employees in a company thereby indicating an association of companies laying more emphasis on technology positioning with the size of a company. There was a statistically significant moderate negative correlation (r = 0.456, p < 0.01) between the factor of technology positioning and the number of people in the R&D department, indicating greater emphasis on technology positioning was associated with companies employing fewer people in R&D. The relationship between the 10 background variables and the three new TS factors was investigated using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. There was a statistically significant moderate positive correlation between SRG and technology positioning (r = 0.326, p < 0.01) with more SRG associated with more emphasis on employing strategies to position the technology. There was a statistically significant moderate positive correlation (r = 0.371, p < 0.01) between technology position strategy and capital investment, indicating an association between companies with a high emphasis on technology positioning and those with capital investment initiative. There was a statistically significant moderate positive correlation (r = 0.307, p < 0.01) between technology position strategy and the number of employees in a company, indicating an association between companies laying more emphasis on technology positioning with the size of company. There was a statistically significant moderate negative correlation (r=-0.456, p < 0.01) between the factor of technology positioning and the number of people in the R&D department, indicating more emphasis on technology positioning was associated with companies employing fewer people in R&D. There was a statistically significant moderate negative correlation (r=-0.404, p < 0.01) between technology leadership strategy and the number of people in R&D, with more emphasis on this strategy associated with R&D departments having fewer people. There was a statistically significant moderate positive correlation (r = 0.326, p < 0.01) between up-to-date plants and processes strategy and the position of the respondent in the company, indicating an association on the emphasis on this strategy with the type of executive in the firm. Strategic R&D had a statistically significant positive moderate correlation with technology consciousness (r = 0.409, p < 0.01), external technology acquisition (r = 0.405, p < 0.01) and up-to-date plants and processes (r = 0.372, p < 0.01), and a high correlation with technology positioning and technology leadership (r = 0.579, p < 0.01). This seems to imply that firms focussing on technology leadership and its positioning lay more emphasis on carrying out strategic R&D activities. Technology consciousness strategy had a statistically significant positive high correlation both with technology position (r = 0.743, p < 0.01) and up-to-date plants and processes (r = 0.551, p < 0.01). It had a moderate correlation with technology leadership (r = 0.361, p < 0.01). This seems to imply that firms who remain aware and vigilant on new technologies are more concerned with positioning themselves in the market, and therefore invest in their plants and processes. Formal planning strategy had a statistically significant moderate correlation each with technology positioning (r = 0.346, p < 0.01), technology leadership (r = 0.438, p < 0.01) and up-to-date plants and processes (r = 0.386, p < 0.01). External technology acquisition had a statistically significant moderate positive correlation both with technology positioning (r = 0.380, p < 0.01), and up-to-date plants and processes (r = 0.323, p < 0.01). This seems to be a similar result to that for technology consciousness . Technology positioning had a statistically significant high positive correlation with technology leadership (r = 0.547, p < 0.01) and up-to-date plants and processes . (r = 0.587, p < 0.01) Multiple Regression Multiple regression involves determining the relationships between a single dependent variable and several independent variables, and was used to determine the nature of the relationship between SRG (dependent variables) and technology positioning and strategic R&D as predictors. The control variables were NOE ‘the number of employees’ and CI ‘capital investment’. There were other variables of interest; however, none of these showed any significant relationship with SRG and were thus excluded from further analyses. The SRG continuous variable which was earlier defined as [(SR in 1995 - SR in 1986)/SR in 1986] x 100 was tested for normality. It was positively skewed, hence a natural log transformation was employed to make it normal and suitable to use in subsequent analyses. The regression equation representing this relationship was: SRG = a + b 1 TS1 + b 2 TM1 + b 3 NOE + b 4 CI where a, b 1 , b 2, b 3, b 4 are the regression coefficients SRG is the Dependent Variable TM1 and TS1 are the Independent Variables NOE and CI are the Control Variables As part of the requirement of multiple regression analysis, the assumptions of multicollinearity, normality, linearity, homoscedasticity and independence of residuals were also checked. 5.8.2 Assumptions Tests A test of multicollinearity was performed to ensure that the independent variables were not highly correlated. As part of this test, the parameters analysed included: pair wise relationships (correlations), tolerance of variation, variance inflation factor (VIF) and Eigen values. A strong association is indicated when ‘r’ values are greater than 0.70. Tabachnick and Fidell ( 2007 ) have suggested that one needs to be “cautious when including two variables with a bivariate correlation of 0.7 or more in the same analysis” (p.90). On the other hand, the independent variables should also show some relationship with the dependent variable, “preferably above 0.3” (Pallant, 2006 , p.149). The two independent variables of strategic R&D and technology positioning had correlation values of 0.34 and 0.33 respectively, with the dependent variable of SRG thus meeting the requirement of Pallant ( 2006 ). The correlation between the two independent variables was 0.719, which was just near enough to the threshold for mulitocllinearity. Hence, both variables were retained. Hair et al.’s (1992, p.74) four steps technique was employed for collinearity analysis. The first step was to find any Condition Index (CI) greater than 30. None of the variables had a CI value greater than 30. The second step of finding those items with CI values of more than 30 which also had a variance proportion of more than 90% was thus skipped. Step three was to check that the VIF value was less than 10 (Stevens, 2002 , p.92). None of the values produced by the new regressions were greater than 10. Step four was to check that the tolerance values were not close to zero in the new regression that violated this condition. The minimum value was 0.411 and maximum was 0.491. All the above tests demonstrated that there was no concern with respect to collinearity. Standardised residual plots (normality and scatter plots) produced from the regressions were inspected to check the assumptions of normality, linearity, homoscedasticity and residuals. These plots were required as part of the regression analysis. It was expected that the points of the normality plot would lie reasonably close to the diagonal line from bottom left to top right. In the standardised scatter plot, it was hoped that the distribution of residuals would be roughly rectangular, with most of the scores concentrated along the centre; a clear or systematic pattern is not desired – curvilinear or higher on one side than the other – and violates the assumption of homoscedastcity. The outliers that can be detected from a scatter plot are those with values greater than 3.3 or less than − 3.3 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007 ). Mahalanobis’s distances were produced as part of the regression analysis and appear in the data file. These values can also predict outliers. The critical Chi-square value for the number of independent variables used in an analysis can be determined from a table (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007 , Table C.4) and then be compared with the maximum Mahalanobi’s distance. Figure 4 shows the normal PP plot; the points are close to the normal diagonal line, indicating the assumption of normality is valid. The scatter plot was between 2.5 and − 1.0. It does not have a curvilinear shape, and most of the points are concentrated around zero, indicating no violation of the assumption of homoscedasticity. No significant outliers were found. This study set out with the objective of analysing the influence of technology strategies on the performance of firms (measured as SRG). The correlation analysis revealed significant relationships between SRG and strategic R&D , and between SRG and technology positioning . There were also positive correlations between SRG and capital investment, and between SRG and number of employees. These four variables were then employed in a regression analysis to determine the extent of their relationships with SRG. To be able to test hypotheses H1a and H1b (TS and TM factors contribution towards SRG), hypotheses H2 & H3 (influence of type and size of firm on the successful STM factors) and determine the contribution of background variables on SRG, regression analysis was performed on the variables of interest. Given that the assumptions held, a stepwise regression was run. The first model was run with SRG entered as the dependent variable. The number of employees (i.e. size of firm) and capital investment (control variables) were entered in Block 1 of 1 and Strategic R&D as the independent variable in Block 2 of 2. Model 2 was run by replacing the Strategic R&D independent variable with Technology Positioning independent variable in Block 2 of 2. Model 3 was run by including Strategic R&D in Block 2 of 2 and Technology Positioning in Block 3 of 3. The data output of the regression results are presented in Table 8 . Table 8 Regression Results for Sales Revenue Growth as Dependent Variable Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Control variables Number of employees 0.09 0.11 0.10 Capital investment 0.66*** 0.68*** 0.68*** Independent variables Strategic R&D -0.052 -0.151 Technology Positioning 0.141 R² 0.536 0.538 0.547 Adjusted R² 0.52 0.51 0.51 F 34.06*** 0.002 0.010 ∆ R² 0.54 0.002 0.010 F for ∆ R² 34.06*** 34.00 34.01 *** p < 0.0001 Source: From analysis of SPSS data of this research Looking at the R-square value in the first model, after the control variables in Block 1 (number of employees and capital investment) have been entered indicates that the overall model explains 53.6% of the variance. After Block 2 the independent variable ( strategic R&D ) has also been included, the model as a whole explains 53.8%. This second R-square value includes all the variables from both the blocks. After Block 3 independent variable ( technology positioning ) has also been included, the model as a whole explains 54.7%. Looking at the R-square change column against Model 2 the value is 0.002. This means that strategic R&D explained an additional 0.2 percent of the variance in SRG, even when the effects of number of employees and capital investment are statistically controlled for. This is not a statistically significant contribution, as indicated by the insignificant F change value of 0.626. Looking at the R-square change column against Model 3, the value is 0.010. This means that technology positioning explains an additional one percent of the variance in SRG, even when the effects of employee numbers, capital investment and strategic R&D are statistically controlled for. Again, this is not a statistically significant contribution, as indicated by insignificant F change value of 0.276. The ANOVA table indicates that the model as a whole (which includes all the three block of variables) is significant [F(4,57) = 17.23, p < 0.0005]. It was decided to compare the contribution of each independent variable to the statistical model so that it could be determined which of these contributed more to SRG compared to other. Model 3, which contains all the variables entered into the equation, was then explored. The beta values in the standardised column were analysed. Only capital investment with beta = 0.681 made a statistically significant and unique contribution (p = 0.000) to the equation when the overlapping effects of all other variables were statistically removed. The presence of outliers and the influence of any case over the model parameters were both analysed. The value calculated for Mahalanobis’s distance was 3.935, which did not indicate a problem as it was less than the critical Chi-square value of 18.47 (Pallant, 2006 , p.151). This indicated that there was no outlier (case) having a standardised residual value of more than 3.3 and less than − 3.3. It could thus be concluded that capital investment made a statistically significant contribution in predicting the dependent variable of SRG when the overlapping effects of other variables have been removed. This outcome implies that it was heavy investment made by multinationals in Malaysia and the investments made by local and foreign-owned firms, rather than technology strategies that contributed to the growth of the firms. Though the technology strategies provided some impetus to this growth, the dominant factor was the capital outlay. The significance values did not indicate that any of the independent variables made a statistically significant unique contribution to the equation at the 0.05 level when the number of employees and capital investment were controlled. Discussions Seven new factors have been identified by this research and these all apply at the company level. These seven factors can be seen as falling into two dimensions: The Technology Strategy (TS) dimension, and the Technology Management (TM) dimension. The TS dimension, which refers to the content of strategies, is in this study, conceptualised in terms of three factors. 1. The first is technology positioning , in which a firm introduces high-risk or breakthrough technologies in order to build a reputation for technical innovation that it can use as a competitive advantage. A firm that uses technology positioning also emphasises the sophistication of the technology they apply, with an emphasis on state-of-the-art tools and equipment and a focus on hiring highly trained R&D personnel. Such a firm strives to not only increase its range of products, but also to reduce product development time. Thus this factor could be summarized as referring to a firm’s utilisation of technology to achieve competitive advantage. It does so by using even more sophisticated technology and by increasing the number and rate of development of new products. 2. The second factor developed from the data is that of leading in the discovery of new technologies and introducing innovative products . This factor relates to the efforts a firm puts into the discovery of new technologies and to introducing new products before other firms. Thus, it is about the willingness to lead in technology discovery and in the introduction of new products. 3. This third factor relates to the extent to which technology is embedded in plants and processes . This construct relates to a firm’s exploitation of technology to manufacture unique products, to reduce manufacturing costs, and to increase the flexibility of production processes. This measure also reflects the maximization of the inclusion of technology in a firm’s plant and processes in order to gain an advantage in relation to competitors. The TM dimension, which relates to a firm’s handling of the process side of technology, can be conceived in terms of four unique factors: 1. The first is R&D linked to business . This refers to the degree to which a firm links its R&D activities with its other business operations; that is, the degree to which it elevates R&D to a strategic level. It also relates to the existence of mechanisms – mechanisms for recognizing and rewarding R&D, and mechanisms for evaluating the costs and benefits of specific R&D projects. 2. The second factor is called keeping abreast with emerging technologies . This is about the processes that firms employ to ensure that they are aware of innovative and competing emerging technologies. This basically refers to the processes it has in place for scanning for new technologies employed by firms. 3. The third factor is formal process for planning . This reflects the emphasis that firms place on using formal processes for planning and selecting technologies, as compared to ad hoc decision-making. 4. The fourth factor is in-country external acquisition of technology . This is about the processes that firms use to acquire technology by conducting R&D in collaboration with universities, research labs and other companies within Malaysia; that is, technology acquisition that does not rely on internal R&D at the firm level. The seven Strategic Technology Management factors highlighted above were evident in firms in the electrical and electronics sub-sector of Malaysia. However, not all factors were found to contribute to a firm’s success. The next section describes in detail the relationship between these factors and SRG. Sales Revenue Growth (SRG) was used as a measure of firm performance and was averaged over the ten year period. The results revealed that there was a statistically significant correlation between strategic R&D and SRG, as well as between technology positioning and SRG. These two factors represent Technology Management and Technology Strategy dimensions of Strategic Technology Management; thus, it could be stated that application of Strategic Technology Management factors contributed to the positive performance of the firms in the E&E sector of Malaysia during the period under review. However, after inclusion of control variables of size of firm and capital investment in the regression model, the results revealed that only capital investment made a statistically significant and unique contribution to the regression equation. The summary of the factors that correlated with success is provided in Table 9 . Table 9 Strategic Technology Management factors contributing to success Factors Correlation with SRG Result Strategic R&D (TM) Yes (r = 0.34, p < 0.01) The firms that are extremely focused in placing emphasis on R&D and linking it with other business operations have a positive significant correlation with the growth rate. Key positioning (TS) Yes (r = 0.33, p < 0.01) The firms that are extremely focused in using technology as a key positioning factor in their strategy have a positive significant correlation with the growth rate. Note. Developed for this paper The two hypotheses were proposed to investigate the relationship between STM factors (TS and TM) and performance: H1a: The greater the focus on TS, the better the performance for E&E firms in Malaysia. H1b: The greater the focus on TM, the better the performance for E&E firms in Malaysia. The research indicates that two of the seven Strategic Technology Management factors developed in this study ( strategic R&D and key positioning ) correlated with the growth of firms in the electrical and electronics industry of Malaysia between 1986 and 1995. A regression analysis indicated that strategic R&D explained 0.2% of the variance in SRG, whereas technology positioning contributed 0.1%, however, neither of these results is statistically significant. Though the hypotheses H1a and H1b are not supported statistically, the two evolved strategy factors correlated with the SRG of firms. One of the key contributions of this research is the modification of the conceptual framework and the development of the new framework proposed (as given in the Fig. 5 ). The difference between this final model and the proposed model is that seven new Strategic Technology Management factors (four TM and three TS) have evolved, and out of these only two – TS1 ( Key positioning ) and TM1 ( Strategic R&D ) – contributed to the success of firms. Moreover, both the nature and size of firms influenced the acquisition of these two technology factors and both the size of firm and capital investment contributed significantly to the performance of firm. Implications of Key Findings Academic Implications This study has contributed to the STM discipline by investigating the nature of technology strategies applied in the firms operating in an Eastern environment. It looked at the literature and examined various types of technology strategies developed by researchers and their effect on performance of firms. Different frameworks and models were also examined. This research also aimed to address the gap in literature in answering the influence of type and size (structure) of firm on the acquisition of successful technology strategy factors. The first contribution is the development of a comprehensive research model that links STM factors with the performance of firms and especially, the influence of type and size of the firm in acquiring those STM factors which contribute to success. The relationship between the constructs of successful STM factors, performance, and type and size of the firm have been conceptualized in one model for the first time. This is a significant contribution of this research. The inclusion of the effect of type and size of firm on the acquisition of successful STM factors can be considered as a new contribution to the field of STM and performance of firms. The second contribution from this study is that it is one of the few studies conducted to investigate the application of STM in firms in Malaysia. It could probably be the first study to look at the micro level (firm level) to determine the contribution of STM towards performance of firm. It could help other researchers to investigate this relationship in other manufacturing sectors of Malaysia and then be able to build a generic model to represent STM and firm performance for the entire manufacturing sector. The third contribution of this study is that it has offered an approach to quantify the effect of STM application and firm performance, an aspect which could be used to determine the effect of technology management in the ‘technology’ factor contribution to the total productivity factor model. The last contribution is that research provides the foundation to carry out further research in Malaysia and similar economies, by utilizing the STM factors developed in this study and developing relevant variables to be included in survey questionnaires. The new survey questionnaire would then be more specific and relevant to the Eastern environment. Implications for the planners of Industrial Master Plan of Malaysia Although this research did not aim to address STM at the national level (the focus was at the firm level), it appears that the results could be extremely useful to provide an insight to the national technology planners of the influence of STM and the nature and size of the firms on the performance of firms. Similar studies, using the new STM factors as the basis, could be undertaken by them to capture the effects in other manufacturing sectors. This should help them to determine the effect of technology management alone in the performance of the entire manufacturing sector. The results could provide them with a set of useful technology strategy factors relevant to the local environment to help improve the performance of local firms. As evident from this research that on the ‘Technology Management’ front, firms were aware and informed about emerging and competing technologies in relation to their business, which indicates that emphasis was placed on scanning processes to keep abreast with technological developments. Surprisingly, the relationship between the application of formal planning processes to plan and select technology and the methods to acquire technology externally with the performance of firm was found not to be significant in this research. This implies that these firms’ product plans were neither market-driven nor product-driven; rather, they were likely to have been based on production figures dictated by their headquarters, which took care of product and technology planning. This result could be of value to the planners in developing guidelines for technology transfer and diffusion to help develop the local firms. The firms surveyed did not employ any formal methods to acquire technology from other companies within Malaysia, indicating poor linkages with other companies. Although the creation of such linkages was one of the strategies outlined in the 1986 IMP, this study indicates that this was not successful. The linkages and technology acquisitions which did exist in Malaysia during this period may have been due to the existence of MNCs and JV firms and, to a lesser extent, the LO firms, all of which relied on local industries for ancillary equipment. This again is a useful result for the technology planners in Malaysia to develop strategies to increase the inter-firm linkages. Implications for the Management of Firms This study indicated that not all factors of strategic technology management would produce sales revenue growth. This has implications for the managers of firms, and especially for those who are responsible for technology management. As far as the electrical and electronics sub-sector of Malaysia is concerned, seven technology factors applied by the managers have been highlighted, but only two of these were associated with a growth in sales revenue. Furthermore, these factors were shown to more likely to occur in MNC and JV firms than in FO and LO firms. Thus, managers of MNC and JV firms need be less conscious of acquiring those factors associated with success, whereas those in FO and LO firms must be considerably more conscious. Kim, L. ( 1998 , p.315) suggests that the implications for corporate management in terms of company level technology development relate to strategies for strengthening the demand for new technology (new markets), developing the supply side (R&D) capability, and, establishing effective linkages between demand and supply (R&D). The results of this research indicate that FO and LO firms need to focus more on these sorts of strategies, as opposed to MNCs and JVs which automatically enjoy the results of similar strategies taken at their headquarters and premises of the dominant partner companies respectively. However, the argument by Brockhoff ( 1998 , p.129) that R&D contributes more to the output measures compared to capital investment, is not supported by this study. In fact, in this study, though both R&D and capital investment correlated with sales revenue growth, only capital investment was found to make a significant contribution to the regression model. Since the Brockhoff study was carried out in Germany, this result makes a significant contribution to discussion about the influence of Strategic Technology Management in countries outside the West. Most MNCs have understood that a pushy standardized global approach does not work and that regional fine-tuning is necessary (Axinn & Matthyssens, 2002 , p.438). It is possible that the STM strategies applied by MNCs and JVs would have made fine-tuning to the strategies they adopted in their home countries to suit the Malaysian environment. This view which was identified as a gap in the literature on STM in Sec. 2.1 has been supported by the results of this research wherein some technology strategy factors observed in Malaysia were different than those in the West. This is indeed a great contribution of this research and provides a direction for the Management of firms that in order to succeed operating the firms in a culturally different environment (like East compared to West), home-grown technology strategy factors might need to be adapted to the host country environment. Local firms investing heavily in technological capability might find it advisable to avoid foreign equity participation. The reason for this is that while MNCs or JVs do transfer production capability to the host country, they do not necessarily transfer technological capability. For sustained business growth, firms need to develop technology absorption capability to fully gain benefit of collaborations i.e train local manpower and do local design and development (Sahoo et al., 2010 , p.20). Thus JVs and MNCs had better performance as they employed STM but it did not benefit the Malaysian local firms and that is evident from this research that MNCs contributed more to growth. Even within JVs the two partners might be in conflict, with the strategies of the JV subsidiary possibly being dictated by the dominant partner company. The results of this research indicate that strategic R&D , undertaken by MNCs and JVs contributed to their performance, and that this R&D was mostly an in-house activity (at their headquarters). “There is ... a lack of interest in MNCs to locate their R&D away from the home country due to long held beliefs based on conventional wisdom” (Granstrand et al, 1992 , p.5). For FO and LO firms, strategic R&D was not seen as a factor in their success. This suggests that not only did local firms did focus on R&D but that there was no obvious technology spillovers from MNC and JV firms. Instead of assimilating imported technologies, it would seem that firms should focus on in-house efforts and carefully manage their R&D activities. This aspect of R&D has been emphasised in the findings of the Strategic Management of Technology Conference ( 1987 ) “There is a need to define how to manage research in R&D and that requires careful selection of variables of interest” (p.108). So, becoming independent may be one of the options for the management of local firms and is an important conclusions of this study. With the results of this research clearly indicating that Sales Revenue Growth of LO firms was not significantly correlated with the Strategic Technology Management factors, compared to MNCs and JVs and that only capital investment contributed to the model, there are implications for the management of firms. It may be that the managers of Asian firms focus more on sales growth by increasing their capital investment, rather than by relying on Strategic Technology Management factors. This is consistent with a study carried out by Husain and Sushil ( 1997 , p.558) in which it was found that compared to European managers who preferred the organisation’s structure to handle most issues, Asian Managers preferred to focus on profits The results of this study suggest that business strategies alone might not be able to contribute towards technology development and performance of firms. The management of firms need to be able to integrate them with their technology strategies; that is, they need to adopt a Strategic Technology Management approach. This could be achieved by appropriately positioning a firm in terms of employing pacing and state-of-the art technologies relative to its competitors, and by ensuring a focus on strategic R&D . These results contribute to the existing knowledge on the subject by endorsing the suggestions put forward by Talonen and Hakkarainen ( 2008 ). Limitations and Future Directions As with all research, the present study has some limitations. The research is limited with respect to both the research methodology used and the scope of the study. First, the study only relates to manufacturing firms in the electrical and electronics industry in Malaysia. Thus it has an inherent industry clustering bias. The performance of firm may be moderated by the industrial sector in which it operates, given that some sectors show higher levels of technological intensity than others. Such industry effects with regard to strategic management must be taken into account (Kalantaridis & Pheby, 1999 ; Mauri & Michaels, 1998 ). However, this was not the objective of this research. Second, the majority of the responding companies were multinational firms, thus there is a bias with respect to the type of firms surveyed. However, this study has set the tone for further studies that may include other industry sectors. Moreover, there is a high possibility that other sectors selected might not be dominated by MNCs, thus making the results more generalisable in the future. Since businesses and their environments are dynamic, the strategies evolved in the period covered by this study may not apply to a different environment (for example, the West). However, these new strategies make a significant contribution to the literature in that they provide a useful comparative analysis of the adoption of Strategic Technology Management in culturally diverse economies. Moreover, they will help academics in the design of new tools for testing in similar economies of the world. For example, some respondents might not have been in the firm during the study period and therefore their responses would have been based on their knowledge, discussions with other people or from the company’s records, rather than on direct experience. This aspect has, however, been addressed by utilizing the published data from the FMM Directory (which validated the data provided by the respondents). The number of companies which responded was small; as such, it is difficult to generalise the results for the whole sector. This aspect was combated in this study by employing the services of a resident professor and by undertaking frequent visits to the firms, strategies which helped raise the response rate from 18 to 26.5%. For such surveys in the future, other means of improving the response rate – including the use of new technologies – would be recommended. The data collected about strategy variables were the perceptions of the senior management of the firms in response to specific wording of a questionnaire; therefore, it cannot be described as objective. Using such perceptions, however, is a sound way of assessing the relationships between the variables of interest because strategies usually reside in the minds of senior management, and a smart design of the questionnaire variables helped to tap the responses to the variables which underlined the strategy factors. This was validated by the fact that the evolved strategies to some extent resembled those provided in the literature. Further, the study did not take into account the views of planners in the Ministry of Industry; nor did it take into account the views of executives from MNCs and JV dominant partner head offices. The effect of the global/local financial environment on the technology strategies was not explored as that did not form part of the objective of this study. This is a facet that could be explored in future studies. This study uses variables from studies conducted in the West and so the questions were derived from that environment. Both the new factors developed at the dimension level, and the dimensions developed while analyzing the factors at the item level, could have been made more reflective of the Malaysian environment. However, the factors developed as part of this study could now be utilized to evolve new variables which will be specific to the Malaysian environment. Hofstede ( 2007 , p.416) pointed out that “ within Asia, management is a very different process depending whether we focus on China, India, Japan, or Iran, and sometimes we cannot even generalize across different provinces within the same country”. This suggests that a different set of variables might be needed for other Asian countries and the debate of West vs East might need to be revisited in relation to Strategic Technology Management. This study limits a firm’s performance dimensions to its sales revenue growth. A number of other factors which indicate firm performance have been omitted – for example, return on investment, financial structure, marketing strategy and human resource organisation. The statistical association between performance and outcome does not provide one with insight into how exactly this outcome come about. Nonetheless, SRG provided a good indication of performance and was easy to verify from the published data. There could be other factors besides Strategic Technology Management that could contribute to performance. Thus, Strategic Technology Management itself does not guarantee success, with other factors such as leadership possibly having an equally important role to play. This aspect of leadership was not investigated in this study but it could well be useful to address it in future studies. Future direction As Cravens ( 2000 ) notes, the strategies applied in the electrical and electronics industry might not be directly transferable to another industry. “Different industry environments will require different decisions about strategic choice and implementation and have a significant impact on the performance of the firms” (p.29). This could be a topic for future research. The positive performance of the firms in the context of this study has been attributed to the better application of Strategic Technology Management; however, certain exogenous variables were not included in this study. Further research could tap into these variables and determine their influence on Strategic Technology Management. It is clear that the firms in this study, especially the MNCs and JVs, performed strongly over the period of study – perhaps due to the tacit knowledge inherited from their parent firms, or perhaps due to explicit directions and the evolution of strategies as suggested in this research. But which was the case and to what extent it contributed to firm performance was beyond the scope of this study. Again, this is suggested as an area for further research. The effect of culture has not been addressed directly in this research but the difference in strategies applied in the West and those developed here for the East, could perhaps be explained by national cultural differences and the influence of national technology strategies. “Malaysian culture characteristics are markedly different from those of low context cultures such as the United States. People in authority are personally responsible for action of their subordinates and this places a premium on loyalty to both superiors and subordinates” (Luthans & Doh, 2009 , p.135). Thus, Malaysian employees would not normally enter into arguments with their superiors, and would typically do as directed. “Malaysian managers tend to avoid ambiguous situations, desire security and feel more comfortable with structured, clearly defined bureaucracies” (Joshi, Sherman & Schermerhorn, 2004 , p.22). The effect of culture alone on the application of Strategic Technology Management in the electrical and electronic firms in Malaysia has not been explored in earlier studies and represents an interesting topic for future research. However, a word of caution here is that not only the effect of national and corporate culture influence TM, but also the other elements of culture like technical practices are equally important. (Liker et al. 1998 , p.215) state that cultural elements (technical practices) influence transfer of TM practices from West to East, and need to be disengaged from the national and corporate culture to analyse the true effect of culture on TM. “Technology is interdependent; advances in one sector soon influence other areas. For example, the development of microprocessors and memory chips led to the creation of small-size mobile phones; developments in computer sciences made possible the production of on-board computers for missile guidance” (Pournelle, et al., 1997 ). In extrapolation of Pournelle et al., it is clear that technology influences every aspect of national life. In particular, it influences national strategy: the strategy to develop a multimedia super-corridor came about in Malaysia after the electronics and IT sector had developed. Alternatively, strategy influences technology. Malaysia needed an Industrialization Strategy, and so technology firms were invited to set up facilities. The effects of the advances in the electrical and electronics sector of Malaysia would have been influenced by advances in other sectors and vice versa. The effect of these two-way linkages on the formulation and implementation of technology strategies could prove to be a very interesting area to explore in future research. Patterns of organisational knowledge creation differ across various forms of organisations (Lee & Yoon, 2010 ). This could perhaps be one of the other effects for the application of STM strategies as determined from this study by MNCs compared to LO firms. Thus organisational knowledge should be considered as a moderating variable in future research. Alongside horizontal linkages, the vertical integration of all relevant operations is a strategy aimed at securing full control over a technology. It is particularly attractive where the alternative would be to share knowledge with suppliers who are also a firm’s competitors. MNCs rely on this strategy (Pearce, 1989 ). This approach by MNCs in the electrical and electronics sector of Malaysia and its effect on their technology management is another area that could be explored to advantage in future research. Conclusions This study indicates that E&E firms in Malaysia employed both technology strategy and its management processes during the period 1986–1995, and that some of these contributed to the successful performance of the firms. It was also found that MNCs and JVs were more likely to employ technology management strategies compared to FO or LO firms. Further, this study indicates that the type and size of firm had a significant relationship with the firm’s acquisition of effective technology strategies and technology implementation processes. Surprisingly, only capital investment made a significant contribution to the regression model; neither the strategy variables nor the size of the firm made any significant contribution. The findings that the majority of the Malaysian E&E firms that acquired desirable factors were associated with foreign companies, and that they employed R&D performed elsewhere – in their parent headquarters and subsidiaries or by their partners – has important implications for technology planners. The findings also have vital implications for the management of firms in the sense that they need to be able to integrate business strategies with their technology strategies; that is, they need to adopt a Strategic Technology Management approach and that that not all factors of strategic technology management would produce sales revenue growth. Ultimately, it should be recognised that a single study like this on a specific manufacturing sector (E&E) and in a specific country (Malaysia) may not result in a universally comprehensive model. Further studies of similar groups in other manufacturing industries in Malaysia and in other countries should be considered and results compared with this study. This study has raised the awareness of E&E industry in Malaysia of the nature of technology strategy factors which could be adopted to improve performance. The academic contributions will open new challenges and opportunities in the area of STM. Declarations Compliance with Ethical Standards: Ethical approval: This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the author; this is a solo author article. Ethical approval: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Author Contribution Arif Sikander carried out the research solely and wrote the entire manuscript text and prepared all the figures and tables. References Affuah, A. (1999). Strategies to turn adversity into profits. Sloan Management Review, 40 (2), 99-100. Ahmed, Z.U., Tsu, T. (1999). Managing market intelligence: an Asian marketing research perspective . In Ibrahim et al.: Reinventing Asian Management for Global Challenges: Proceedings of the Asian Academy of Management Conference, Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia, 16-17 July 1999 (pp.183-192). Penang: University Science Malaysia. Adler, P. (1989). Technology Strategy: Guide to the literature. In R.S. Rosenbloom and R.A. Burgleman (Eds.), Research on Technological Innovation, Management and Policy (pp.1-25). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Ansoff, H.I. (1987). Strategic Management of Technology. The Journal of Business Strategy, 7 (3), 28-40. Ansoff, H.I., & Stewart, J.M. (1967). Strategies for a Technology-Based Business. Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec, 71-83. Attaran, M. (2001). Strategic management of technology at Frito-Lay’s Kern manufacturing facility. Industrial Management, 101 (5/6), 264-272. Axinn, C.N., & Matthyssens, P. (2002). Limits of internationalization theories in an unlimited world. International Marketing Review, 19 (4/5),436-449. Badawy, M.A. (2007). Book review: “The management of technology and innovation: a strategic approach” by White, M.A. & Bruton, G.D, Thomson South Western, 404pgs, in Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 24 (4 ), 395-399. Bessant, J.(1993). The lessons of failure: learning to manage new manufacturing technologies. International Journal of Technology Management, 8 (3,5), 197-214. Brockhoff, K.(1998). Technology management as part of strategic planning – some empirical results. R&D Management, 28 (3), 129-138. Business Technology Decisions (2006). Retrieved from Murdoch Net Library: (http://www.nolaconsulting.com/network-design-support-new-orleans.php). Button, K. (1988). High technology companies: an examination of their transport needs. Department of Economics, Loughborough University. Loughborough:UK. Buzzel, R., Gale, B., Sultan, R.M. (1975). Market share: a key to profitability. Harvard Business Review, 53, 97-106. Campbell, D.J., & Foo, K.Y. (1997). An examination of strategic orientation and the uses of performance appraisal in Singapore electronic firms. Asian Academy of Management Journal. 2 (1,2), 44-57. Chakravarthy, B. (1997). A new strategy framework for coping with turbulence. Sloan Management Review, winter, 69-82. Chandler, A.D. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the history of the American Industrial Enterprises. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press. Chang, L. (1994). A psychometric evaluation of 4-point and 6-point likert scales in relation to reliability and validity. Applied Psychometric Measurement, 18 (3), 205-215. Chevalier, M. (1972). The strategy spectre behind your market share. European Business, 34, 63-72. Chiarmonte, F. (2003). From R&D management to strategic technology management: evolution and perspectives. International Journal of Technology Management, 25 ,538-548. Clarke, K., Ford, D., & Saren, M. (1989). Company technology strategy. R&D and Management, 19, 215-229. Coakes, S.J., & Steed, L.G. (1999). SPSS: Analysis without anguish . Australia: Jacaranda Wiley Ltd. Cohen, J.W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2 nd edn). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cool, K.O., & Schendel, D.E. (1987). Strategic group formation and performance: The case of the US Pharmaceutical Industry;1963-82. Management Science, 33 (9), 1102-24. Corey, J.P. (1989). Strategic planning process and technology management. International Journal of Technology Management, 4 (6), 613-624. Covin, J.G., & Slevin, D.P. (1998). Adherence to plans, risk taking and environment as predictors of firm growth. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 9 (2), 207-237. Cravens, D. W. (2000). Strategic Marketing (6 th edition). Irwin: McGraw Hill. Cusumano, M.A. & Rosenbloom, R.A. (1989). Technology pioneering and competitive advantage: The birth of the VCR industry. California Management Review, 29 (4), 51-77. Daniels, K. (1998). Towards integrating emotions into strategic management research: Trait affect and perceptions of the strategic environment. British Academy of Management, 9 (3) , 163-168. Di Romualdo, A., & Gurbaxani, V. (1998). Strategic intent for IT outsourcing. Sloan Management Review, 39 (4), 67-80. Dillon, W.R. & Goldstein, M. (1984). Multivariate analysis: methods and applications . New York: John Wiley & Sons. Drejer, A. (1996). Frameworks for the management of technology: towards a contingent approach. Technology Assessment and Strategic Management, 8 (1), 9-20. Dvir, D., Segev, E., & Shehnar A. (1993). Technology’s varying impact on the success of strategic business units with the Miles and Snow typology. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (2), 155-162. Edler, J., Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Reger, G. (2002). Changes in the strategic management of technology: results of a global benchmarking study. R&D Management, 32 (2), 149-164.Erdilek, A. (1986). Issues in international technology transfer. Economic Impact, 4 (46), 51-60. Erdilek, A. (1986). Issues in international technology transfer. Economic Impact, 4 (46), 51-60. Erickson, T.J., Magee, J.F., Roussel, P.A. & Saad, K.N. (1990). Managing Technology as a Business Strategy. MIT Sloan Management Review , 31 (3). Evan, B., Vasconcellos, E., & Werther, W.B. (1994). Executive levers for the strategic management of technology: leaders must have the tools to move their firms toward the use of technology as a strategic resource. Business Horizons, 53 (9), 53-61. Fayol, H.M. (1949). General and Industrial Management ( C.Stone Trans.). New York: Pitman publishing. Fiegenbaum, A., & Thomas, H. (1990). Strategic groups and performance: The US insurance industry. Strategic Management Journal. 11, 197-215. Foong, S.Y., & Alsagoff, S.K. (1994). The effectiveness of IT adoption by the SMEs in the electrical and electronics sector- problems, issues and political perspectives. Malaysian Journal of Small and Medium Enterprises, 5, 88-96. FMM Directory. (1997). Electrical and Electronics Industries Data . Published by Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers, Kuala Lumpur, 1997. Ford, D. (1988). Develop Your Technology Strategy. Long Range Planning, 21 (5), 85-95. Freeman, S. (1982). Industry environment: influence on performance of small medium sized enterprise in Asia Pacific markets. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 5 (2), 96-113. Frohman, A.L. (1985). Putting technology into strategic planning. California Management Review, 27 , 48-95. Fruhan, W.E. (1972). Pyrrhic victories in fights for market share. Harvard Business Review, 50 (5), 100-107. Fusfeld, A. (1989). Formulating Technology Strategies to meet the Global challenges of the 1990s. International Journal of Technology Management, 4 (6), 601-612. Galbraith, C., & Schendel, D. (1983). An empirical analysis of strategy types. Strategic Management Journal, 4 (2), 153-173. Goll, I., & Rasheed, A.M.A. (1997). Rational decision making and firm performance: the moderating role of environment. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 583-592 Granstrand, O., Hakanson, L., & Sjolander, S. (1992). Technology Management and International Business. New York, John Wiley. Gutmann, P.M.. (1964). Strategies for growth. California Management Review, 6 (4), 81-86. Habib, M.M., & Victor, B. (1991). Strategy, structure and performance of US manufacturing and service MNCs: A comparative analysis. Strategic Management Journal. 12 (7),589-606. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. New York: Macmillan 6 th Edn. Hambrick, D.C. (1980). Operationalizing the concept of business-level strategy in research. Academy of Management Review, 5 (4), 567-575. Herman, E. L. (1998). Technology Strategies in the US Electronics industry (Ph.D Thesis-Portland State University, 1988). Dissertation Abstract International, (UMI No. 9834862). Hofer, C.W. (1975). Toward a contingency theory of business strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 784-816. Hofstede, G. (2007). Asian management in the 21st century. Asia Pacific J Manage 24 , 411–420 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-007-9049-0 Holland, N. (1995). Technology Management and Corporate Strategies: A tricontinental perspective . Amsterdam: Elsevier. Huang, G.Q., & Mak, K.L. (1999). Current practices of engineering change management in UK manufacturing industries. International journal of operations and production management. 19 (1), 21-37. Husain, Z. & Sushil (1997). Strategic management of technology – a glimpse of literature. International Journal of Technology Management. 14 (5), 539-578. Jones, O., Green, K., & Coombs, R. (1994). Technology Management: developing a critical perspective. International journal Technology Management, 9 (2), 156-170. Joshi, M.P., Sherman, H.D., & Schermerhorn, J.R. (2004). Strategic Implementation styles of Malaysian, Thai and Hungarian middle managers. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 9 (2), 19-33 . Kaiser, H.F. (1985). The variance criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrica, 23 , 187-200. Kalantaridis, C. & Pheby, J. (1999). Process of innovation among manufacturing SMEs: The experience of Bedfordshire. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 11 , 57-78. Kantrow, A.M. (1980). The strategy-technology connection. Harvard Business Review, 58 (4), 6-21. Ketchen, D., & Shook, C. (1996). The application of cluster analysis in strategic management research: An analysis and critique. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 441-458. Kitching, J. (1967). Why do mergers miscarry? Harvard Business Review, 45 (6), 84-101. Kim, L. (1998). Technology policies and strategies for developing countries. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 10 (3), 311-323. Kim, L., & Lim, Y. (1988). Environment, generic strategies and performance in rapidly developing countries: A taxonomic approach. Academy of Management Journal . 31, 802-827. Kinnear, J.W.(1991). Clean air at a reasonable price. Issues in Science and Technology, 8 (2), 28-37. Kotha, S., Dunbar, R., & Bird A. (1995). A comparison of emphasis placed on generic competitive methods by US and Japanese Managers. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 195-220. Kotha, S., & Nair, A.(1995). Strategy and environment as determinants of performance: evidence from Japanese machine tool industry. Strategic Management Journal. 16 (7), 497-518. Lee, J. (1987). A comparative study of the relationship between strategy and business performance: industrialised countries and newly-industrialising countries. Published PhD dissertation. University of Mississipi. Lee, K., & Yoon, M. (2010). International, intra-national and inter-firm knowledge diffusion and technological catch-up: the USA, Japan, Korea and Taiwan in the memory chip industry. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 22 (5),553-570. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). The factory as a learning laboratory. Sloan Management Review, 34 (1), 23-38. Liker, J.K., Gibson, D.V., & Wu, Y. (1998). The Asia-Pacific context of technology management. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 45 (3),210-219. Luthans, F. & Doh, J.P. (2009). International Management: culture, strategy and behaviour (7 th edn). Irwin: McGraw-Hill. Madique, M.A., & Patch, P. (1988). Corporate strategy and technological policy.In ML Tushman, M.L. & Moore, W.L.(Eds.), Readings in the Management of Innovation (pp.236-248). Cambridge, Mass: Balinger. Mauri, A.J. & Michaels, M.P. (1998). Firm and industry effects within strategic management: an empirical examination, Strategic Management Journal, 19 (3), 211-219. McCarthy, D.J., & Spital, F.C.(1987). Managing growth at high technology companies: a view from the top. Academic Management Executive, 1 (3), 313-322. Messina, A.(1989). Technology Management for the 1990’s. Journal of Manufacturing Engineering, 6, 49-51. Miles, R.E., & Snow, C.C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process. New York: McGraw Hill. Miller, A. (1988). A taxonomy of technological settings with related strategies and performance levels. Strategic Management Journal, 9 (3), 239-254. Miller, D. (1988). Relating Porter’s Business Strategies to Environment and Structure: Analysis and Performance Implications. Academy of Management Journal, 31 (2), 280-308. Miller, D., & Friesen, F. (1977). Archetypes of strategy formulation. Management Science, 24, 921-933. Miller, D., & Friesen, F. (1984). Organisations: A Quantum view . Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Ministry of International Trade and Industry (1995). Yearly Publications. Government of Malaysia. KL. Mintzberg, H. (1973). Strategy-making in three modes. California Management Review, 16 (2), 44-53. Mitchell, G.R. (1988). Options for the strategic management of technology. International Journal of Technology Management, 3(3), 253-262. Mohamad, O., & Wheeler, C. (1996). Comparaing high, moderate and low performance exporters: evidence from Malaysia. Asian Academy of Management Journal. 1 (2), 16-31. Mu, Q., & Lee, K. (2005). Knowledge diffusion, market segmentation and technological catch-up: The case of the telecommunication industry in China. Research Policy. 34 ,759-783. Noori, H. (1997). Implementing AMT: The perspective of a newly industrialized economy. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 8 (1), 120. Oster, A. (1990). Modern Competitive Analysis . New York: Oxford University Press. Pallant, J. (2006). SPSS Survival Manual . U.K.: Open University Press. Parker, B., & Helms, M. (1992). Generic strategy and firm performance in declining industry. Management International Review, 32 (1), 23-39. Pearce, R.D. (1989). The internationalization of research and development by multinational enterprises . New York: St Martins Press. Penaloza, E., Brooks,M. & Marche, S. (2001). Electronic commerce and strategic management of deep-sea containers: Am exploratory survey analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 22 ,493-520. Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive strategies. New York: The Free Press. Porter, M.E. (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 95-117. Pournelle, J.E., Possony, S.T.& Kane, F.X. (1997). The Strategy of Technology . Retrieved from Murdoch Net Library: http://www.jerrypournelle.com/sot/sot_4.htm & http://www.jerrypournelle.com/sot/sot_1.htm#Foundations of the Technological War Price, R.M. (1996). Technology and strategic advantage . California Management Review, 38 (3), 38-56 . Raymond, L., & Croteau, Anne-Marie. (2009). Manufacturing strategy and business strategy in medium-sized enterprises: Performance effects of strategic management. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 56 (2),192-202. Rishel, T.D., & Burns, M.O. (1997). The impact of technology on small manufacturing firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 1, 210. Rumelt, R.P. (1972). Strategy, structure and economic performance. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School. Sahlman, K. & Haapasalo, H. (2009). Elements of strategic management of technology: a conceptual framework of enterprise practice. International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 7 (3), 319-337. Sahoo, T., Banwet, D.K. & Momaya, K. (2010). Strategic Technology Management in practice: dynamic SAP-LAP analysis of an auto component manufacturing firm in India. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 11 (1/2), 13-24. Shane, S. (2009). Technology strategy for managers and entrepreneurs . New Jersey: Pearson Education. Sharif, M.N.(1997). Technology strategy in developing countries: evolving from comparative to competitive advantage. International Journal of Technology Management, 14 (2/3/4), 309-343. Shrivastava, P. (1994). Strategic Management, Concept and Practices. New York: PHI. Sidin, S.M. & Cheng, N.G. (1998). Sourcing practices of manufacturing in the Malaysian electronics and electrical products industry. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 6 (1) , 31-42. Sikander, A. (2007). Strategic Technology Management issues across culturally diverse countries. In Khilji et al. : Advances in Global Business Research: Proceedings of the International Congress of Academy for Global Business Advancement, Penang, Malaysia,21-25 May 2007 (pp. 466-471). Penang: USM. Snow, C.C., & Hrebiniak, L.G. (1980). Strategy, distinctive competence, and organisational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25 (2) , 317. Spital, F.C., & Bickford, D.J. (1992). Successful competitive and technology strategies in dynamic and stable product technology environments. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 9, 29-60. Strategic Management of Technology Conference (1987). Conference Proceedings, INSTEAD, Fontainebleau. 7-9 July. Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for social sciences . Mahwah, New Jersey: L. Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 4 th edn. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics . New York: Pearson. Talonen,T. & Hakkarainen, K. (2008). Strategies for driving R&D and technology development. Research-Technology Management ,54-60. The Department of Commerce USA (1984,1996). Technolgy Reports , U.S.Department of Commerce. Thomas, H. & McGee, J. (1989). Technology and strategic management progress and future directions. R&D Management, 19 (3), 205-213. Utterback, J.M. (1986). Innovation and corporate strategy. International Journal of Technology Management, 1 (1/2), 119-132. White, M.A., & Bruton, G.D. (2007). The Management of Technology and Innovation: A strategic approach. USA: Thomson Publishers. Wilbon, A.D. (1999). Influence of technology strategy on IPO and long-term survival of firms (Ph.D Thesis-George Washington University, 1999). Dissertation Abstract International, (UMI No. 9935423). Wilson, I. (1986). The strategic management of technology: corporate fad or strategic necessity? Long Range Planning, 19 (2 ), 21-30. Williams, J. (1983). Technological evolution and competitive response. Strategic Management Journal, 4 (1 ), 55-65. Wissema, J.G., Van Der Pol, H.W., & Messer, H.M. (1980). Strategic Management Archetypes: Summary. Strategic Management Journal, 1 (1 ), 37-48. Yuan, L., Kevin, A., Mike, W. P. & Erming, X (2013). Strategic management in private and family businesses. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. Published online: 12 June 2013. # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013”. DOI 10.1007/s10490-013-9359-3 Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. (1993). Business strategy, technology policy and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 451-478. Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. (1994). Domestic and international competitive forces, technology strategy, and company performance: an empirical analysis. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 6(1), 31-94. Zahra, S. A. (1996A). Technology Strategy and new venture performance : a study of corporate sponsored and independent biotechnology ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 11 (4), 289-321. Zahra, S. A. (1996B). Technology Strategy and financial performance: examining the moderating role of the firm’s competitive environment. Journal of Business Venturing, 11 (3), 189-219. Tables Table 7 is available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Table7.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5463769","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":380062501,"identity":"f18f09a2-3e6a-4628-9641-bbd186389b24","order_by":0,"name":"Dr ARIF SIKANDER","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Murdoch University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"Dr","firstName":"ARIF","middleName":"","lastName":"SIKANDER","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-11-16 04:23:15","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5463769/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5463769/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":69505585,"identity":"b24ea1df-7621-4ac2-8e00-f075f37eb7b0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-11-21 06:28:34","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":28758,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConceptualization of the Proposed Research Model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Developed for this paper based on literature review\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5463769/v1/0f02c6bc963d64617fe55cb1.png"},{"id":69507010,"identity":"fc57fb58-ec96-41a5-ac61-5409de626dcc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-11-21 06:44:34","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":9592,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTreatment of dimension, elements and items in this research\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDeveloped for this paper from the discussions based on literature review\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5463769/v1/b9ee1b47f8fb727a372a81df.png"},{"id":69505581,"identity":"01fe83aa-33a7-4a19-8412-4cc3a1d457e5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-11-21 06:28:34","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":29898,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePosition in company\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Developed from the questionnaire designed for the survey\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5463769/v1/1ab8241221c0b3a6b08cf8bc.png"},{"id":69506247,"identity":"56641bd9-5b92-41cb-ab98-584f9157045d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-11-21 06:36:34","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":26513,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNormality plot\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5463769/v1/7f604321dd97636d215d51f3.png"},{"id":69505584,"identity":"4acd777a-99fc-4e03-b85c-668c74105422","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-11-21 06:28:34","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":31058,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModified framework of strategic technology management\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Developed for this paper from the survey results\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5463769/v1/30ca78c41180bfa93213c2a1.png"},{"id":69507415,"identity":"9f18c544-0e23-4130-b4c2-564cefd7bba1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-11-21 06:52:35","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1891691,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5463769/v1/29950b0c-2c2b-4847-aa6d-1000e4645c47.pdf"},{"id":69505580,"identity":"41845dd7-2467-4aff-a20a-3831e985f205","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-11-21 06:28:34","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":22306,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table7.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5463769/v1/7a635817f0ba635613ef7c01.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"From Technology Management to Strategic Technology Management – An Asian success story","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe literature in Technology Management, Strategic Management and Strategic Technology Management employs various definitions to key terms which suit the context of the authors. Definitions of some commonly used terms that appear in this paper are presented below so that their use is clear in the context of this study. They are further discussed in detail and acknowledged later in the other sections.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eTechnology\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe types and patterns of activity, equipment and material, and knowledge or experience to perform tasks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eStrategy\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eA strategy represents the competitive efforts and business approaches that managers employ to compete successfully and to achieve organizational objectives. The term \u0026lsquo;factor\u0026rsquo; in this study specifies the constituent of the strategy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eTechnology Strategy\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnology strategy aims at conceptualizing, developing and using technology for economic advantage. Thus it could be argued that technology strategy is an articulation of the ways in which technology will be used to achieve business objectives. Technology strategy thus refers to the content aspects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eTechnology Management\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrganizational issues and processes involved in developing and implementing a strategic approach to technology. Technology management thus refers to the process aspects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eFactors\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe factors in this study relate to those developed after performing factor analyses on the TS and TM elements. These extracted factors then define the respective TS and TM dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eTechnology Policy\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntegration of technology strategy and technology management. It is used synonymously with the phrase \u0026lsquo;Strategic Management of Technology\u0026rsquo; in this study. It is \u003cem\u003enot\u003c/em\u003e to be confused with the term \u0026lsquo;Public Policy\u0026rsquo; which is not the objective of this research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eStrategic Technology Management\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eDeveloping technology strategies and then evolving methods to implement and manage them. \u0026lsquo;Strategic Technology Management\u0026rsquo; is used throughout this paper as a synonym for \u0026lsquo;Technology Policy\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eWest (or Western Culture)\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe term is used in this paper to apply to countries whose history is strongly marked by European immigration or settlement, such as the Americas, and Australasia, and is not restricted to Western Europe. It is used to distinguish from South East Asian countries like Malaysia which is considered as an Eastern culture.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe speed of technology developments has created a new competitive scenario amongst firms, especially the technology intensive ones. The global economic situation with the price of fuel falling below the historical levels, has placed more demand on these firms to gain and sustain their cash flow. Effective management of technology to create value is of concern to the academics, to the technology planners in the governments and to the management of firms. However, \u0026ldquo;Management of technology must be purposeful rather than hopeful or \"hands off' and must always be connected with the firm's overall business strategy\u0026rdquo; (Erikson et al 1990). Various models have been proposed in the literature of management theory for the incorporation of technology into corporate planning. These have been inspired by the success of Japanese firms and the success of technology-intensive firms. According to Zahra, the technology strategies employed to select appropriate technological resources will impact on the performance of the firm (Zahra, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR129\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996A\u003c/span\u003e, p.289; Zahra, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR130\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996B\u003c/span\u003e). \u0026ldquo;The failure of the traditional techniques, like R\u0026amp;D, for exploiting technology has emphasised the need to address technology at a strategic level\u0026rdquo; (Drejer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e, p.9). The technology strategies adopted by firm\u0026rsquo;s influence and drive their business level strategies, especially for technology-intensive firms. \u0026ldquo;A transition to strategic orientation significantly changes the variables which determine the success of the firm and one of the most important variables is the firm\u0026rsquo;s technological evolution\u0026rdquo; (Ansoff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e, p.33). Here strategic orientation is defined by Ansoff as a \u0026ldquo;multifunction orientation as optimisation of performance in one functional area may not guarantee success, especially in a turbulent market place\u0026rdquo; (p.30). Thus, it can be seen that having only a technological strategic orientation is not the solution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategic management research has addressed the role of technology choices in the formulation and implementation of business strategies. Patterns of strategic behaviours of different firms have been analysed in the literature and \u0026lsquo;strategy types\u0026rsquo; have been derived. \u0026ldquo;Although all studies of strategy types share common features, they generally employ different industry perspectives, research methodologies and study dimensions, which make it difficult to make comparisons among them\u0026rdquo; (Herman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e, p.1). The content and process aspect of strategy has not been an area of interest with much of these studies. Like business strategy formulation and implementation, it is useful to analyse technology strategy formulation and implementation with a business focus. Zahra \u0026amp; Covin (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR127\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e) have indicated that although technology plays a vital role in the success of companies, there is a paucity of empirical studies in the literature on the relationship between technology policy and business strategy. Indeed, \u0026ldquo;few studies have been done to analyse the technology strategy types in high tech sector of the Western Countries, with even less effort on the types in non-Western countries\u0026rdquo; (Sikander, 2007, p.467). This study attempts to address this deficiency and to focus on the identification of some strategic technology management issues and their effects on company performance in an Asian context. It includes the \u003cem\u003econtent\u003c/em\u003e as well as the \u003cem\u003eprocess\u003c/em\u003e aspects of technology, and it analyses firms within technology-intensive industries in an environment geographically and culturally different to those previously analysed. Integration of technology and business has been very nicely presented in the following quote by Business Technology Decisions (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e):\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eTechnology offers operational efficiencies and potential competitive advantages that can result in cost containment and lead to increased revenue. Identifying which processes, products, resources and technologies are right for a business can be challenging and, for some, overwhelming. The key to effective technology and business integration is aligning the technology resources with the business needs and service levels. This includes matching technologies, skill sets, resources, and IT priorities to business operations, processes, and priorities.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is almost impossible for firms to keep away from technology. \u0026ldquo;The primary fact about technology in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is that it has a momentum of its own. Although the technological stream can to some extent be directed, it is impossible to dam it; the stream flows on endlessly\u0026rdquo; (Pournelle, Possony \u0026amp; Kane, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR100\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBusiness strategy can be apprehended through its content or its processes (Chandler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1962\u003c/span\u003e). Content research mainly focuses and investigates strategic typologies. Process research puts more emphasis on how the strategy is formulated and implemented (Raymond \u0026amp; Croteau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR102\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e, p.193). \u0026lsquo;Strategic Technology Management\u0026rsquo; (STM) encompasses both the \u0026lsquo;content\u0026rsquo; of technology strategy and the \u0026lsquo;process\u0026rsquo; of technology management. Technological advances and the timing of their implementation have a considerable influence on the competitive standing of firms. Technology strategies could thus be regarded as important elements which could provide a competitive edge to organisations and also help in the development of their business strategies. Badawy (2007, p.359) observed that White and Bruton use a similar definition for the management of technology \u0026ndash; that is \u0026ldquo;the linking of engineering, science and management disciplines to plan, develop and implement technological capabilities to shape and accomplish the strategic and operational goals of an organisation\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMalaysia experienced robust economic growth during the mid-80\u0026rsquo;s and 90\u0026rsquo;s. The manufacturing sector was the main driving force behind this excellent performance and contributed to growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), employment and exports. In 1986, the manufacturing sector value-added products accounted for 20.9% of the (GDP) and this jumped to 33.1% in 1995, giving an annual average growth rate of 13.5%, compared with a mere 4.9% between 1981 and 1985. The Industrial Master Plan (IMP) which was launched in 1985 provided a framework for the development of the manufacturing sector for the 1986-95 period.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eVarious strategies and programs were implemented to support the plan (IMP 1986). Within non-resource-based industry, the electronics and electrical industries were the major contributors to increased exports, employment and GDP. The electronics industry of Malaysia contributed significantly to the industrialization of the economy. In 1992 the industry accounted for 33.2% of the output from the manufacturing sector, 30.3% of the total employment engaged in manufacturing activities, and 53.4% of the total exports of manufactured goods. This remarkable growth provides an opportunity to peep further into the firms in this sector and analyse if technology strategy contributed to their success.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmong the sub-sectors which contributed most to this rapid development was the E\u0026amp;E manufacturing sector. Being a hi-tech industry, it might be assumed that technology strategies were applied to achieve the remarkable results that were attained. An analysis of the firms in this sector would allow for the characterization of the types of technology strategy factors that were developed and implemented by the sector as a whole. By identifying the effects of these technology strategy factors on a firm\u0026rsquo;s performance, it would then be possible to analyse if technology strategies contributed significantly to the performance of firms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe present study draws on previous research in its development of a decision-making framework that will capture information about technology strategies adopted by firms in the E\u0026amp;E manufacturing sector of Malaysia. These technology strategy factors and their management processes can then be used to determine their relationship with the firm\u0026rsquo;s performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on the existing theories concerning strategic technology management, technology strategy, business strategy and firm performance, following two broad research questions were formulated and investigated:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat \u0026lsquo;technology strategy\u0026rsquo; factors were adopted by firms in the E\u0026amp;E sector of Malaysia, and which \u0026lsquo;technology management\u0026rsquo; processes were used to implement these strategies?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhich technology strategy factors and their associated implementation processes correlated with successful performance by E\u0026amp;E firms in Malaysia ?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe existing literature on strategic technology management has been examined. Using that knowledge base as a starting point, the dimensions for firms operating in a different culture were explored. A comprehensive review of the literature on business strategy and technology strategy has also been undertaken in an effort to identify the constituent dimensions and items of strategic technology management. This in turn generated a more holistic understanding of the complexities of environment on technology strategy formulation and its management. A conceptual research model is proposed to investigate the influence (if any) of technology strategy factors and the background variables on the performance of firms and also the effect of the nature and size of firm on the acquisition of the successful technology strategy factors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA pilot study helped refine a survey instrument before the final survey was administered. Data was then collected and analysed using statistical techniques. This revealed a set of technology strategies (factors) typically used by the firms surveyed. It was then possible to compare these strategies with the technology strategies identified through prior studies for the manufacturing sector in the West.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTheoretical background, Conceptual Model and Hypotheses\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe conceptual model for this research has been grounded to the existing theories on Strategic content in Technology Management, Business strategies and Technology strategies. A critical analysis of these areas is presented below before the hypothesized model is developed. The testable hypotheses are then elaborated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Strategic Content in Technology Management\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe rapid change in technology over the last two decades has raised concern on two major issues. These have been defined by Mitchell (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e, p.254) as (1), poor linkage between technology and strategy planning; and (2), over-reliance on short term measures, both of which masks the more strategic plans. Strategic importance of technology has been recognised as helping to provide competitive advantage. However, Mitchell (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e) states that Strategic management of technology has certain practical problems which are:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eThere is no generally accepted language for defining the critical technologies.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eThere is no way to manage these technologies.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e3. There is no appropriate financial framework for allocating resources for strategic positioning.(p.256)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHence there are opportunities to explore how technology strategies are formulated by firms, how they are subsequently implemented, and how they contribute towards the firm\u0026rsquo;s growth. Though these issues have been addressed by a couple of studies in the West, this study sets out to investigate and analyse them in a culturally different environment (a country selected in the East).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe need to create and use new technology to provide a competitive advantage has been ever increasing and has been a source of growth for many firms. This requires strategic thinking about technology beyond the simple development of new products and services. Hence, \u0026ldquo;the task of managing technology is integral to, and essentially synonymous with, strategic management\u0026rdquo; (Price, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR101\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e, p.38).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSince 1980, the relationship between technology and business strategy has been considered important by companies, but its implementation has not. As highlighted by Chiarmonte (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), \u0026ldquo;technology, although very important, was still often not considered in the process of strategy formulation, the essential reason being the trend that technology development takes longer time compared to other functions of the company like marketing\u0026rdquo; (p.542). Thus more than recognition of this issue is needed to determine what linkage mechanisms need to be established to provide the technology-strategy fit.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContrary to this argument, Thomas and Mcgee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR119\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e, p.205) suggest that the strategy literature treats technology as an implementation issue \u0026ndash; that is, the technology to be used is defined by strategy. Thus, technology does not enter into the strategy formulation process and there is no clear direction on how to manage it. The authors further suggest that technology should be considered as the central part of a company\u0026rsquo;s thinking. Evan, Vasconcellos \u0026amp; Werther (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e) go a step further and suggest that \u0026ldquo;technology should be recognised as a strategic resource ... to ensure new technologies provide sources of strategic advantage. This has tempted cutting-edge firms [to] increasingly integrate technology management with their management processes\u0026rdquo; (p.54). However, this approach on its own is not sufficient; it may confine firms to an inward looking approach. There is also a need to explore those technology developments occurring outside the firm so that appropriate technologies can be matched to their management strategy. This emphasis by firms on both internal and external input \u0026ndash; a key aspect of Strategic Technology Management \u0026ndash; is explored in this paper, and both approaches are included as relevant variables in the survey instrument.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Messina (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e): \u0026ldquo;Technology is recognized as potentially the single most important source of competitive advantage, but not all technology management is strategic. Acquiring a new technology leadership therefore does not automatically yield competitive advantage. What then constitutes a strategic application of technology?\u0026rdquo; According to her, it is one that meets three criteria which are:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eIt is sustainable;\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eIt affects one of the three strategic variables \u0026ndash; cost, differentiation or focus; and.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e3. It produces effects that are visible to target customers. (p.50)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMessina (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e) further suggests that for a technical manager to be sensitive to this is through development of a technology strategy, which must:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eIdentify technologies that are critical to the achievement of strategic business objectives;\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2. Produce leadership to achieve these objectives; and\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3. Decide how to treat the remainder strategies.(p.51)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis view expressed by Messina \u0026ndash; that technology must be sustainable \u0026ndash; is supported by Evan et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e) who adds that \u0026ldquo;ad-hoc solutions may improve the contribution of technology, but technology must be managed strategically if long-range consequences are to be avoided\u0026rdquo; (p.53). Covin and Slevin (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e) go a step further and indicate that \u0026ldquo;adherence to strategic technology plans promotes sales growth\u0026rdquo; (p.210). This study aims to analyse this \u0026lsquo;strategic\u0026rsquo; emphasis on technology management and its association with the growth rate of firms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Industrial development can be understood to be a process of acquiring technological capabilities in the course of continuous technical change\u0026rdquo; (Kim L., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e, p.311). Significant benefits can be reaped by firms that integrate technological and innovation considerations at the business level (Affuah, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Chakravarthy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Sharif, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR108\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Specifically, process improvements can help firms to benefit from increased productivity through a more flexible style of doing things (Noori, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Bessant, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e) by improving a company\u0026rsquo;s capacity to process, restore, disseminate and analyze information (Foong \u0026amp; Alsagoff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e; Di Romualdo \u0026amp; Gurbaxani, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e) and through product improvement activities (Rishel \u0026amp; Burns, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR103\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Spital \u0026amp; Bickford, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR113\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe question remains as to how to achieve the integration of technology strategy with business strategy. One method is to rely on roadmaps; these could provide a time frame as well. Talonen and Hakkarainen (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR117\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) posit that a roadmap links all strategies together and is a glue that bonds them and should address the following questions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1. What are our pacing, key and base technological competences, now and in the future?\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2. Which technologies will be replaced and which technologies we should use?\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3. What are the sources of our technologies and competences (make or buy)? (p.56)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEven when these questions are addressed, Attaran (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) opines that technology in itself does not guarantee success in increased efficiencies and reduced inventory turnover times. He further states that \u0026ldquo;management plays a fundamental role in the implementation of such initiatives which could include flexibility, customer service, employee welfare, quality and training\u0026rdquo; (p.269). Thus allocation of appropriate resources and provision of capital, both for product (development) and services (welfare, training etc) are important for the implementation of technologies \u0026ndash; a point which has been borne out by one of the results of this research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWilson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR123\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e) regards \u0026ldquo;business strategy as a cable and the marketing, manufacturing and human resource strategies as the intertwined strands bound closely to give greater tensile strength to the whole\u0026rdquo; (p.21). He suggests that \u0026ldquo;technology strategy need to be conceived within the context of the overall strategic management of the business\u0026rdquo; (p.21). He also analyses the strategic management process of Bank of America and concludes that four major thrusts are included in the technology planning of its strategic management process. They are: \u0026ldquo;emphasis on focusing on technology to meet customer needs; investing in employees to build a diversity of skills and talent; applying technology to build a competitive advantage; and linking business and technology strategies to build a common value\u0026rdquo; (p.21). These values provide a useful set of Strategic Technology Management strategies for researchers. Wilson\u0026rsquo;s understanding of the subject is supported by Sahlman and Haapasalo (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR105\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e, p.323) who regard Strategic Technology Management as the management of those technology activities which interact with a company\u0026rsquo;s socio-economic and technological environment, and help to formulate and implement that company\u0026rsquo;s overall strategy. This indicates that management of the technology activities would be influenced by the firm\u0026rsquo;s economic (home country economic environment) as well as the technological environment (within and outside the firm) and is worth exploring. This research capitalizes on this opportunity and attempts to analyse if the technology strategies applied by firms in the West are similar to those applied in the East and what are the factors which influence the adoption of these strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Thomas and Mcgee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR119\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e, p.207 ), \u0026ldquo;the evolutionary theory of the firm also provides an important framework for the strategic management of technology because the strategic capabilities evolved through experience reflect the ability of the organisation to adapt to changing technologies which provides profitability\u0026rdquo;. Although not exclusively naming the approach as Strategic Technology Management, Corey (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e) proposes that \u0026ldquo;technology management must accept the responsibility for managing its process with the associated strategic perspective otherwise the results could be catastrophic\u0026rdquo; (p.615).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the definitions of technology management which integrates the elements of strategic management comes from the NRC Report (cited by White \u0026amp; Bruton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR121\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e, p.17): \u0026ldquo;Management of technology is a linking block amongst engineering, science and management disciplines to plan, develop and implement technological capabilities to shape and accomplish the strategic and operational objectives of an organisation\u0026rdquo; (However, this definition does not address the aspect of technology awareness, nor does it identify the tools for measuring the success of technology implementation). This paper responds to this gap by analysing the impact of technology awareness (along with other factors) on company performance, and by determining the extent to which technology management factors were responsible for company growth.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the key recommendations of the Strategic Management of Technology Conference (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR114\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e) was that firms needed to create a sustainable competitive position, one which requires strong linkages between the company\u0026rsquo;s business environment and the way that company develops and maintains its technological base. Despite this main focus remains on the way of acquiring new technology and how to improve the existing ones to gain competitive advantage. The underlying task remains how to find an answer to match technology to market. Another recommendation of this conference was that networks between people, functional departments and firms needed to be better integrated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBusiness Strategies\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEarly work in this field was done by Fayol (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1949\u003c/span\u003e), who considered broad management principles in defining and implementing business strategy. Chandler\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1962\u003c/span\u003e) work, \u003cem\u003eStrategy and Structure\u003c/em\u003e, established a relationship between the structure and the strategy of a firm. While dealing with the structure of organisations he advanced the concept of \u0026lsquo;fit\u0026rsquo;, often referred to as \u0026lsquo;contingency theory\u0026rsquo;. This concept has been an important addition to the strategic management literature. Many researchers have provided different understanding of this concept of \u0026lsquo;fit\u0026rsquo;. Amongst these is Rumelt (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR104\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1972\u003c/span\u003e), who confirmed in his PhD thesis that a firm\u0026rsquo;s performance correlates with the fit between its strategy and its structure. This was an important result and has set the stage for future research in this area.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Hofer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1975\u003c/span\u003e), the research up to that time was concerned with the processes by which strategies were developed and did not focus on the content of the strategies. He indicates that the main reason for this early emphasis on process, rather than content, was that far fewer variables were needed to describe the strategy formulation process than were needed to account for specific strategy content. Significant progress was made towards the understanding and implementing of strategic planning processes, but very little work was done on the development of business or corporate strategy theories. Hofer suggests that a lack of powerful research tools was one of the many reasons for this slow progress.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn 1973, Mintzberg theorised on a link between business decisions with strategies. He distinguished three modes of strategy-making: entrepreneurial, adaptive and planning. \u0026ldquo;In the entrepreneurial mode, strategy-making is dominated by the active search for new opportunities. In the adaptive mode, strategy-making reflects a division of power among members of a complex coalition. In the planning mode, decisions and strategies are integrated\u0026rdquo; (p.44). Mintzberg (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1973\u003c/span\u003e) also makes the important point that \u0026ldquo;planning is not a panacea for the problems associated with strategy-making. Rather than seeking panaceas, the mode of planning must fit the situation\u0026rdquo; (p.52). Thus, an \u0026lsquo;adaptive\u0026rsquo; mode of planning could yield better results. This highlights the need for \u0026lsquo;strategic management of technology\u0026rsquo;, a process which comes under close scrutiny in this paper.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis interest in the content side of a firm\u0026rsquo;s strategy has led to further research in this field. In 1977, Miller and Friesen conducted a study of strategy content in which they reviewed 81 cases on business organisations. The results of these were published in \u003cem\u003eFortune\u003c/em\u003e magazine and as part of the \u003cem\u003eHarvard Case Clearing House\u003c/em\u003e series. The cases are vivid and often provide detailed accounts of the strategy-making activities of the included organisations. Miller and Friesen were successful in identifying \u0026lsquo;strategy archetypes\u0026rsquo; that differed across three categories of variables: organisational, environmental and strategy-making. To enable understand the nature of business-level strategies, Hambrick (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e) identified four approaches:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eTextual description of strategy;\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eMeasurement of parts of strategy;\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3. Multivariate measurement of strategy; and\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4. Typologies of strategies.(p.573)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Herman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e), \u0026ldquo;the most common method employed to investigate strategy patterns in industries and business functions has been the fourth method: typologies of strategies. Due to availability of powerful computer-assisted statistical software, recent studies use this method to analyse data from a population of similar firms\u0026rdquo; (p.20).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHambrick (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e) went on to note that each of these approaches is a function of three questions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1. How refined is the present understanding about the questions being researched?\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2. What role does the strategy construct play in the investigator\u0026rsquo;s research design?\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3. What is the investigator\u0026rsquo;s theoretical definition of strategy? (p.573)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCluster analysis is now in common use. Galbraith and Schendel (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e, p.162) utilised cluster analysis and identified six strategy types for consumer products (harvest, builder, cash-out, niche, climber and continuity) and four strategy types for industrial products (low commitment, growth, maintenance and specialization). In 1996, Ketchen and Shook identified 45 published strategic management research reports in which cluster analysis was used.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilar studies on business strategies include: Gutmann (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e), Kitching (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1967\u003c/span\u003e), Chevalier (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1972\u003c/span\u003e), Fruhan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1972\u003c/span\u003e), Snow and Hrebiniak (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR112\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e), Porter (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e), Cool and Schendel (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e) and Fiegenbaum and Thomas (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA summary of business level strategy types developed by researchers, is presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBusiness strategy-types summary\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAuthor(s)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy Types\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMethod\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuzzell et al.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1975\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHolding\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHarvesting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConceptual constructs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMiller \u0026amp; Friesen\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1977\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 Adaptive firm - moderate challenge\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Adaptive firm \u0026ndash; strong challenge\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Dominant firm\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Giant under fire\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.Entrepreneurial conglomerate\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.Innovator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e81 cases were evaluated by panel and scored on a seven-point scale. Environmental, organizational and strategy variables subjected to Q-factor analysis with varimax rotation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSchendel \u0026amp; Hofer\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1979\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Share increasing\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Growth\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Profit\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Market concentration\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. Turnaround\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. Liquidation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConceptual constructs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMiles \u0026amp; Snow\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1978\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Defender\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Reactor\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Analyzer\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Prospector\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eA deductive\u003c/em\u003e definition of strategy patterns. Tested with study of 16 textbook publishers. Confirmed by studies of 52 electronics and food processing firms and 19 hospitals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWissema et al\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1980\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Explosive growth\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Expansion\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Continuous growth\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Slip strategy\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.Consolidation\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.Contraction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstructed a BCG type grid, which they called the product-market combination (PMC) grid. Identified 6 manager archetypes which corresponded to the 6 strategy types and discussed the need for proper matching.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePorter\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1980\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Cost leadership\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Differentiation\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Focussed differentiation\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Cost focus\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstructed Competitive Advantage/Competitive Scope grid and analysed \u0026ldquo;value systems\u0026rdquo; as the source of firm competitive advantage (cost focus and focused differentiation strategies sometimes treated as one).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHambrick\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1983\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh Profit Archetypes:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Cost leader\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Asset follower\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.High quality gendarme\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Broad based differentiator\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.Prospector\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.Asset focuser\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLow Profit Archetypes:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Inefficient through dispersion\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Passive anemics\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Overexposed, under-competitive\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Asset-heavy, value-light\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudied 164 mature capital goods industry firms using data from PIMS database. Used panel to code strategic factors of firms and regressed it on ROI. Conducted factor and cluster analysis to identify high and low profit archetypes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAuthor(s)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy Types\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMethod\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGalbraith \u0026amp; Schendel\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1983\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsumer product archetypes:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Harvest\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Builder\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Cashout\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.Niche\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.Climber\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.Continuity\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndustrial product archetypes:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Low commitment\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Growth\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Maintenance\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Niche\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsed PIMS database to study consumer and industrial product firms. Analysed 26 variables using principle components (SPSS) and cluster analysis (AQD).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMintzberg \u0026amp; Waters\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1985\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Planned\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Entrepreneurial\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Ideological\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Umbrella\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.Process\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.Unconnected\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.Consensus\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.Imposed\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDeveloped theoretical strategy types that fit on a continuum beginning with most deliberate strategies and ending with the most emergent strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCool \u0026amp; Schendel\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1987\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Large, R\u0026amp;D intensive, broad market and product base\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Large, advertising intensive, diverse\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Medium \u0026ndash;sized, \u0026ldquo;me-too\u0026rdquo; product development and promotion intensive\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Medium-sized, promotion intensive\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Small firms, few products, few market segments, \u0026ldquo;me-too\u0026rdquo; product development\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Very small, very focused, minimal R\u0026amp;D\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsed multiple databases to study US pharmaceutical firms. Used cluster analysis to identify strategic group formation and evolution markets, fewer segments and products over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRobinson \u0026amp; Pearce\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1988\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Service reinsertion\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.No clear orientation\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Service markets and brand/channel influence\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Product innovation/development\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.Brand identification/channel influence and efficiency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudied 97 manufacturing firms in 60 industries to develop 5 strategy types. Analysed performance by strategy type vs. planning sophistication. Used top and bottom 20% of companies to identify performance differences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStearns et al.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1995\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Survival chances not significantly impacted by industry.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Survival associated with location and strategy (broadly focused strategies have greater chance of survival than narrow focused).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudied 1900 new firms to examined interaction of location, industry and strategy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSource: Compiled from literature, particularly Herman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e) and Wilbon (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR122\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTechnology Strategies (and their Management)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;A Technology Strategy is the approach that a firm takes to obtaining and using technology to achieve a new competitive advantage, or to defend an existing technology-oriented competitive advantage against erosion\u0026rdquo; (Shane, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR107\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e, p.9). Despite this requirement managers fail to deal with technology as an integral factor in strategy formulation, which, according to Price (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR101\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e) is \u0026ldquo;due to the way the business strategy is studied and taught\u0026rdquo; (p.42). He claims that \u0026ldquo;since most economics models do not encompass change rather focus on equilibria, they do not hold technology in a central position\u0026rdquo;. Besides product development based on market demands, the need for process changes in technologies and in other functional areas should be considered as part of strategy formulation. The advantages of this are clearly articulated by White and Bruton (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR121\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), \u0026ldquo;holding technology in a central position could provide efficiency to a firm by providing more profits\u0026rdquo; (p.8).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpital and Bickford (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR113\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e) define technology strategy as a \u0026ldquo;set of strategic decisions and actions through which managers seek to transform inputs into outputs, with the objective of achieving competitive advantage\u0026rdquo; (p.31). The strategy management literature, in part, addresses these linkages between strategy and firm performance. For example Snow and Hrebiniak (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR112\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e), Ford (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e) and Leonard-Barton (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e) identify the importance of core competencies as a source of competitive advantage and highlight the role that technology can play in the creation of core competencies. Leonard-Barton (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e) also agrees that \u0026ldquo;one of the core competencies of organisations should be the capacity to incorporate new technology into products; in short, the organisations should be run as learning organisations\u0026rdquo; (p.23). In learning organisations, patterns of organisational knowledge creation differ across various forms of organisations and that knowledge is created through a continuous dialogue between tacit and explicit knowledge with four patterns of knowledge conversion (Lee \u0026amp; Yoon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e, p.555).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFord (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e) suggests that \u0026ldquo;the core competencies of companies reside not in their markets or products, but in their technologies, i.e. in what they know about their technologies and what they can do with them\u0026rdquo; (p.85). Clarke et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e) surveyed 174 UK companies on their approach to managing their technologies. The results indicated that the companies did not accord much importance to their technology while formulating their strategies. According to Clarke et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e), \u0026ldquo;academic approaches to technology strategy are over-simplified and do not help managers to understand the nature of their technology and the technological networks of which their firms form a part\u0026rdquo; (p.215). The role of technology in firms gaining competitive advantage has been addressed by several authors, including Frohman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e), Fusfeld (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e) and Dvir et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). The latter mention that \u0026ldquo;the technological progress is positively correlated with success of firm; the progress being the ability to scan the environment, be aware of the new technology and incorporate them in their plants and products\u0026rdquo; (p.155). Similarly, Holland (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e) emphasises the role of technology strategies in achieving competitive advantage: \u0026ldquo;Technology has a competitive impact in two ways: it is a market advantage in terms of value addition and a cost advantage in terms of improving the system economics and this needs to be incorporated in the strategies of the companies\u0026rdquo; (p.4).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnology strategy, according to Wilson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR123\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e), should cover at least three interrelated business areas: \u0026ldquo;1. Product development, 2. Process development and 3. Information systems; as all are related to technology\u0026rdquo; (p.21). For Porter (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR99\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e), \u0026ldquo;Competitive advantage is enhanced by strategic innovation in product or process generation and that technological change is the most common precursor of strategic innovation\u0026rdquo; (p.111). It can thus be concluded that there is growing recognition of the relationship between a firm\u0026rsquo;s technical knowledge and its ability to succeed in a competitive environment. Technology strategy according to Shane (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR107\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e, p.9), is different from business strategy as it has to deal with \u0026ldquo;uncertainty issues, involves the use of intellectual capital, involves new products and services and creates new business dynamics\u0026rdquo;, while, more summarily, Messina (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e) writes of the subject: \u0026ldquo;Technology strategies, have been recognised as the strategic weapons in business level strategies\u0026rdquo; (p.49). As common sense as this may seem, Ansoff\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e) definition comes with a warning: \u0026ldquo;Technology strategy considerations, however, while important in the development of business level strategies, especially for medium and high-tech companies, ought not drive a company to adopt an exclusively technological strategic orientation\u0026rdquo; (p.37). Snow and Hrebiniak (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR112\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e) conducted a study in which they analysed the four strategy types of Miles and Snow and concluded that, \u0026ldquo;out of ten strategy variables analysed, none of the four strategy types could be distinguished on the basis of any single distinctive competence, apart from product research and development\u0026rdquo;. The research at the core of this paper is also inclined in this direction; it is aligned with the view that \u0026lsquo;technology [strategy] is a critical factor in the formulation of business level strategies\u0026rsquo; (Kantrow, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e, p.21).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn 1967, Ansoff and Stewart identified four strategy types: first to market, follow the leader, applications engineering and low cost, and in 1982, Freeman identified six generic innovation studies: offensive, defensive, initiative, dependent, traditional and opportunist. Then in 1988 Madique and Patch suggested six dimensions of technology strategy at the business-unit level (these are: \u0026ldquo;technology selection, level of competence, sources of technology, level of investment, competitive timing, and organisation and policies\u0026rdquo;). Cusumano and Rosenbloom (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e) proposed similar dimensions to those suggested by Madique and Patch.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to the development of strategy types, substantial work has also been undertaken towards analyzing the scope and role of technology strategies. Kotha, Dunbar \u0026amp; Bird (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e) analysed 22 generic competitive methods and reported on the ways in which American firms develop strategic positions to differentiate them from their competitors. This is in contrast to Japanese firms which technology strategies to help them establish a stable and defensible position.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn their analysis of technology strategies, Goll and Rasheed (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e) determine that \u0026ldquo;Dynamism and complexity of the environment affects a firm\u0026rsquo;s performance\u0026rdquo; (p.589). Porter (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e) also addresses the nature of the environment in his study, while Miller and Friesen (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e), in looking into prior work done by researchers on the effect of industry environment on the development of technology strategies at the firm level, show that certain environments encourage certain strategies. Miller D. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e) notes that \u0026ldquo;product innovation differentiation strategies are more frequent in dynamic environments\u0026rdquo;. In support of this theme, McCarthy and Spital (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e) report that CEOs in their study believed that \u0026ldquo;successful firms in dynamic environments are those that pursued product innovation\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterestingly, despite the importance of technological innovation, McCarthy and Spital (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e) do not say anything about why companies need to develop strategies to manage innovation. Since the level of uncertainty around technology change is so great, it would be fair to suggest that technology strategy carries with it more responsibility than business strategy. The tools required to make informed decisions on technology related products and services are different to those required for generic products and services. Thus, technology strategy and its management could be explored in business organisations and could provide useful information to CEOs and other stakeholders. Moreover, technology strategy, according to Shane (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR107\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), \u0026ldquo;does not occur in [a] vacuum but is affected by the environment in which it occurs\u0026rdquo; (p.11). Those technology strategies that work in one environment may not work in another, and it is this that provokes a need to study these strategies in the context of different cultures and environment; this is the prime focus of this study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough there is great concern among researchers on the need to find a fit between strategy and structure and \u0026ldquo;few studies have focussed directly on the empirical relationship among business strategy and technology policy\u0026rdquo; (Zahra \u0026amp; Covin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR127\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e, p.452), Zahra and Covin suggest an important area for future studies; this is \u0026ldquo;...the process by which content of technology policy is defined and its linkages with business strategy are established. .... there is a \u003cem\u003epaucity of comprehensive empirical studies on technology policy\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;. According to these researchers, previous studies have dealt separately with the strategy and management dimensions of business.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eZahra and Covin (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR128\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e), state that literature on technology strategy has many areas that need to be addressed by researchers. First is the lack of empirical analysis as most of the work has been conceptual. Secondly the models should be multidimensional (which has been addressed by researchers) and lastly, financial performance implications of technology strategy are desperately needed. Adler (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e) and Utterback (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR120\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e) suggested that future research on technology strategy should focus at firm level. This study contributes to literature in providing empirical support for the multidimensional conceptual models on technology strategy and its influence on performance of firms. It also contributes by adding the dimension of firms operating in a different context (i.e. East) as most of the literature focused on the firms in the West.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevious research has provided the context for the investigation into the technology strategies of the E\u0026amp;E manufacturing sub-sector of Malaysia. The objective of this investigation is to identify those technology strategy \u0026lsquo;factors\u0026rsquo; adopted by firms that contributed to their success. Identification of such strategy factors would be a useful contribution to the field of strategic management application in the high-tech sector. An understanding of the link between strategy factors and company performance in the E\u0026amp;E manufacturing sector would facilitate the development of technology management strategies by local firms in the E\u0026amp;E and other manufacturing sectors. Extension of this research to include testing the appropriateness of these strategy factors (framework) in another manufacturing sub-sector could provide technology strategists and researchers with an extremely useful means for comparative analysis of the growth process in the entire manufacturing sector.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHipkin\u0026rsquo;s (2004) view that \u0026ldquo;managers in a developing country will have an increased ability to control technology strategy may prove to be misguided, or even naive, unless mangers are able to take into account all organizational issues that link and affect their technology and business strategy\u0026rdquo; (p.258), is an optimistic one. His point is sound, though: the linkage between technology and strategy is influenced by non-technical, political and economic issues. These influences, however, do not form part of this particular study. Raymond and Croteau (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR102\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e, p.194) opine that strategy is the mediating force between the firm and its environment, it constitutes in concrete fashion the basic alignment mechanism, and the organisational technology must be compatible with this strategy if one aims to create a significant competitive advantage. STM comprises more than choosing a device to produce a particular good or goods; it includes the control of technical and non-technical items that link technology to strategy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnology strategy is realised in practice through various means like internal and external technology sourcing, deploying technology in product and process development and using technology in technical support activities. These activities enhance firm\u0026rsquo;s technical capabilities (Sahoo, Banwet \u0026amp; Momaya, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR106\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e, p.14) and it is expected should provide a competitive advantage. This research has included these dimensions in the development of the questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOf particular importance for the present study are those prior research efforts that sought to categorize the strategies adopted by companies competing in an environment of rapid technological change. These studies typically refer to \u0026lsquo;strategy\u0026rsquo; types and do not recognise the distinction between strategy and management (TS \u0026amp; TM) that Herman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e) has made. A summary of the technology strategy types that have been developed by different researchers in this field is included in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. The strategy (TS) and management (TM) dimensions for the present study were developed from this prior research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere are many intersections between elements of business level strategy (e.g. business framework, organization, products, markets and distribution) and the elements of technology strategy (e.g. technology type, rate of adoption and level of investment), as has been demonstrated by Miles and Snow (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e) and Porter (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e). This study does not attempt to address these similarities or differences, as the focus is primarily on technology strategies and associated management practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnology strategy-types summary\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAuthor(s)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy types\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMethod\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnsoff \u0026amp; Stewart\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1967\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.First to market\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Follow the leader\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Applications engineering\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Me too (low cost)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA deductive definition of technically intensive companies\u0026rsquo; strategies for entry into an emerging industry.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFreeman\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1982\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Offensive\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Defensive\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Imitative\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Dependent\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.Traditional\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. Opportunist\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA deductive definition of innovation strategies for firms confronted with technological change.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGalbraith \u0026amp; Schendel\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1983\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eConsumer product archetypes\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Harvest\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Builder\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Cash-out\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Niche\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.Climber\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.Continuity\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIndustrial product archetypes\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Low commitment\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Growth\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Maintenance\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Niche\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn inductive study. Used PIMS database to study consumer and industrial firms. Analysed 26 variables using principal components (SPSS) and cluster analysis (AQD).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMintzberg \u0026amp; Waters\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1985\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Planned\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Entrepreneurial\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Ideological\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Umbrella\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.Process\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.Unconnected\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.Consensus\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.Imposed\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDeveloped theoretical strategy types that fit on a continuum beginning with most deliberate strategies and ending with the most emergent strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnsoff\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1987\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Production-driven\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Product-driven\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Market-driven\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Strategic orientation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretical strategy types based on the firm\u0026rsquo;s strategic conception.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHorwitch \u0026amp; Thietart\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1987\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIndustrial businesses\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Established suppliers\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Fast movers\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.High-tech job shops\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Stalled giants\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eConsumer businesses\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Established diversifiers\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Dominant specialists\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Laggers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn inductive study. Empirical analysis of high-tech PIMS companies studying influence of three interdependencies:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Vertical integration\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Shared facilities\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Shared marketing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMiller, A\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1988\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Established batch\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Innovative batch\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Flexible line\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Fixed line\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.Unaltered process\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. Modified process\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn inductive study. Empirical study of manufacturing strategies on three dimensions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Production method\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Rate of innovation\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Production sophistication\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRadnor\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1991\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.External and internal technology acquisition mix\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudy on make vs buy strategies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurry \u0026amp; Clayton\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1992\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Adapt-adopt strategy\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Incremental innovation strategy\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Break-through strategy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch study on innovation strategies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKarlsson\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1992\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.New technologies in mature industries\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.System integration technology\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.External sources reliance\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Network collaboration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudy on technology strategies and structures used in industrial networks\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMadique \u0026amp; Patch\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1988\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIdentified four business strategies\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.First to market\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Second to market\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Late to market\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Market segmentation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConceptual study employing six technologies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRobinson \u0026amp; Pearce\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1988\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Service orientation\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.No clear orientation\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Service markets and brand/channel influence\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Product innovation/development\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.Brand identification/channel influence and efficiency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudies 97 manufacturing firms in 60 industries to develop five strategy types. Analysed performance by strategy type versus planning sophistication. Used top and bottom 20% of companies to identify performance differences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWesthead\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1995\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Founders having more experience in non-manufacturing industries were more likely to survive.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Five characteristics associated with survival (age, employment size, regional development assistance, large-sized units and more than one shareholder).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExamined the performances of 166 UK owner-managed high technology firms to determine which ones were more likely to grow and survive.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHerman\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1998\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eStrategy cluster\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Manufacturing technology leadership\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Product leader\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Technology neutral\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.New product leader\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.Non-technical\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.Product technology focused\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.Non-manufacturing new product focused\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eManagement cluster\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Non-technical market driven\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Informed technology acquirer\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Expert technology exploiter\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Technology avoider\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.Technology gambler\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.Informed technology developer\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.External technology dependent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSurveyed 534 firms in five industrial groups to develop seven strategy types and seven management types. Used cluster analysis to identify strategy types.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWilbon\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1999\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTechnology strategy\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Technology posture\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Intellectual property rights\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Technology sourcing\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Technology portfolio\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. Scope of R\u0026amp;D\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. Technology experienced executives\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e7. R\u0026amp;D spending\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e8. Geographic focus\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollected data of 168 firms from their IPO prospectus. Performed regression analysis on the technology strategy variables and IPO performance. Found that technology strategies of intellectual property rights, technology portfolio scope of R\u0026amp;D and technology experienced executives did not correlate with IPO performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSource: Compiled from literature, particularly Herman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e) and Wilbon (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR122\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFirm\u0026rsquo;s Performance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerformance is a dependent construct associated with Miles and Snow\u0026rsquo;s strategy types (Miles \u0026amp; Snow, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e). There have thus been different results in research done for different strategy types. Moreover, the performance parameter used (sales growth, market share etc) also influence the level of leverage the strategies provide. Such fluctuation in empirical results may be due to the fact that these studies were conducted in different industries (Raymond \u0026amp; Croteau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR102\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e, p.194). As such it was decided to concentrate on one industry in this study and E\u0026amp;E sector in Malaysia was selected due to its remarkable growth during the first IMP period. Adler (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e) and Utterback (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR120\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e) also suggested that future research on technology strategy should focus at firm level, which this study attempts to address.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnology intensive firms employ S-curves as graphical representations of effort versus performance. These curves get their name from the shape of the curve (S-shaped). Initially performance improvements are low. Thereafter, once the knowledge of drivers which improve performance is learnt, rapid improvement results. When the technology reaches its physical limit, the curve flattens \u0026ndash; indicating, more efforts are required to bring about even incremental improvements. Performance measures used for these S-curves include cost, speed, capacity, etc, whereas, \u003cem\u003eeffort\u003c/em\u003e might be measured in hours worked, R\u0026amp;D cost, etc. Shane (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR107\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) believes that an understanding of how technology advances along an S-Curve could help in the formulation of effective technology strategies. Previous empirical research on the strategy/performance relationship has provided strong evidence that suggests technology strategies are associated with the performance of firms (Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e; Kotha \u0026amp; Nair, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). The S-curve concept could probably be used in future longitudinal studies to determine the effect of technology strategies (by replacing \u003cem\u003eTS\u003c/em\u003e for \u003cem\u003eeffort\u003c/em\u003e on the curve) on a firm\u0026rsquo;s performance. This study, however, aims to analyse a given period (1986\u0026ndash;1995) and to determine just the relationship between technology strategies and performance. Although other factors like level of R\u0026amp;D efforts and outcomes which are result of the strategies of the firm and the government initiatives, also determine the level of success (Mu \u0026amp; Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e, p.765), this research focuses on the technology strategies at the firm level alone.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs Edler, Meyer and Reger (2002) point out, sales growth rate has also been used as an indicator of effectiveness of technology strategies of the firm: \u0026ldquo;Linking technology strategy on the corporate level to corporate strategy seems to pay off, however, the strength of these linkages relates to various performance indicators which include sales growth rate\u0026rdquo; ( p.154). This study uses sales revenue growth to measure the performance of firms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eConceptual Model\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e The literature review resulted in the identification of a number of elements for the dimensions of Technology Strategy (TS) and Technology Management (TM). This study examines the five elements that comprise TS, namely: technology posture, technology level, technology breadth, product development, technology timing and manufacturing, and process technology. It also examines the five elements that comprise TM, namely: technology awareness, technology acquisition, technology and product planning, organization and management of R\u0026amp;D, and investment in R\u0026amp;D. Although these elements have been validated in previous research, my aim was to observe their application in a culturally different environment. The dimensions were earlier applied in high technology industries in the West by Herman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). Of course even if one believed that technology management was a set of universally generalizable principles, we can probably agree that these principles are contingent on specific sets of contextual feature (Liker, Gibson \u0026amp; Wu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e, p.210). This argument provides the incentive and opportunity to explore if the technology management strategies applied in West are really different than in the East and as such I selected Malaysia as the scene for my study. To investigate the various relationships between the factors of TS and TM dimensions, a firm\u0026rsquo;s performance and selected background variables two general hypotheses (which relate to the two research questions) were proposed as part of this study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe concepts discussed earlier leads to the development of an inclusive framework by drawing on the literature that has been reviewed earlier. The purpose of this framework is to present a conceptual model for STM in developing eastern countries. The model and hypotheses are based on the concepts grounded in the research on technology management explored as part of the literature review.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe conceptual research model (Fig.\u0026nbsp;1) focuses on the types of STM factors adopted by the firms and their relationship with performance. The association between nature and size of the firm and the acquisition of these factors, and the relationship between the background variables and performance of firms also forms part of the model. The model has been built based on the discussions on technology strategy and strategic content in technology management including theories from Business Strategy in the previous sections. The conceptual model was developed to achieve the objectives of the big research, a portion of which forms part of this paper.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe relationships between the TS and TM constructs and firm performance which have been tested in previous studies in the West are explored in this research based on this model. The constructs to be tested will be those evolved after data analysis. This is the significant contribution of this research as never before such a relationship has been tested in the East.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe treatment of dimensions, elements and items is depicted in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. There are two research dimensions (technology strategy and technology management), each comprised of five elements with three to four items for each element. The detailed operationalized framework of STM in the model is given in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDeveloped for this paper from the discussions based on literature review\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eResearch Hypotheses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe following sections aim to develop the research hypotheses which could provide answer to the two research questions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTechnology strategy and management factors and their impact on performance (Hypotheses H1a \u0026amp; H1b : Research Question 1\u0026amp;2)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe literature has implicitly accepted the notion that TS and TM contribute to the performance of firms. Firms can benefit from increased productivity by improving their capacity to process and also through product improvements \u003cb\u003e(\u003c/b\u003eDi Romualdo \u0026amp; Gurbaxani, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e ; Rishel \u0026amp; Burns, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR103\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). According to Attaran (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) technology only does not provide success but its management is equally important. Technology provides a competitive edge to firms and according to Dvir et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e) technological progress is positively correlated with success of firm. In contrast out of the four strategy types of Miles and Snow, only research and development could be distinguished in providing a distinctive competence. Yuan et al (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR126\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e, p.635) suggest that, a strategist\u0026rsquo;s rationality is not only bounded but also contingent on the context in which she or he makes decisions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt would be interesting to know if research and development contributes to the success of firms in the East as well (Malaysia in this study). Lately there has been a \u0026ldquo;shift from an R\u0026amp;D management focused attitude towards a combination of innovation, technology and strategy\u0026rdquo; (Chiaromonte, 2003).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile analysing the effect of TS and TM on performance, it is possible that either both influence performance, or any one of them. Herman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e, p.111) in his research on electronics industries in the USA, determined that TM contributed to the growth rate of firm whereas TS did not.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThomas and McGee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR119\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e) suggest that technology strategy should be regarded broader than the R\u0026amp;D process. Zahra and Covin (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR127\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e) suggest that previous studies have dealt separately with the strategy and management dimensions of business. It is the content of this study to deal with both the TS and TM dimensions simultaneously and determine if they correlate with the success of firms (This study included questions on both these dimension under one heading as such respondents were not biased towards any one of these). The expected relationship between STM (H1) factors and performance therefore leads to the following two testable hypotheses (H1a and H1b):\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH1: Application of STM by the E\u0026amp;E firms in Malaysia is correlated to their performance.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH1a: The greater the focus on TS, the better the performance for E\u0026amp;E firms in Malaysia.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH1b: The greater the focus on TM, the better the performance for E\u0026amp;E firms in Malaysia.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e "},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSample and data collection procedures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA mixed methods approach has been used to address the research questions. This method allows for flexibility in sample sizes that depend on the margin of sampling errors, and also allows the researcher to collect richer sources of information to clarify the quantitative outcomes. A survey instrument was developed based on that used in a study by Herman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). Qualitative data was also collected as part of this survey instrument. This was done in order to uncover perceptions concerning the local environment and was posed to selected chief executive officers and senior managers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Department of Commerce USA (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR118\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e, 1996) defines a high technology industry on the basis of the percentage of its investment in R\u0026amp;D relative to its sales revenue. As a general rule, technology-intensive industries are those that spend five percent or more of their sales revenue on R\u0026amp;D. However, since most of the companies in Malaysia are multinationals and do not usually carry out local R\u0026amp;D (which is only done at their headquarters) this criterion has not been employed in this study. Rather, Button\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e) approach, which identifies the electronics \u0026amp; computer industries as high-tech industries, has been used. Although MNCs in the E\u0026amp;E sector outnumbered other types, this study chose to include all types of firms within this sub-sector: multinationals (MNCs), joint ventures (JVs), foreign-owned (FO) and locally-owned (LO). The further classification of firms was inspired by Thomas and Mcgee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR119\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e) who define firms in terms of modes of innovation: \u0026ldquo;mode 1 as small high technology firms, mode 2 as large multi-product, multi-market, and multi-divisional corporations and mode 3 as huge multinational enterprises that usually involve public and private sector collaboration on mission-oriented programs\u0026rdquo; (p.266). The scope of this study is restricted to strategies adopted during the first IMP period. The strategies developed would help researchers to apply these (rather the ones from the West) and test their applicability in the East in different manufacturing sectors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe list of electrical and electronic firms in existence was extracted from the FMM Industry Directory made available by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e), Malaysia. Only electrical and electronics firms were included in the survey. The electrical sector is made up of companies that manufacture electrical appliances, wires, cables and electrical industrial apparatuses. The electronics sector includes computers, semiconductors and components, telecommunications equipment and consumer electronics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere were a total of 380 E\u0026amp;E firms listed, including 169 dealing with electronics only. However, about 80 of these manufactured items outside the sector of interest, so they were excluded, leaving about 300 firms for the survey. This sample was considered as a probable one and it was thus possible to \u0026ldquo;extrapolate beyond the sample to establish findings for the wider population of interest\u0026rdquo; (Ahmed \u0026amp; Tsu, 1999, p.184). Because of their familiarity with technology management and strategy issues in their firm, the CEO or the technology manager of each firm was expected to complete the questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research was designed in three phases. The first phase involved the development of a survey instrument. The survey instrument was developed in line with the objectives of the research and so as to maximize information extraction from the respondents (Kinnear, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e, p.29).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFive types of data were gathered for the study. These related to the respondent\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndividual's profile;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrganisation/business;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompetitive environment;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnology (strategy and management); and\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eManagement issues.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdvantage was taken of prior surveys in selecting the variables chosen for the study, especially Herman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). Data was gathered with respect to five strategy and five management elements. Individual profile and organisational data was used to check for response bias and content validity. Competitive environment data was gathered as an indication of markets in which these firms operate. Technology data was used to identify the existence (or absence) of technology strategies and the respondent\u0026rsquo;s level of knowledge about technology. Respondents were asked to indicate any specific management issues their firm faced, and these comments were then used to develop appropriate variables for statistical manipulation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second phase involved the pilot testing of the survey instrument. The pilot study involved ten firms and sought to assess the clarity and usefulness of the questionnaire items. The pilot study included face-to-face interviews with CEOs of the selected E\u0026amp;E companies. Based on feedback from these participants, it became apparent that the questionnaire would need some modification, especially in the section which asked for financial information (CEOs\u0026rsquo; responses indicated that companies not listed on the stock exchange would be reluctant to provide this information). Questions relating to company type and job position were modified from open-ended to categorical, based on responses from the pilot survey. Additional questions were also included based on respondents\u0026rsquo; feedback, including asking respondents about an indicative figure of the performance of the firm\u0026rsquo;s post-IMP1 period.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhase three of the study involved the administration of the survey. The final paper-and-pencil questionnaire was administered in Malaysia using first class mail with a postage-paid return envelope enclosed. The support of a colleague from the University of Science in Malaysia was enlisted, and a request to return the completed questionnaire to her was included in the covering letter. This was expensive and time-consuming, as it required a number of visits to Malaysia. It proved to be the best option, however, after two years of attempts to administer the survey had failed. This was for two reasons: first, because the researcher lived overseas, which was at a distance from the research setting and, second, because senior executives were reluctant to share the sensitive information requested with a foreigner. Working with the colleague\u0026rsquo;s imprimatur helped to overcome these problems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe response rate was initially 18%, this increased to 26.5% (useful rate being 20.7%) after two follow-up letters were sent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMeasure of key constructs\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Jones et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e), \u0026ldquo;Successful technology strategy management must go beyond content, implementation is as important\u0026rdquo; (p.158). Consistent with this, Strategic Technology Management (STM) in this study encompasses both technology strategy (content) and technology management (process). There are ten elements of Strategic Technology Management that were selected for this study. Each element is measured through inductively developed items in order to develop a richer description of the element and to triangulate on the element value.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA 4-point modified Likert scale was chosen due to its inherent advantages over the original odd-numbered Likert scale. This was because some researchers have found that the middle category in the Likert scale with its odd number of points can result in biased response sets, and that \u0026ldquo;comparing an even number of scale options would eliminate this problem\u0026rdquo; (Chang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e, p.206).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs previously mentioned, the technology strategy and management elements chosen were taken from Herman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e, p.53). Technology strategy dimension was measured via a four-item scale which addressed the following elements:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. \u003cb\u003eTechnology posture\u003c/b\u003e: refers to a firm's preference for or propensity to use technology proactively in positioning itself (Oster, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR93\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e; Zahra \u0026amp; Covin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR127\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e2. \u003cb\u003eTechnology level\u003c/b\u003e: refers to the \u0026ldquo;sophistication of the technology employed by the firm relative to the state-of-the-art\u0026rdquo; (Maidique \u0026amp; Patch, 1988; Clark et al., 1989; Miller A, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e; Herman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e3. \u003cb\u003eProduct development intensity\u003c/b\u003e: refers to the number and rate of new product introductions (Zahra \u0026amp; Covin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR127\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e, p.457; Dvir et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Clark et al., 1989; Herman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Miller A, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e4. \u003cb\u003eTechnology timing\u003c/b\u003e: refers to a firm's propensity to lead or follow competitors in introducing new products (Maidique \u0026amp; Patch, 1988).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. \u003cb\u003eManufacturing and process technology\u003c/b\u003e: refers to the \u0026ldquo;degree to which new technology is incorporated into the firm's manufacturing plants and processes\u0026rdquo; (Miller A, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e, p.241; Zahra \u0026amp; Covin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR127\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnology management dimension was measured via a five-item scale, which addressed the following elements:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTechnology awareness\u003c/b\u003e: refers to a firm's environmental scan processes \u0026ndash; that is, the emphasis it places on acquiring information about emerging technology threats, opportunities and sources (Dvir et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Herman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Clark et al., 1989).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTechnology acquisition\u003c/b\u003e: refers to the methods and techniques employed by firms to acquire technology; that is, internally (R\u0026amp;D) or externally (by licensing, partnering or purchase) (Maidique \u0026amp; Patch, 1988; Clark et al., 1989).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTechnology and product planning\u003c/b\u003e: refers to the formal planning processes that firms utilize to select and manage R\u0026amp;D programs (Maidique \u0026amp; Patch, 1988).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eR\u0026amp;D organization and management\u003c/b\u003e: refers to the methods firms employ to organize, empower and offer incentives to R\u0026amp;D personnel (Maidique \u0026amp; Patch, 1988).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eR\u0026amp;D investment\u003c/b\u003e: refers to the methods by which firms fund R\u0026amp;D activities and the emphasis placed on achieving a specified return on investment (Clark et al., 1989; Herman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMore detailed information about the items underlying these elements is presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLabels for TS and TM Variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTS Variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTS Labels\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTM Variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTM Labels\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Pursuing high technical risk\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTPO1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Awareness of existing technologies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTAW1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Having reputation for technology innovation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTPO2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Awareness of emerging technologies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTAW2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Dominance in key technologies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTPO3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Awareness of innovative technologies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTAW3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Importance of advanced qualifications\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTLL1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Awareness of competing technologies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTAW4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.Striving for technology development\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTLL2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.Technology acquisition-within firms in Malaysia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTACQ1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.Employing pacing technologies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTLL3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.Technology acquisition-Universities, Labs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTACQ2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.Using state-of-the-art tools\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTLL4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.Technology acquisition-from outside firms within Malaysia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTACQ3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.Reducing product development time\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePDI1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.Market-driven programs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTPP1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.Increasing no. of products\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePDI2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.Product-driven programs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTPP2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.Continuously improving products\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePDI3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.Formal planning processes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTPP3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.First in discovering technologies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTTIM1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.R\u0026amp;D integrated programs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRDOM1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.First in introducing new products\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTTIM2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.Researchers empowered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRDOM2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.First to introduce low cost products\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTTIM3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.Rewarding R\u0026amp;D success\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRDOM3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.Unique products manufacturing capability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMPT1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.High R\u0026amp;D investment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRDI1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.Low manufacturing cost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMPT2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.Ensuring high return on R\u0026amp;D investment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRDI2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.Improving production flexibility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMPT3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.External R\u0026amp;D funding\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRDI3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eSource: Developed for this paper\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFirm\u0026rsquo;s Performance Dimensions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe success of strategy implementation can be deduced from the organisation\u0026rsquo;s ability to achieve its strategic performance, which is measured through financial performance, and market performance, as well as through its success in achieving its overall goals (Shrivastava, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR109\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e). Performance can be captured through various measures, including growth, return on assets and return on equity. In this study firm performance was measured using Sales Revenue Growth (SRG); that is, by considering the annual sales revenue at the start and end of the period of this study. SRG reflects the effects of technology strategy decisions. Herman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e) indicates that \u0026ldquo;there are certain exogenous variables that also affect SRG, such as inflation and varying industry segment growth rates, SRG is less subject to distortions caused by internal decisions or definitions than some other indicators\u0026rdquo; (p.57). He further elaborates that by restricting the study to a single industry \u0026ndash; the E\u0026amp;E industry \u0026ndash; it is possible to minimize the variation effects of inflation and market growth.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough SRG is not a perfect measure, various researchers have found it adequate for performance, especially for developing countries (Buzzel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1975\u003c/span\u003e). Kim \u0026amp; Lim (1998) used SRG, along with other measures, in their study on the growth of the electronics industry in Korea, and averaged the growth over a three year period. Parker \u0026amp; Helms (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e) have also used SRG in their study which focussed on firm performance in declining industries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHabib and Victor (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e, p.597) analysed the performance of MNCs and the measure used for this purpose was the Return on Assets i.e. firm\u0026rsquo;s relative efficiency in the utilization of its assets. They used ROA for two years and then took the average.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the purposes of this study SRG (as a percentage) was used as the measure which is given by the following formula:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cimg src=\"https://myfiles.space/user_files/58894_9946feeafa4c1df7/58894_custom_files/img1732170101.png\" width=\"543\" height=\"53\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data-analysis phase had the following objective:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eTo analyze the data using statistical methods, and to explore relationships between strategy and management factors and a firm\u0026rsquo;s performance.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough 101 responses were received, only 62 of these contained usable data. The unusable responses were either blank or inconsistent. Within these 62 responses some respondents did not answer some of the questions. These were treated as missing variables for the purpose of analysis. This response rate of 20.6% is considered highly satisfactory, since responding to mail questionnaires has not been a widely accepted practice among firms in Malaysia. The response rate was relatively high compared with other studies involving Malaysian firms (Mohamad \u0026amp; Wheeler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e, p.17). It also matches the response rate of 21% achieved in a survey of 196 electronic firms in Singapore (Campbell \u0026amp; Foo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e), a response rate of 11% achieved in a survey of 297 firms on strategic management issues by Penaloza, Brooks and Marche (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e), a response rate of 21% achieved in a survey on strategic management research by Daniels (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e) and a response rate of 21% achieved in a survey of 339 firms on sourcing practices in the Malaysian E\u0026amp;E sector (similar sample as in my survey) by Sidin and Cheng (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR110\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e, p.35). In some developed countries \u0026ndash; for example the study of the current engineering practices in the manufacturing sector by Huang and Mak (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e, p.25) in the UK \u0026ndash; the response rate was only 10%. Thus, a response rate of 21% in a developing country is encouraging. Twenty-six of the questionnaires were completed by CEOs/Managing Directors and 75 by others.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe responses were entered as suitable variables in the SPSS software (Coakes \u0026amp; Steed, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). This package was used for all further data analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA cross-tab analysis was performed, comparing respondents from MNC, JV, FO and LO organisations to determine and compare their levels of technology awareness. This was important because a lack of technology awareness when answering questions about technology management issues might undermine the utility of the answers received. The results indicated that the respondents were quite clear about what technology was, and hence were able to provide valid responses to the main questionnaire items.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFactor analysis was used to reduce the original number of items in the survey and to evolve the factors underlying the Technology Strategy and Technology Management dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere were 16 variables used in the technology management analysis and a similar number in the technology strategy analysis. The 62 useful responses provided a 4:1 ratio of observations to variables; thus, it could be used for factor analysis, being close to the \u0026ldquo;required 5:1 and minimum absolute sample size to be 50\u0026rdquo; as recommended by (Hair, Anderson, Tatham \u0026amp; Black, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e, p.113).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrelation analysis was employed to test the strength of the relationship between variables, while multiple regression analysis was also used to test the nature of the relationships between the variables of interest. The multiple regression was performed with few variables (after factor analysis was performed), therefore, the rule of thumb i.e. 10 times as many observations as variables is still observed (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;62). However, it is should be noted that estimates in the regression need to be considered with caution given the small sample size.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eAlthough the survey was sent to CEOs, 26% of those who completed the survey were general managers, 21% were managing directors, and 13% were factory managers (as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). This is an improvement on a study by Edler et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) where only senior R\u0026amp;D Managers were included in a benchmarking study of technology management.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFactor Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFactor analysis was used to reduce the original number of items in the survey. The literature review identified several variables which could be used to measure two dimensions which define strategic technology management. These two dimensions are referred to as technology management (TM) and technology strategy (TS). A thorough analysis of the environment in which the survey was carried out revealed that 32 items could be used to measure these dimensions. According to the respondents to the pilot study, these items were deemed suitable for use in the main questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrincipal Component Analysis (PCA) was selected for extracting the factors. PCA helped in the evolution of a new set of factors and some new combinations of factors. The PCA is a data reduction technique that helps identify a structure within data (Dillon \u0026amp; Goldstein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e) while retaining the original information as much as possible. In order to determine the appropriateness of the factor analytic framework, a number of methods were employed. These included Bartlett\u0026rsquo;s test of sphericity and Kaiser-Meyer-Oslen\u0026rsquo;s (KMO) test. The 16 strategy items were factor analysed using the PCA method.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eKaiser\u0026rsquo;s criterion with an Eigen value of greater than 1.0 was used to determine the number of factors to be extracted (1985). Since the simplification rather than the minimization of factors was the goal, and since these factors were subsequently to be used in regression analysis which required that they be independent, it was decided to rotate them using Oblimin with Kaiser normalisation (as can be seen in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). The extraction using PCA for the technology strategy variables revealed that three components accounted for 71.3% of the total variance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTS items: rotated factor loading\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItems\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eComponents\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Pursuing high technical risk\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.644\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Having reputation for tech. Innovation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.852\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Dominance in key technologies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.897\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Importance of advanced qualifications\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.567\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.Striving for technology development\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.786\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.Employing pacing technologies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.803\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.Using state-of-the-art tools\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.861\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.Reducing of product development time\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.575\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.Increasing no. of products\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.597\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.Continuously improving products\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.531\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.First in discovering technologies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.831\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.First in introducing new products\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.811\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.First in introducing low cost products\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.790\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.Unique products manufacturing capability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.866\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.Low manufacturing cost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.901\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.Improving production flexibility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.790\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSource: From analysis of SPSS data of this research\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHair, Anderson, Tatham \u0026amp; Black (1992, p.239) suggest that loadings of 0.5 and above can be considered very significant, although loadings of 0.19 and 0.26 (at 5 and 1 percent level of significance) can be significant if the sample size is below 100. The factor analysis revealed three factor components. The first component had 10 items that reflected technology posture, technology level, and product development intensity of the firm. This amounts to treating technology as a key positioning factor. This factor was named \u003cem\u003etechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second component had three items that relate to the firm\u0026rsquo;s position on leading in the discovery of new technologies and introducing innovative and low cost products at the right time. This factor was named \u003cem\u003etechnology leadership\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe third component had three items about manufacturing unique products in reduced times with lower process costs. These could be grouped under the category of the \u003cem\u003eincorporation of new technology into the firm\u0026rsquo;s plant and facilities\u003c/em\u003e. However, this factor was named \u003cem\u003eup-to-date plants and processes\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe extraction using PCA for the technology management variables revealed that four components accounted for 83.2% of the total variance. The rotated factor loadings are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOf the four components which were extracted, the first component had seven variables that reflected aspects such as \u0026lsquo;R\u0026amp;D investment\u0026rsquo;, its \u0026lsquo;organization and management\u0026rsquo; and a \u0026lsquo;focus on acquisition of technology within firms\u0026rsquo;. Thus, as this component was about the emphasis placed on R\u0026amp;D and its linkage with other business operations and it was named s\u003cem\u003etrategic R\u0026amp;D.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second component had four variables on \u0026lsquo;technology awareness\u0026rsquo; and one on \u0026lsquo;market driven programs\u0026rsquo;; these relate to the emphasis placed on keeping abreast with emerging technologies, and so the component was branded \u003cem\u003etechnology consciousness.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe third component had two variables and was about \u0026lsquo;technology and product planning\u0026rsquo;, reflecting a firm\u0026rsquo;s attitude to using formal processes to plan and select technology; this component was termed \u003cem\u003eformal planning.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe fourth component, which concerns the in-country external acquisition of technology, had only two variables; these related to the acquisition of technology through universities or through other companies in Malaysia. This new element was named as \u003cem\u003eexternal technology acquisition.\u003c/em\u003e As the third and fourth components each had only two variables, there may be a problem with content validity. This is a limitation which is acknowledged, and it is considered later in the study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTM items - rotated factor loading\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItems\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComponent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Awareness of existing technologies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.930\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Awareness of emerging technologies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.932\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Awareness of innovative technologies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.922\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Awareness of competing technologies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.922\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.Technology acquisition-within firms in Malaysia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.806\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.Technology acquisition-Universities, Labs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.729\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.Technology acquisition-from outside firms within Malaysia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.902\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.Market-driven programs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.556\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.Product-driven programs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.837\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.Formal planning processes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.657\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.R\u0026amp;D integrated programs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.940\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.Researchers empowered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.956\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.Rewarding R\u0026amp;D success\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.909\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.High R\u0026amp;D investment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.935\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.Ensuring high return on R\u0026amp;D investment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.954\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.External R\u0026amp;D funding\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.772\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSource: From analysis of SPSS data of this research\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese newly conceptualized factors that define the Technology Strategy and Technology Management dimensions appear are somewhat different to those proposed in the original framework and to those developed by Herman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). It is this difference that could well be so useful for making comparisons with those developed for the West, and for the development of technology strategies that are conducive to the operating environment. Reliability tests were conducted next so as to determine the robustness of these measures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCorrelation Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sample size for this study was small, so it was decided to use Pearson\u0026rsquo;s product moment coefficient method (Williams, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR124\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e and Cohen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e) to test the strength of relationships between variables. \u0026ldquo;This method provides a better chance of an accurate measure when the sample size is small\u0026rdquo; (Wilbon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR122\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e, p.164).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e summarizes the results of the correlation analyses of: 1) firm characteristics, including company type, company position, employee numbers, products produced, product type, R\u0026amp;D people, performance benchmark, major market and SRG; 2) technology management facets of \u003cem\u003estrategic R\u0026amp;D, technology consciousness, formal planning\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eexternal technology acquisition\u003c/em\u003e; and 3) technology strategy facets of \u003cem\u003etechnology positioning, technology leadership\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eup-to-date plants and processes\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing Cohen\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e) approach, the strength of correlations were defined as low for \u0026lsquo;r\u0026rsquo; values between 0.10 and 0.29, moderate for values between 0.30 and 0.49, and high for values above 0.50.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe relationship between the 10 background variables was investigated using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. Preliminary analyses were performed to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity. There were significant medium positive correlations between the category of product and the type of company (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.475, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), between the category of product and the number of employees (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.385, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) and between the category of product and the products produced (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.370, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere was a statistically significant high positive correlation between the capital investment and the number of employees in a company, indicating more capital investment association with larger companies (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.796, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), as expected.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere was a statistically significant high positive correlation between SRG and number of employees (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.753, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) as well as between SRG and capital investment(r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.729, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). This indicated that SRG was associated both with the size of the company and its capital investment. This implies that besides TS and TM dimensions, capital investment and the size of a firm also influences company performance and therefore should be used as control variables in further analyses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere was a statistically significant (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.34, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) moderate positive correlation between \u003cem\u003estrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e and SRG, with more SRG associated with greater emphasis on R\u0026amp;D. There was a positive high and significant correlation between \u003cem\u003estrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e and capital investment (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.496, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), indicating an association between a firm\u0026rsquo;s capital investment and its technology management emphasis on R\u0026amp;D.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere was a statistically significant high negative correlation between \u003cem\u003estrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e and the number of people employed in the R\u0026amp;D department (r=-0.786, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), with lower number of people in the R\u0026amp;D department associated with more emphasis in R\u0026amp;D Management. This result supports the strategic intent of most MNCs, who typically rely on their parent headquarters for R\u0026amp;D; it is a useful outcome of this study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere was a statistically significant moderate positive correlation between \u003cem\u003estrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e and the number of employees in a company (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.425, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), indicating an association between the size of a company and its emphasis on R\u0026amp;D Management.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere was a statistically significant moderate negative correlation between \u003cem\u003estrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e and the type of company (r=-0.311, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). This indicates that some type of companies place more emphasis on \u003cem\u003estrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e compared to others, and this could provide an answer to the question as to why the locally owned firms did not engage much in R\u0026amp;D.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere was a statistically significant moderate negative correlation (r=-0.366, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) between the factor of \u003cem\u003eexternal technology acquisition\u003c/em\u003e and the number of people in the R\u0026amp;D department, indicating greater emphasis on \u003cem\u003eexternal technology acquisition\u003c/em\u003e associated with companies employing fewer people in R\u0026amp;D.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere was a statistically significant moderate positive correlation (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.405, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) between SRG and \u003cem\u003etechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e, with more SRG associated with more emphasis on employing strategies to position the technology. There was a statistically significant moderate positive correlation (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.370, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) between technology position strategy and capital investment \u0026ndash; an indication there was an association between companies laying more emphasis on \u003cem\u003etechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e with those having greater capital investment initiative.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere was a statistically significant moderate positive correlation (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.307, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) between technology position strategy and number of employees in a company thereby indicating an association of companies laying more emphasis on \u003cem\u003etechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e with the size of a company. There was a statistically significant moderate negative correlation (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.456, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) between the factor of \u003cem\u003etechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e and the number of people in the R\u0026amp;D department, indicating greater emphasis on \u003cem\u003etechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e was associated with companies employing fewer people in R\u0026amp;D.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe relationship between the 10 background variables and the three new TS factors was investigated using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. There was a statistically significant moderate positive correlation between SRG and \u003cem\u003etechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.326, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) with more SRG associated with more emphasis on employing strategies to position the technology.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere was a statistically significant moderate positive correlation (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.371, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) between technology position strategy and capital investment, indicating an association between companies with a high emphasis on \u003cem\u003etechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e and those with capital investment initiative.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere was a statistically significant moderate positive correlation (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.307, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) between technology position strategy and the number of employees in a company, indicating an association between companies laying more emphasis on \u003cem\u003etechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e with the size of company. There was a statistically significant moderate negative correlation (r=-0.456, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) between the factor of \u003cem\u003etechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e and the number of people in the R\u0026amp;D department, indicating more emphasis on \u003cem\u003etechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e was associated with companies employing fewer people in R\u0026amp;D.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere was a statistically significant moderate negative correlation (r=-0.404, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) between \u003cem\u003etechnology leadership\u003c/em\u003e strategy and the number of people in R\u0026amp;D, with more emphasis on this strategy associated with R\u0026amp;D departments having fewer people.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere was a statistically significant moderate positive correlation (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.326, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) between \u003cem\u003eup-to-date plants and processes\u003c/em\u003e strategy and the position of the respondent in the company, indicating an association on the emphasis on this strategy with the type of executive in the firm.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eStrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e had a statistically significant positive moderate correlation with \u003cem\u003etechnology consciousness\u003c/em\u003e (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.409, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), \u003cem\u003eexternal technology acquisition\u003c/em\u003e (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.405, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) and \u003cem\u003eup-to-date plants and processes\u003c/em\u003e (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.372, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), and a high correlation with \u003cem\u003etechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003etechnology leadership\u003c/em\u003e (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.579, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis seems to imply that firms focussing on \u003cem\u003etechnology leadership\u003c/em\u003e and its \u003cem\u003epositioning\u003c/em\u003e lay more emphasis on carrying out \u003cem\u003estrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eTechnology consciousness\u003c/em\u003e strategy had a statistically significant positive high correlation both with technology position (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.743, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) and \u003cem\u003eup-to-date plants and processes\u003c/em\u003e (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.551, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). It had a moderate correlation with \u003cem\u003etechnology leadership\u003c/em\u003e (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.361, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). This seems to imply that firms who remain aware and vigilant on new technologies are more concerned with positioning themselves in the market, and therefore invest in their plants and processes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eFormal planning\u003c/em\u003e strategy had a statistically significant moderate correlation each with \u003cem\u003etechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.346, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), technology leadership (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.438, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) and \u003cem\u003eup-to-date plants and processes\u003c/em\u003e (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.386, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eExternal technology acquisition\u003c/em\u003e had a statistically significant moderate positive correlation both with \u003cem\u003etechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.380, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), and up-to-date plants and processes (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.323, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). This seems to be a similar result to that for \u003cem\u003etechnology consciousness\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eTechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e had a statistically significant high positive correlation with \u003cem\u003etechnology leadership\u003c/em\u003e (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.547, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) and \u003cem\u003eup-to-date plants and processes\u003c/em\u003e. (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.587, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01)\u003c/p\u003e \n\u003ch3\u003eMultiple Regression\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMultiple regression involves determining the relationships between a single dependent variable and several independent variables, and was used to determine the nature of the relationship between SRG (dependent variables) and \u003cem\u003etechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003estrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e as predictors. The control variables were NOE \u0026lsquo;the number of employees\u0026rsquo; and CI \u0026lsquo;capital investment\u0026rsquo;. There were other variables of interest; however, none of these showed any significant relationship with SRG and were thus excluded from further analyses. The SRG continuous variable which was earlier defined as [(SR in 1995 - SR in 1986)/SR in 1986] x 100 was tested for normality. It was positively skewed, hence a natural log transformation was employed to make it normal and suitable to use in subsequent analyses. The regression equation representing this relationship was:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec31\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSRG\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;a\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;b\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e TS1\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;b\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e TM1\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;b\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e NOE\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;b\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e CI\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ewhere a, b\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e, b\u003csub\u003e2,\u003c/sub\u003e b\u003csub\u003e3,\u003c/sub\u003e b\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e are the regression coefficients\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSRG is the Dependent Variable\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTM1 and TS1 are the Independent Variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNOE and CI are the Control Variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs part of the requirement of multiple regression analysis, the assumptions of multicollinearity, normality, linearity, homoscedasticity and independence of residuals were also checked.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec32\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.8.2 Assumptions Tests\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA test of multicollinearity was performed to ensure that the independent variables were not highly correlated. As part of this test, the parameters analysed included: pair wise relationships (correlations), tolerance of variation, variance inflation factor (VIF) and Eigen values. A strong association is indicated when \u0026lsquo;r\u0026rsquo; values are greater than 0.70. Tabachnick and Fidell (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR116\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) have suggested that one needs to be \u0026ldquo;cautious when including two variables with a bivariate correlation of 0.7 or more in the same analysis\u0026rdquo; (p.90). On the other hand, the independent variables should also show some relationship with the dependent variable, \u0026ldquo;preferably above 0.3\u0026rdquo; (Pallant, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e, p.149). The two independent variables of \u003cem\u003estrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003etechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e had correlation values of 0.34 and 0.33 respectively, with the dependent variable of SRG thus meeting the requirement of Pallant (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). The correlation between the two independent variables was 0.719, which was just near enough to the threshold for mulitocllinearity. Hence, both variables were retained.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHair et al.\u0026rsquo;s (1992, p.74) four steps technique was employed for collinearity analysis. The first step was to find any Condition Index (CI) greater than 30. None of the variables had a CI value greater than 30. The second step of finding those items with CI values of more than 30 which also had a variance proportion of more than 90% was thus skipped. Step three was to check that the VIF value was less than 10 (Stevens, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR115\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e, p.92). None of the values produced by the new regressions were greater than 10. Step four was to check that the tolerance values were not close to zero in the new regression that violated this condition. The minimum value was 0.411 and maximum was 0.491. All the above tests demonstrated that there was no concern with respect to collinearity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStandardised residual plots (normality and scatter plots) produced from the regressions were inspected to check the assumptions of normality, linearity, homoscedasticity and residuals. These plots were required as part of the regression analysis. It was expected that the points of the normality plot would lie reasonably close to the diagonal line from bottom left to top right. In the standardised scatter plot, it was hoped that the distribution of residuals would be roughly rectangular, with most of the scores concentrated along the centre; a clear or systematic pattern is not desired \u0026ndash; curvilinear or higher on one side than the other \u0026ndash; and violates the assumption of homoscedastcity. The outliers that can be detected from a scatter plot are those with values greater than 3.3 or less than \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;3.3 (Tabachnick \u0026amp; Fidell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR116\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Mahalanobis\u0026rsquo;s distances were produced as part of the regression analysis and appear in the data file. These values can also predict outliers. The critical Chi-square value for the number of independent variables used in an analysis can be determined from a table (Tabachnick \u0026amp; Fidell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR116\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e, Table C.4) and then be compared with the maximum Mahalanobi\u0026rsquo;s distance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e shows the normal PP plot; the points are close to the normal diagonal line, indicating the assumption of normality is valid. The scatter plot was between 2.5 and \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1.0. It does not have a curvilinear shape, and most of the points are concentrated around zero, indicating no violation of the assumption of homoscedasticity. No significant outliers were found.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study set out with the objective of analysing the influence of technology strategies on the performance of firms (measured as SRG). The correlation analysis revealed significant relationships between SRG and \u003cem\u003estrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e, and between SRG and \u003cem\u003etechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e. There were also positive correlations between SRG and capital investment, and between SRG and number of employees. These four variables were then employed in a regression analysis to determine the extent of their relationships with SRG.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo be able to test hypotheses H1a and H1b (TS and TM factors contribution towards SRG), hypotheses H2 \u0026amp; H3 (influence of type and size of firm on the successful STM factors) and determine the contribution of background variables on SRG, regression analysis was performed on the variables of interest.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven that the assumptions held, a stepwise regression was run. The first model was run with SRG entered as the dependent variable. The number of employees (i.e. size of firm) and capital investment (control variables) were entered in Block 1 of 1 and \u003cem\u003eStrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e as the independent variable in Block 2 of 2. Model 2 was run by replacing the \u003cem\u003eStrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e independent variable with \u003cem\u003eTechnology Positioning\u003c/em\u003e independent variable in Block 2 of 2. Model 3 was run by including \u003cem\u003eStrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e in Block 2 of 2 and \u003cem\u003eTechnology Positioning\u003c/em\u003e in Block 3 of 3. The data output of the regression results are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab7\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 8\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegression Results for Sales Revenue Growth as Dependent Variable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStep 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStep 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStep 3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of employees\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCapital investment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.66***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.68***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.68***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIndependent variables\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.052\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.151\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnology Positioning\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.141\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.536\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.538\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.547\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdjusted R\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34.06***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.010\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e∆ R\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.010\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF for ∆ R\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34.06***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*** p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSource: From analysis of SPSS data of this research\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLooking at the R-square value in the first model, after the control variables in Block 1 (number of employees and capital investment) have been entered indicates that the overall model explains 53.6% of the variance. After Block 2 the independent variable (\u003cem\u003estrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e) has also been included, the model as a whole explains 53.8%. This second R-square value includes all the variables from both the blocks. After Block 3 independent variable (\u003cem\u003etechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e) has also been included, the model as a whole explains 54.7%. Looking at the R-square change column against Model 2 the value is 0.002. This means that \u003cem\u003estrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e explained an additional 0.2 percent of the variance in SRG, even when the effects of number of employees and capital investment are statistically controlled for. This is not a statistically significant contribution, as indicated by the insignificant F change value of 0.626.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLooking at the R-square change column against Model 3, the value is 0.010. This means that \u003cem\u003etechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e explains an additional one percent of the variance in SRG, even when the effects of employee numbers, capital investment and \u003cem\u003estrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e are statistically controlled for. Again, this is not a statistically significant contribution, as indicated by insignificant F change value of 0.276. The ANOVA table indicates that the model as a whole (which includes all the three block of variables) is significant [F(4,57)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;17.23, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0005].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt was decided to compare the contribution of each independent variable to the statistical model so that it could be determined which of these contributed more to SRG compared to other. Model 3, which contains all the variables entered into the equation, was then explored. The beta values in the standardised column were analysed. Only capital investment with beta\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.681 made a statistically significant and unique contribution (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.000) to the equation when the overlapping effects of all other variables were statistically removed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe presence of outliers and the influence of any case over the model parameters were both analysed. The value calculated for Mahalanobis\u0026rsquo;s distance was 3.935, which did not indicate a problem as it was less than the critical Chi-square value of 18.47 (Pallant, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e, p.151). This indicated that there was no outlier (case) having a standardised residual value of more than 3.3 and less than \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;3.3.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt could thus be concluded that capital investment made a statistically significant contribution in predicting the dependent variable of SRG when the overlapping effects of other variables have been removed. \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThis outcome implies that it was heavy investment made by multinationals in Malaysia and the investments made by local and foreign-owned firms, rather than technology strategies that contributed to the growth of the firms.\u003c/span\u003e Though the technology strategies provided some impetus to this growth, the dominant factor was the capital outlay. The significance values did not indicate that any of the independent variables made a statistically significant unique contribution to the equation at the 0.05 level when the number of employees and capital investment were controlled.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussions","content":"\u003cp\u003eSeven new factors have been identified by this research and these all apply at the company level. These seven factors can be seen as falling into two dimensions: The Technology Strategy (TS) dimension, and the Technology Management (TM) dimension.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe TS dimension, which refers to the \u003cem\u003econtent\u003c/em\u003e of strategies, is in this study, conceptualised in terms of three factors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. The first is \u003cem\u003etechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e, in which a firm introduces high-risk or breakthrough technologies in order to build a reputation for technical innovation that it can use as a competitive advantage. A firm that uses \u003cem\u003etechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e also emphasises the sophistication of the technology they apply, with an emphasis on state-of-the-art tools and equipment and a focus on hiring highly trained R\u0026amp;D personnel. Such a firm strives to not only increase its range of products, but also to reduce product development time. Thus this factor could be summarized as referring to a firm\u0026rsquo;s utilisation of technology to achieve competitive advantage. It does so by using even more sophisticated technology and by increasing the number and rate of development of new products.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e2. The second factor developed from the data is that of \u003cem\u003eleading in the discovery of new technologies and introducing innovative products\u003c/em\u003e. This factor relates to the efforts a firm puts into the \u003cem\u003ediscovery\u003c/em\u003e of new technologies and to introducing new products before other firms. Thus, it is about the willingness to lead in technology discovery and in the introduction of new products.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. This third factor relates to the extent to which \u003cem\u003etechnology is embedded in plants and processes\u003c/em\u003e. This construct relates to a firm\u0026rsquo;s exploitation of technology to manufacture unique products, to reduce manufacturing costs, and to increase the flexibility of production processes. This measure also reflects the maximization of the inclusion of technology in a firm\u0026rsquo;s plant and processes in order to gain an advantage in relation to competitors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe TM dimension, which relates to a firm\u0026rsquo;s handling of the process side of technology, can be conceived in terms of four unique factors:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. The first is \u003cem\u003eR\u0026amp;D linked to business\u003c/em\u003e. This refers to the degree to which a firm links its R\u0026amp;D activities with its other business operations; that is, the degree to which it elevates R\u0026amp;D to a strategic level. It also relates to the existence of mechanisms \u0026ndash; mechanisms for recognizing and rewarding R\u0026amp;D, and mechanisms for evaluating the costs and benefits of specific R\u0026amp;D projects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. The second factor is called \u003cem\u003ekeeping abreast with emerging technologies\u003c/em\u003e. This is about the processes that firms employ to ensure that they are aware of innovative and competing emerging technologies. This basically refers to the processes it has in place for scanning for new technologies employed by firms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. The third factor is \u003cem\u003eformal process for planning\u003c/em\u003e. This reflects the emphasis that firms place on using formal processes for planning and selecting technologies, as compared to \u003cem\u003ead hoc\u003c/em\u003e decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. The fourth factor is \u003cem\u003ein-country external acquisition of technology\u003c/em\u003e. This is about the processes that firms use to acquire technology by conducting R\u0026amp;D in collaboration with universities, research labs and other companies within Malaysia; that is, technology acquisition that does not rely on internal R\u0026amp;D at the firm level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe seven Strategic Technology Management factors highlighted above were evident in firms in the electrical and electronics sub-sector of Malaysia. However, not all factors were found to contribute to a firm\u0026rsquo;s success. The next section describes in detail the relationship between these factors and SRG.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSales Revenue Growth (SRG) was used as a measure of firm performance and was averaged over the ten year period. The results revealed that there was a statistically significant correlation between \u003cem\u003estrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e and SRG, as well as between \u003cem\u003etechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e and SRG. These two factors represent Technology Management and Technology Strategy dimensions of Strategic Technology Management; thus, it could be stated that application of Strategic Technology Management factors contributed to the positive performance of the firms in the E\u0026amp;E sector of Malaysia during the period under review. However, after inclusion of control variables of size of firm and capital investment in the regression model, the results revealed that only capital investment made a statistically significant and unique contribution to the regression equation. The summary of the factors that correlated with success is provided in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab8\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 9\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategic Technology Management factors contributing to success\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFactors\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrelation with SRG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResult\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategic R\u0026amp;D (TM)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.34, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe firms that are extremely focused in placing emphasis on R\u0026amp;D and linking it with other business operations have a positive significant correlation with the growth rate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey positioning (TS)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.33, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe firms that are extremely focused in using technology as a key positioning factor in their strategy have a positive significant correlation with the growth rate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Developed for this paper\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe two hypotheses were proposed to investigate the relationship between STM factors (TS and TM) and performance:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH1a: The greater the focus on TS, the better the performance for E\u0026amp;E firms in Malaysia.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH1b: The greater the focus on TM, the better the performance for E\u0026amp;E firms in Malaysia.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research indicates that two of the seven Strategic Technology Management factors developed in this study (\u003cem\u003estrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ekey positioning\u003c/em\u003e) correlated with the growth of firms in the electrical and electronics industry of Malaysia between 1986 and 1995. A regression analysis indicated that \u003cem\u003estrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e explained 0.2% of the variance in SRG, whereas \u003cem\u003etechnology positioning\u003c/em\u003e contributed 0.1%, however, neither of these results is statistically significant. Though the hypotheses H1a and H1b are not supported statistically, the two evolved strategy factors correlated with the SRG of firms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the key contributions of this research is the modification of the conceptual framework and the development of the new framework proposed (as given in the Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe difference between this final model and the proposed model is that seven new Strategic Technology Management factors (four TM and three TS) have evolved, and out of these only two \u0026ndash; TS1 (\u003cem\u003eKey positioning\u003c/em\u003e) and TM1 (\u003cem\u003eStrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e) \u0026ndash; contributed to the success of firms. Moreover, both the nature and size of firms influenced the acquisition of these two technology factors and both the size of firm and capital investment contributed significantly to the performance of firm.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec34\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications of Key Findings\u003c/h2\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec35\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAcademic Implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study has contributed to the STM discipline by investigating the nature of technology strategies applied in the firms operating in an Eastern environment. It looked at the literature and examined various types of technology strategies developed by researchers and their effect on performance of firms. Different frameworks and models were also examined. This research also aimed to address the gap in literature in answering the influence of type and size (structure) of firm on the acquisition of successful technology strategy factors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe first contribution is the development of a comprehensive research model that links STM factors with the performance of firms and especially, the influence of type and size of the firm in acquiring those STM factors which contribute to success. The relationship between the constructs of successful STM factors, performance, and type and size of the firm have been conceptualized in one model for the first time. This is a significant contribution of this research. The inclusion of the effect of type and size of firm on the acquisition of successful STM factors can be considered as a new contribution to the field of STM and performance of firms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second contribution from this study is that it is one of the few studies conducted to investigate the application of STM in firms in Malaysia. It could probably be the first study to look at the micro level (firm level) to determine the contribution of STM towards performance of firm. It could help other researchers to investigate this relationship in other manufacturing sectors of Malaysia and then be able to build a generic model to represent STM and firm performance for the entire manufacturing sector.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe third contribution of this study is that it has offered an approach to quantify the effect of STM application and firm performance, an aspect which could be used to determine the effect of technology management in the \u0026lsquo;technology\u0026rsquo; factor contribution to the total productivity factor model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe last contribution is that research provides the foundation to carry out further research in Malaysia and similar economies, by utilizing the STM factors developed in this study and developing relevant variables to be included in survey questionnaires. The new survey questionnaire would then be more specific and relevant to the Eastern environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eImplications for the planners of Industrial Master Plan of Malaysia\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough this research did not aim to address STM at the national level (the focus was at the firm level), it appears that the results could be extremely useful to provide an insight to the national technology planners of the influence of STM and the nature and size of the firms on the performance of firms. Similar studies, using the new STM factors as the basis, could be undertaken by them to capture the effects in other manufacturing sectors. This should help them to determine the effect of technology management alone in the performance of the entire manufacturing sector. The results could provide them with a set of useful technology strategy factors relevant to the local environment to help improve the performance of local firms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs evident from this research that on the \u0026lsquo;Technology Management\u0026rsquo; front, firms were aware and informed about emerging and competing technologies in relation to their business, which indicates that emphasis was placed on scanning processes to keep abreast with technological developments. Surprisingly, the relationship between the application of \u003cem\u003eformal planning processes to plan and select technology\u003c/em\u003e and the \u003cem\u003emethods to acquire technology externally\u003c/em\u003e with the performance of firm was found not to be significant in this research. This implies that these firms\u0026rsquo; product plans were neither market-driven nor product-driven; rather, they were likely to have been based on production figures dictated by their headquarters, which took care of product and technology planning. This result could be of value to the planners in developing guidelines for technology transfer and diffusion to help develop the local firms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe firms surveyed did not employ any formal methods to acquire technology from other companies within Malaysia, indicating poor linkages with other companies. Although the creation of such linkages was one of the strategies outlined in the 1986 IMP, this study indicates that this was not successful. The linkages and technology acquisitions which did exist in Malaysia during this period may have been due to the existence of MNCs and JV firms and, to a lesser extent, the LO firms, all of which relied on local industries for ancillary equipment. This again is a useful result for the technology planners in Malaysia to develop strategies to increase the inter-firm linkages.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec37\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications for the Management of Firms\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study indicated that not all factors of strategic technology management would produce sales revenue growth. This has implications for the managers of firms, and especially for those who are responsible for technology management. As far as the electrical and electronics sub-sector of Malaysia is concerned, seven technology factors applied by the managers have been highlighted, but only two of these were associated with a growth in sales revenue. Furthermore, these factors were shown to more likely to occur in MNC and JV firms than in FO and LO firms. Thus, managers of MNC and JV firms need be less conscious of acquiring those factors associated with success, whereas those in FO and LO firms must be considerably more conscious.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eKim, L. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e, p.315) suggests that the implications for corporate management in terms of company level technology development relate to strategies for strengthening the demand for new technology (new markets), developing the supply side (R\u0026amp;D) capability, and, establishing effective linkages between demand and supply (R\u0026amp;D). The results of this research indicate that FO and LO firms need to focus more on these sorts of strategies, as opposed to MNCs and JVs which automatically enjoy the results of similar strategies taken at their headquarters and premises of the dominant partner companies respectively. However, the argument by Brockhoff (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e, p.129) that R\u0026amp;D contributes more to the output measures compared to capital investment, is not supported by this study. In fact, in this study, though both R\u0026amp;D and capital investment correlated with sales revenue growth, only capital investment was found to make a significant contribution to the regression model. Since the Brockhoff study was carried out in Germany, this result makes a significant contribution to discussion about the influence of Strategic Technology Management in countries outside the West.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMost MNCs have understood that a pushy standardized global approach does not work and that regional fine-tuning is necessary (Axinn \u0026amp; Matthyssens, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e, p.438). It is possible that the STM strategies applied by MNCs and JVs would have made fine-tuning to the strategies they adopted in their home countries to suit the Malaysian environment. This view which was identified as a gap in the literature on STM in Sec. 2.1 has been supported by the results of this research wherein some technology strategy factors observed in Malaysia were different than those in the West. This is indeed a great contribution of this research and provides a direction for the Management of firms that in order to succeed operating the firms in a culturally different environment (like East compared to West), home-grown technology strategy factors might need to be adapted to the host country environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal firms investing heavily in technological capability might find it advisable to avoid foreign equity participation. The reason for this is that while MNCs or JVs do transfer production capability to the host country, they do not necessarily transfer technological capability. For sustained business growth, firms need to develop technology absorption capability to fully gain benefit of collaborations i.e train local manpower and do local design and development (Sahoo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR106\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e, p.20). Thus JVs and MNCs had better performance as they employed STM but it did not benefit the Malaysian local firms and that is evident from this research that MNCs contributed more to growth. Even within JVs the two partners might be in conflict, with the strategies of the JV subsidiary possibly being dictated by the dominant partner company. The results of this research indicate that \u003cem\u003estrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e, undertaken by MNCs and JVs contributed to their performance, and that this R\u0026amp;D was mostly an in-house activity (at their headquarters). \u0026ldquo;There is ... a lack of interest in MNCs to locate their R\u0026amp;D away from the home country due to long held beliefs based on conventional wisdom\u0026rdquo; (Granstrand et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e, p.5). For FO and LO firms, \u003cem\u003estrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e was not seen as a factor in their success. This suggests that not only did local firms did focus on R\u0026amp;D but that there was no obvious technology spillovers from MNC and JV firms. Instead of assimilating imported technologies, it would seem that firms should focus on in-house efforts and carefully manage their R\u0026amp;D activities. This aspect of R\u0026amp;D has been emphasised in the findings of the Strategic Management of Technology Conference (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR114\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e) \u0026ldquo;There is a need to define how to manage research in R\u0026amp;D and that requires careful selection of variables of interest\u0026rdquo; (p.108). So, becoming independent may be one of the options for the management of local firms and is an important conclusions of this study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith the results of this research clearly indicating that Sales Revenue Growth of LO firms was not significantly correlated with the Strategic Technology Management factors, compared to MNCs and JVs and that only capital investment contributed to the model, there are implications for the management of firms. It may be that the managers of Asian firms focus more on sales growth by increasing their capital investment, rather than by relying on Strategic Technology Management factors. This is consistent with a study carried out by Husain and Sushil (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e, p.558) in which it was found that compared to European managers who preferred the organisation\u0026rsquo;s structure to handle most issues, Asian Managers preferred to focus on profits\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results of this study suggest that business strategies alone might not be able to contribute towards technology development and performance of firms. The management of firms need to be able to integrate them with their technology strategies; that is, they need to adopt a Strategic Technology Management approach. This could be achieved by appropriately positioning a firm in terms of employing pacing and state-of-the art technologies relative to its competitors, and by ensuring a focus on \u003cem\u003estrategic R\u0026amp;D\u003c/em\u003e. These results contribute to the existing knowledge on the subject by endorsing the suggestions put forward by Talonen and Hakkarainen (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR117\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec38\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations and Future Directions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs with all research, the present study has some limitations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe research is limited with respect to both the research methodology used and the scope of the study. First, the study only relates to manufacturing firms in the electrical and electronics industry in Malaysia. Thus it has an inherent industry clustering bias. The performance of firm may be moderated by the industrial sector in which it operates, given that some sectors show higher levels of technological intensity than others. Such industry effects with regard to strategic management must be taken into account (Kalantaridis \u0026amp; Pheby, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Mauri \u0026amp; Michaels, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). However, this was not the objective of this research. Second, the majority of the responding companies were multinational firms, thus there is a bias with respect to the \u003cem\u003etype\u003c/em\u003e of firms surveyed. However, this study has set the tone for further studies that may include other industry sectors. Moreover, there is a high possibility that other sectors selected might not be dominated by MNCs, thus making the results more generalisable in the future.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eSince businesses and their environments are dynamic, the strategies evolved in the period covered by this study may not apply to a different environment (for example, the West). However, these new strategies make a significant contribution to the literature in that they provide a useful comparative analysis of the adoption of Strategic Technology Management in culturally diverse economies. Moreover, they will help academics in the design of new tools for testing in similar economies of the world. For example, some respondents might not have been in the firm during the study period and therefore their responses would have been based on their knowledge, discussions with other people or from the company\u0026rsquo;s records, rather than on direct experience. This aspect has, however, been addressed by utilizing the published data from the FMM Directory (which validated the data provided by the respondents).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe number of companies which responded was small; as such, it is difficult to generalise the results for the whole sector. This aspect was combated in this study by employing the services of a resident professor and by undertaking frequent visits to the firms, strategies which helped raise the response rate from 18 to 26.5%. For such surveys in the future, other means of improving the response rate \u0026ndash; including the use of new technologies \u0026ndash; would be recommended.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data collected about strategy variables were the perceptions of the senior management of the firms in response to specific wording of a questionnaire; therefore, it cannot be described as objective. Using such perceptions, however, is a sound way of assessing the relationships between the variables of interest because strategies usually reside in the minds of senior management, and a smart design of the questionnaire variables helped to tap the responses to the variables which underlined the strategy factors. This was validated by the fact that the evolved strategies to some extent resembled those provided in the literature.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurther, the study did not take into account the views of planners in the Ministry of Industry; nor did it take into account the views of executives from MNCs and JV dominant partner head offices. The effect of the global/local financial environment on the technology strategies was not explored as that did not form part of the objective of this study. This is a facet that could be explored in future studies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study uses variables from studies conducted in the West and so the questions were derived from that environment. Both the new factors developed at the dimension level, and the dimensions developed while analyzing the factors at the item level, could have been made more reflective of the Malaysian environment. However, the factors developed as part of this study could now be utilized to evolve new variables which will be specific to the Malaysian environment. Hofstede (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e, p.416) pointed out that \u0026ldquo; within Asia, management is a very different process depending whether we focus on China, India, Japan, or Iran, and sometimes we cannot even generalize across different provinces within the same country\u0026rdquo;. This suggests that a different set of variables might be needed for other Asian countries and the debate of West vs East might need to be revisited in relation to Strategic Technology Management.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study limits a firm\u0026rsquo;s performance dimensions to its sales revenue growth. A number of other factors which indicate firm performance have been omitted \u0026ndash; for example, return on investment, financial structure, marketing strategy and human resource organisation. The statistical association between performance and outcome does not provide one with insight into how exactly this outcome come about. Nonetheless, SRG provided a good indication of performance and was easy to verify from the published data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere could be other factors besides Strategic Technology Management that could contribute to performance. Thus, Strategic Technology Management itself does not guarantee success, with other factors such as leadership possibly having an equally important role to play. This aspect of leadership was not investigated in this study but it could well be useful to address it in future studies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec39\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFuture direction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs Cravens (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) notes, the strategies applied in the electrical and electronics industry might not be directly transferable to another industry. \u0026ldquo;Different industry environments will require different decisions about strategic choice and implementation and have a significant impact on the performance of the firms\u0026rdquo; (p.29). This could be a topic for future research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe positive performance of the firms in the context of this study has been attributed to the better application of Strategic Technology Management; however, certain exogenous variables were not included in this study. Further research could tap into these variables and determine their influence on Strategic Technology Management. It is clear that the firms in this study, especially the MNCs and JVs, performed strongly over the period of study \u0026ndash; perhaps due to the tacit knowledge inherited from their parent firms, or perhaps due to explicit directions and the evolution of strategies as suggested in this research. But which was the case and to what extent it contributed to firm performance was beyond the scope of this study. Again, this is suggested as an area for further research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe effect of culture has not been addressed directly in this research but the difference in strategies applied in the West and those developed here for the East, could perhaps be explained by national cultural differences and the influence of national technology strategies. \u0026ldquo;Malaysian culture characteristics are markedly different from those of low context cultures such as the United States. People in authority are personally responsible for action of their subordinates and this places a premium on loyalty to both superiors and subordinates\u0026rdquo; (Luthans \u0026amp; Doh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e, p.135). Thus, Malaysian employees would not normally enter into arguments with their superiors, and would typically do as directed. \u0026ldquo;Malaysian managers tend to avoid ambiguous situations, desire security and feel more comfortable with structured, clearly defined bureaucracies\u0026rdquo; (Joshi, Sherman \u0026amp; Schermerhorn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e, p.22). The effect of culture alone on the application of Strategic Technology Management in the electrical and electronic firms in Malaysia has not been explored in earlier studies and represents an interesting topic for future research. However, a word of caution here is that not only the effect of national and corporate culture influence TM, but also the other elements of culture like technical practices are equally important. (Liker et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e, p.215) state that cultural elements (technical practices) influence transfer of TM practices from West to East, and need to be disengaged from the national and corporate culture to analyse the true effect of culture on TM.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Technology is interdependent; advances in one sector soon influence other areas. For example, the development of microprocessors and memory chips led to the creation of small-size mobile phones; developments in computer sciences made possible the production of on-board computers for missile guidance\u0026rdquo; (Pournelle, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR100\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). In extrapolation of Pournelle et al., it is clear that technology influences every aspect of national life. In particular, it influences national strategy: the strategy to develop a multimedia super-corridor came about in Malaysia after the electronics and IT sector had developed. Alternatively, strategy influences technology. Malaysia needed an Industrialization Strategy, and so technology firms were invited to set up facilities. The effects of the advances in the electrical and electronics sector of Malaysia would have been influenced by advances in other sectors and vice versa. The effect of these two-way linkages on the formulation and implementation of technology strategies could prove to be a very interesting area to explore in future research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePatterns of organisational knowledge creation differ across various forms of organisations (Lee \u0026amp; Yoon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). This could perhaps be one of the other effects for the application of STM strategies as determined from this study by MNCs compared to LO firms. Thus organisational knowledge should be considered as a moderating variable in future research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlongside horizontal linkages, the vertical integration of all relevant operations is a strategy aimed at securing full control over a technology. It is particularly attractive where the alternative would be to share knowledge with suppliers who are also a firm\u0026rsquo;s competitors. MNCs rely on this strategy (Pearce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR96\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). This approach by MNCs in the electrical and electronics sector of Malaysia and its effect on their technology management is another area that could be explored to advantage in future research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study indicates that E\u0026amp;E firms in Malaysia employed both technology strategy and its management processes during the period 1986\u0026ndash;1995, and that some of these contributed to the successful performance of the firms. It was also found that MNCs and JVs were more likely to employ technology management strategies compared to FO or LO firms. Further, this study indicates that the type and size of firm had a significant relationship with the firm\u0026rsquo;s acquisition of effective technology strategies and technology implementation processes. Surprisingly, only capital investment made a significant contribution to the regression model; neither the strategy variables nor the size of the firm made any significant contribution. The findings that the majority of the Malaysian E\u0026amp;E firms that acquired desirable factors were associated with foreign companies, and that they employed R\u0026amp;D performed elsewhere \u0026ndash; in their parent headquarters and subsidiaries or by their partners \u0026ndash; has important implications for technology planners. The findings also have vital implications for the management of firms in the sense that they need to be able to integrate business strategies with their technology strategies; that is, they need to adopt a Strategic Technology Management approach and that that not all factors of strategic technology management would produce sales revenue growth.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUltimately, it should be recognised that a single study like this on a specific manufacturing sector (E\u0026amp;E) and in a specific country (Malaysia) may not result in a universally comprehensive model. Further studies of similar groups in other manufacturing industries in Malaysia and in other countries should be considered and results compared with this study. This study has raised the awareness of E\u0026amp;E industry in Malaysia of the nature of technology strategy factors which could be adopted to improve performance. The academic contributions will open new challenges and opportunities in the area of STM.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompliance with Ethical Standards:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval: This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the author; this is a solo author article.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent: \u0026nbsp;Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArif Sikander carried out the research solely and wrote the entire manuscript text and prepared all the figures and tables.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAffuah, A. (1999). Strategies to turn adversity into profits. \u003cem\u003eSloan Management Review, 40 \u003c/em\u003e(2), 99-100.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhmed, Z.U., Tsu, T. (1999). Managing market intelligence: an Asian marketing research perspective\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e In\u003cem\u003e Ibrahim et al.: Reinventing Asian Management for Global Challenges: Proceedings\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eof the\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eAsian Academy of Management Conference, Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia, 16-17 July 1999\u003c/em\u003e (pp.183-192). Penang: University Science Malaysia.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdler, P. (1989). Technology Strategy: Guide to the literature. In R.S. Rosenbloom and R.A. Burgleman (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eResearch on Technological Innovation, Management and Policy \u003c/em\u003e(pp.1-25). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnsoff, H.I. (1987). Strategic Management of Technology. \u003cem\u003eThe\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Strategy, 7\u003c/em\u003e(3), 28-40.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnsoff, H.I., \u0026amp; Stewart, J.M. (1967). Strategies for a Technology-Based Business. \u003cem\u003eHarvard Business Review, Nov-Dec,\u003c/em\u003e 71-83.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAttaran, M. (2001). Strategic management of technology at Frito-Lay\u0026rsquo;s Kern manufacturing facility. \u003cem\u003eIndustrial Management, 101 \u003c/em\u003e(5/6), 264-272.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAxinn, C.N., \u0026amp; Matthyssens, P. (2002). Limits of internationalization theories in an unlimited world. \u003cem\u003eInternational Marketing Review, 19\u003c/em\u003e(4/5),436-449.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBadawy, M.A. (2007). Book review: \u0026ldquo;The management of technology and innovation: a strategic approach\u0026rdquo; by White, M.A. \u0026amp; Bruton, G.D, Thomson South Western, 404pgs, in \u003cem\u003eJournal of Engineering and Technology Management, 24 (4\u003c/em\u003e), 395-399.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBessant, J.(1993). The lessons of failure: learning to manage new manufacturing technologies. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Technology Management, 8 \u003c/em\u003e(3,5), 197-214.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrockhoff, K.(1998). Technology management as part of strategic planning \u0026ndash; some empirical results. \u003cem\u003eR\u0026amp;D Management, 28 \u003c/em\u003e(3), 129-138.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBusiness Technology Decisions (2006). Retrieved from Murdoch Net Library: (http://www.nolaconsulting.com/network-design-support-new-orleans.php).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eButton, K. (1988). \u003cem\u003eHigh technology companies: an examination of their transport needs.\u003c/em\u003e Department of Economics, Loughborough University. Loughborough:UK.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuzzel, R., Gale, B., Sultan, R.M. (1975). Market share: a key to profitability. \u003cem\u003eHarvard Business Review, 53, \u003c/em\u003e97-106.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCampbell, D.J., \u0026amp; Foo, K.Y. (1997). An examination of strategic orientation and the uses of performance appraisal in Singapore electronic firms. \u003cem\u003eAsian Academy of Management Journal. 2 \u003c/em\u003e(1,2), 44-57.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChakravarthy, B. (1997). A new strategy framework for coping with turbulence. \u003cem\u003eSloan Management Review, winter, \u003c/em\u003e69-82.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChandler, A.D. (1962). \u003cem\u003eStrategy and Structure: Chapters in the history of the American Industrial Enterprises.\u003c/em\u003e Cambridge, USA: MIT Press. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChang, L. (1994). A psychometric evaluation of 4-point and 6-point likert scales in relation to reliability and validity. \u003cem\u003eApplied Psychometric Measurement, 18\u003c/em\u003e(3), 205-215.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChevalier, M. (1972). The strategy spectre behind your market share.\u003cem\u003e European Business, 34,\u003c/em\u003e 63-72.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChiarmonte, F. (2003). From R\u0026amp;D management to strategic technology management: evolution and perspectives. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Technology Management, 25\u003c/em\u003e,538-548.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClarke, K., Ford, D., \u0026amp; Saren, M. (1989). Company technology strategy.\u003cem\u003e R\u0026amp;D and Management, 19,\u003c/em\u003e 215-229.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoakes, S.J., \u0026amp; Steed, L.G. (1999). \u003cem\u003eSPSS: Analysis without anguish\u003c/em\u003e. Australia: Jacaranda Wiley Ltd.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCohen, J.W. (1988). \u003cem\u003eStatistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e edn).\u003c/em\u003e Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCool, K.O., \u0026amp; Schendel, D.E. (1987). Strategic group formation and performance: The case of the US Pharmaceutical Industry;1963-82. \u003cem\u003eManagement Science, 33\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1102-24.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorey, J.P. (1989). Strategic planning process and technology management. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Technology Management, 4 \u003c/em\u003e(6), 613-624.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCovin, J.G., \u0026amp; Slevin, D.P. (1998). Adherence to plans, risk taking and environment as predictors of firm growth. \u003cem\u003eJournal of High Technology Management Research, 9 \u003c/em\u003e(2), 207-237.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCravens, D. W. (2000). \u003cem\u003eStrategic Marketing\u003c/em\u003e (6\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e edition). Irwin: McGraw Hill.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCusumano, M.A. \u0026amp; Rosenbloom, R.A. (1989). Technology pioneering and competitive advantage: The birth of the VCR industry. \u003cem\u003eCalifornia Management Review, 29 \u003c/em\u003e(4), 51-77.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDaniels, K. (1998). Towards integrating emotions into strategic management research: Trait affect and perceptions of the strategic environment. \u003cem\u003eBritish Academy of Management, 9 \u003c/em\u003e(3)\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e 163-168.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDi Romualdo, A., \u0026amp; Gurbaxani, V. (1998). Strategic intent for IT outsourcing. \u003cem\u003eSloan Management Review, 39 \u003c/em\u003e(4), 67-80.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDillon, W.R. \u0026amp; Goldstein, M. (1984). \u003cem\u003eMultivariate analysis: methods and applications\u003c/em\u003e. New York: John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDrejer, A. (1996). Frameworks for the management of technology: towards a contingent approach. \u003cem\u003eTechnology Assessment and Strategic Management, 8 \u003c/em\u003e(1), 9-20. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDvir, D., Segev, E., \u0026amp; Shehnar A. (1993). Technology\u0026rsquo;s varying impact on the success of strategic business units with the Miles and Snow typology. \u003cem\u003eStrategic Management Journal, 14\u003c/em\u003e(2), 155-162.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEdler, J., Meyer-Krahmer, F., \u0026amp; Reger, G. (2002). Changes in the strategic management of technology: results of a global benchmarking study. \u003cem\u003eR\u0026amp;D Management, 32 \u003c/em\u003e(2), 149-164.Erdilek, A. (1986). Issues in international technology transfer.\u003cem\u003e Economic Impact, 4 \u003c/em\u003e(46), 51-60.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eErdilek, A. (1986). Issues in international technology transfer.\u003cem\u003e Economic Impact, 4 \u003c/em\u003e(46), 51-60.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eErickson, T.J., Magee, J.F., Roussel, P.A. \u0026amp; Saad, K.N. (1990). Managing Technology as a Business Strategy. \u003cem\u003eMIT Sloan Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(3).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvan, B., Vasconcellos, E., \u0026amp; Werther, W.B. (1994). Executive levers for the strategic management of technology: leaders must have the tools to move their firms toward the use of technology as a strategic resource.\u003cem\u003e Business Horizons, 53 \u003c/em\u003e(9), 53-61.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFayol, H.M. (1949). \u003cem\u003eGeneral and Industrial Management (\u003c/em\u003eC.Stone Trans.). New York: Pitman publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFiegenbaum, A., \u0026amp; Thomas, H. (1990). Strategic groups and performance: The US insurance industry. \u003cem\u003eStrategic Management Journal. 11, \u003c/em\u003e197-215.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFoong, S.Y., \u0026amp; Alsagoff, S.K. (1994). The effectiveness of IT adoption by the SMEs in the electrical and electronics sector- problems, issues and political perspectives. \u003cem\u003eMalaysian Journal of Small and Medium Enterprises, 5, \u003c/em\u003e88-96.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFMM Directory. (1997). \u003cem\u003eElectrical and Electronics Industries Data\u003c/em\u003e. Published by Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers, Kuala Lumpur, 1997.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFord, D. (1988). Develop Your Technology Strategy. \u003cem\u003eLong Range Planning, 21 \u003c/em\u003e(5), 85-95.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFreeman, S. (1982). Industry environment: influence on performance of small medium sized enterprise in Asia Pacific markets.\u003cem\u003e Asian Academy of Management Journal, 5 \u003c/em\u003e(2), 96-113.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrohman, A.L. (1985). Putting technology into strategic planning. \u003cem\u003eCalifornia Management Review, 27\u003c/em\u003e, 48-95.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFruhan, W.E. (1972). Pyrrhic victories in fights for market share.\u003cem\u003e Harvard Business Review, 50 \u003c/em\u003e(5), 100-107.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFusfeld, A. (1989). Formulating Technology Strategies to meet the Global challenges of the 1990s. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Technology Management, 4 \u003c/em\u003e(6), 601-612. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGalbraith, C., \u0026amp; Schendel, D. (1983). An empirical analysis of strategy types. \u003cem\u003eStrategic Management Journal, 4\u003c/em\u003e(2), 153-173.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoll, I., \u0026amp; Rasheed, A.M.A. (1997). Rational decision making and firm performance: the moderating role of environment. \u003cem\u003eStrategic Management Journal, 18, \u003c/em\u003e583-592\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGranstrand, O., Hakanson, L., \u0026amp; Sjolander, S. (1992). \u003cem\u003eTechnology Management and International Business.\u003c/em\u003e New York, John Wiley. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGutmann, P.M.. (1964). Strategies for growth.\u003cem\u003e California Management Review, 6 \u003c/em\u003e(4), 81-86.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHabib, M.M., \u0026amp; Victor, B. (1991). Strategy, structure and performance of US manufacturing and service MNCs: A comparative analysis. \u003cem\u003eStrategic Management Journal. 12\u003c/em\u003e(7),589-606.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., \u0026amp; Black, W.C. (2006). \u003cem\u003eMultivariate data analysis.\u003c/em\u003e New York: Macmillan 6\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e Edn.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHambrick, D.C. (1980). Operationalizing the concept of business-level strategy in research. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Review, 5\u003c/em\u003e(4), 567-575.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHerman, E. L. (1998). \u003cem\u003eTechnology Strategies in the US Electronics industry\u003c/em\u003e (Ph.D Thesis-Portland State University, 1988). Dissertation Abstract International, (UMI No. 9834862).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHofer, C.W. (1975). Toward a contingency theory of business strategy. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal, 18,\u003c/em\u003e 784-816.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHofstede, G. (2007). Asian management in the 21st century. \u003cem\u003eAsia Pacific J Manage\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e24\u003c/strong\u003e, 411\u0026ndash;420 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-007-9049-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHolland, N. (1995). \u003cem\u003eTechnology Management and Corporate Strategies: A tricontinental perspective\u003c/em\u003e. Amsterdam: Elsevier.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHuang, G.Q., \u0026amp; Mak, K.L. (1999). Current practices of engineering change management in UK manufacturing industries. \u003cem\u003eInternational journal of operations and production management. 19 \u003c/em\u003e(1), 21-37.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHusain, Z. \u0026amp; Sushil (1997). Strategic management of technology \u0026ndash; a glimpse of literature. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Technology Management. 14 \u003c/em\u003e(5), 539-578.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJones, O., Green, K., \u0026amp; Coombs, R. (1994). Technology Management: developing a critical perspective. \u003cem\u003eInternational journal Technology Management, 9 \u003c/em\u003e(2), 156-170.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJoshi, M.P., Sherman, H.D., \u0026amp; Schermerhorn, J.R. (2004). Strategic Implementation styles of Malaysian, Thai and Hungarian middle managers. \u003cem\u003eAsian Academy of Management Journal, 9 \u003c/em\u003e(2), 19-33\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKaiser, H.F. (1985). The variance criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. \u003cem\u003ePsychometrica, 23\u003c/em\u003e, 187-200.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKalantaridis, C. \u0026amp; Pheby, J. (1999). Process of innovation among manufacturing SMEs: The experience of Bedfordshire. \u003cem\u003eEntrepreneurship \u0026amp; Regional Development, 11\u003c/em\u003e, 57-78.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKantrow, A.M. (1980). The strategy-technology connection. \u003cem\u003eHarvard Business Review, 58\u003c/em\u003e(4), 6-21.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKetchen, D., \u0026amp; Shook, C. (1996). The application of cluster analysis in strategic management research: An analysis and critique. \u003cem\u003eStrategic Management Journal, 17,\u003c/em\u003e 441-458.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKitching, J. (1967). Why do mergers miscarry?\u003cem\u003e Harvard Business Review, 45 \u003c/em\u003e(6), 84-101.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, L. (1998). Technology policies and strategies for developing countries. \u003cem\u003eTechnology Analysis and Strategic Management, 10 \u003c/em\u003e(3), 311-323.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, L., \u0026amp; Lim, Y. (1988). Environment, generic strategies and performance in rapidly developing countries: A taxonomic approach. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003e31,\u003c/em\u003e 802-827.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKinnear, J.W.(1991). Clean air at a reasonable price. \u003cem\u003eIssues in Science and Technology, 8 \u003c/em\u003e(2), 28-37.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKotha, S., Dunbar, R., \u0026amp; Bird A. (1995). A comparison of emphasis placed on generic competitive methods by US and Japanese Managers. \u003cem\u003eStrategic Management Journal, 16,\u003c/em\u003e 195-220.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKotha, S., \u0026amp; Nair, A.(1995). Strategy and environment as determinants of performance: evidence from Japanese machine tool industry. \u003cem\u003eStrategic Management Journal. 16\u003c/em\u003e (7), 497-518. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, J. (1987). A comparative study of the relationship between strategy and business performance: industrialised countries and newly-industrialising countries. Published PhD dissertation. University of Mississipi. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, K., \u0026amp; Yoon, M. (2010). International, intra-national and inter-firm knowledge diffusion and technological catch-up: the USA, Japan, Korea and Taiwan in the memory chip industry. \u003cem\u003eTechnology Analysis and Strategic Management, 22\u003c/em\u003e(5),553-570.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeonard-Barton, D. (1992). The factory as a learning laboratory. \u003cem\u003eSloan Management Review, 34\u003c/em\u003e(1), 23-38.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiker, J.K., Gibson, D.V., \u0026amp; Wu, Y. (1998). The Asia-Pacific context of technology management. \u003cem\u003eIEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 45\u003c/em\u003e(3),210-219.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLuthans, F. \u0026amp; Doh, J.P. (2009). International Management: culture, strategy and behaviour (7\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e edn). Irwin: McGraw-Hill.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMadique, M.A., \u0026amp; Patch, P. (1988). Corporate strategy and technological policy.In ML Tushman, M.L. \u0026amp; Moore, W.L.(Eds.), \u003cem\u003eReadings in the Management of Innovation \u003c/em\u003e(pp.236-248). Cambridge, Mass: Balinger.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMauri, A.J. \u0026amp; Michaels, M.P. (1998). Firm and industry effects within strategic management: an empirical examination, \u003cem\u003eStrategic Management Journal, 19 \u003c/em\u003e(3), 211-219.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcCarthy, D.J., \u0026amp; Spital, F.C.(1987). Managing growth at high technology companies: a view from the top. \u003cem\u003eAcademic Management Executive, 1 \u003c/em\u003e(3), 313-322.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMessina, A.(1989). Technology Management for the 1990\u0026rsquo;s. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Manufacturing Engineering, 6, \u003c/em\u003e49-51.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiles, R.E., \u0026amp; Snow, C.C. (1978). \u003cem\u003eOrganizational strategy, structure and process.\u003c/em\u003e New York: McGraw Hill.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiller, A. (1988). A taxonomy of technological settings with related strategies and performance levels. \u003cem\u003eStrategic Management Journal, 9\u003c/em\u003e(3), 239-254.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiller, D. (1988). Relating Porter\u0026rsquo;s Business Strategies to Environment and Structure: Analysis and Performance Implications. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal, 31\u003c/em\u003e(2), 280-308.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiller, D., \u0026amp; Friesen, F. (1977). Archetypes of strategy formulation. \u003cem\u003eManagement Science, 24,\u003c/em\u003e 921-933.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiller, D., \u0026amp; Friesen, F. (1984). \u003cem\u003eOrganisations: A Quantum view\u003c/em\u003e. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinistry of International Trade and Industry (1995). Yearly Publications. Government of Malaysia. KL.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMintzberg, H. (1973). Strategy-making in three modes. \u003cem\u003eCalifornia\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eManagement Review, 16 \u003c/em\u003e(2), 44-53.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMitchell, G.R. (1988). Options for the strategic management of technology. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Technology Management, 3(3),\u003c/em\u003e 253-262.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMohamad, O., \u0026amp; Wheeler, C. (1996). Comparaing high, moderate and low performance exporters: evidence from Malaysia. \u003cem\u003eAsian Academy of Management Journal. 1 \u003c/em\u003e(2), 16-31.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMu, Q., \u0026amp; Lee, K. (2005). Knowledge diffusion, market segmentation and technological catch-up: The case of the telecommunication industry in China. \u003cem\u003eResearch Policy. 34\u003c/em\u003e,759-783.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNoori, H. (1997). Implementing AMT: The perspective of a newly industrialized economy. \u003cem\u003eJournal of High Technology Management Research, 8 \u003c/em\u003e(1), 120.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOster, A. (1990). \u003cem\u003eModern Competitive Analysis\u003c/em\u003e. New York: Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePallant, J. (2006). \u003cem\u003eSPSS Survival Manual\u003c/em\u003e. U.K.: Open University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eParker, B., \u0026amp; Helms, M. (1992). Generic strategy and firm performance in declining industry. \u003cem\u003eManagement International Review, 32 \u003c/em\u003e(1), 23-39.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePearce, R.D. (1989). \u003cem\u003eThe internationalization of research and development by multinational enterprises\u003c/em\u003e. New York: St Martins Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePenaloza, E., Brooks,M. \u0026amp; Marche, S. (2001). Electronic commerce and strategic management of deep-sea containers: Am exploratory survey analysis. \u003cem\u003eStrategic Management Journal, 22\u003c/em\u003e,493-520.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePorter, M.E. (1980). \u003cem\u003eCompetitive strategies.\u003c/em\u003e New York: The Free Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePorter, M.E. (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. \u003cem\u003eStrategic Management Journal, 12,\u003c/em\u003e 95-117.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePournelle, J.E., Possony, S.T.\u0026amp; Kane, F.X. (1997). \u003cem\u003eThe Strategy of Technology\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved from Murdoch Net Library: http://www.jerrypournelle.com/sot/sot_4.htm \u0026amp; http://www.jerrypournelle.com/sot/sot_1.htm#Foundations of the Technological War\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePrice, R.M. (1996). Technology and strategic advantage\u003cem\u003e. California Management Review, 38\u003c/em\u003e(3), 38-56\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRaymond, L., \u0026amp; Croteau, Anne-Marie. (2009). Manufacturing strategy and business strategy in medium-sized enterprises: Performance effects of strategic management. \u003cem\u003eIEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 56\u003c/em\u003e(2),192-202.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRishel, T.D., \u0026amp; Burns, M.O. (1997). The impact of technology on small manufacturing firms. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Small Business Management, 1, \u003c/em\u003e210.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRumelt, R.P. (1972). \u003cem\u003eStrategy, structure and economic performance.\u003c/em\u003e Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSahlman, K. \u0026amp; Haapasalo, H. (2009). Elements of strategic management of technology: a conceptual framework of enterprise practice.\u003cem\u003e International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 7 \u003c/em\u003e(3), 319-337.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSahoo, T., Banwet, D.K. \u0026amp; Momaya, K. (2010). Strategic Technology Management in practice: dynamic SAP-LAP analysis of an auto component manufacturing firm in India. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 11\u003c/em\u003e (1/2), 13-24.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShane, S. (2009). \u003cem\u003eTechnology strategy for managers and entrepreneurs\u003c/em\u003e. New Jersey: Pearson Education.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSharif, M.N.(1997). Technology strategy in developing countries: evolving from comparative to competitive advantage. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Technology Management, 14\u003c/em\u003e (2/3/4), 309-343.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShrivastava, P. (1994). \u003cem\u003eStrategic Management, Concept and Practices. \u003c/em\u003e New York: PHI.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSidin, S.M. \u0026amp; Cheng, N.G. (1998). Sourcing practices of manufacturing in the Malaysian electronics and electrical products industry. \u003cem\u003ePertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 6 \u003c/em\u003e(1)\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e 31-42.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSikander, A. (2007). Strategic Technology Management issues across culturally diverse countries. In \u003cem\u003eKhilji et al. \u003c/em\u003e: \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Global Business Research: Proceedings of the International Congress of Academy for Global Business Advancement, Penang, Malaysia,21-25 May 2007 \u003c/em\u003e(pp. 466-471). Penang: USM. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSnow, C.C., \u0026amp; Hrebiniak, L.G. (1980). Strategy, distinctive competence, and organisational performance. \u003cem\u003eAdministrative Science Quarterly, 25 \u003c/em\u003e(2)\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e 317.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpital, F.C., \u0026amp; Bickford, D.J. (1992). Successful competitive and technology strategies in dynamic and stable product technology environments. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Engineering and Technology Management, 9, \u003c/em\u003e29-60.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStrategic Management of Technology Conference (1987). Conference Proceedings, INSTEAD, Fontainebleau. 7-9 July.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStevens, J. (2002). \u003cem\u003eApplied multivariate statistics for social sciences\u003c/em\u003e. Mahwah, New Jersey: L. Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 4\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e edn.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTabachnick, B.G., \u0026amp; Fidell, L.S. (2007). \u003cem\u003eUsing Multivariate Statistics\u003c/em\u003e. New York: Pearson.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTalonen,T. \u0026amp; Hakkarainen, K. (2008). Strategies for driving R\u0026amp;D and technology development. \u003cem\u003eResearch-Technology Management\u003c/em\u003e,54-60.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Department of Commerce USA (1984,1996). Technolgy Reports , U.S.Department of Commerce.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThomas, H. \u0026amp; McGee, J. (1989). Technology and strategic management progress and future directions. \u003cem\u003eR\u0026amp;D Management, 19 \u003c/em\u003e(3), 205-213.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUtterback, J.M. (1986). Innovation and corporate strategy. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Technology Management, 1 \u003c/em\u003e(1/2), 119-132.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhite, M.A., \u0026amp; Bruton, G.D. (2007). \u003cem\u003eThe Management of Technology and Innovation: A strategic approach. \u003c/em\u003eUSA: Thomson Publishers.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilbon, A.D. (1999). \u003cem\u003eInfluence of technology strategy on IPO and long-term survival of firms\u003c/em\u003e (Ph.D Thesis-George Washington University, 1999). Dissertation Abstract International, (UMI No. 9935423). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilson, I. (1986). The strategic management of technology: corporate fad or strategic necessity? \u003cem\u003eLong Range Planning, 19 (2\u003c/em\u003e), 21-30.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams, J. (1983). Technological evolution and competitive response. \u003cem\u003eStrategic Management Journal, 4 (1\u003c/em\u003e), 55-65.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWissema, J.G., Van Der Pol, H.W., \u0026amp; Messer, H.M. (1980). Strategic Management Archetypes: Summary. \u003cem\u003eStrategic Management Journal, 1 (1\u003c/em\u003e), 37-48.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYuan, L., Kevin, A., Mike, W. P. \u0026amp; Erming, X (2013). Strategic management in private and family businesses. \u003cem\u003eAsia Pacific Journal of Management.\u003c/em\u003e Published online: 12 June 2013. # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013\u0026rdquo;. DOI 10.1007/s10490-013-9359-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZahra, S. A., \u0026amp; Covin, J. (1993). Business strategy, technology policy and firm performance. \u003cem\u003eStrategic Management Journal, 14,\u003c/em\u003e 451-478.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZahra, S. A., \u0026amp; Covin, J. (1994). Domestic and international competitive forces, technology strategy, and company performance: an empirical analysis. \u003cem\u003eTechnology Analysis and Strategic Management, 6(1),\u003c/em\u003e 31-94.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZahra, S. A. (1996A). Technology Strategy and new venture performance : a study of corporate sponsored and independent biotechnology ventures. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Venturing, 11\u003c/em\u003e(4), 289-321.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZahra, S. A. (1996B). Technology Strategy and financial performance: examining the moderating role of the firm\u0026rsquo;s competitive environment. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Venturing, 11\u003c/em\u003e(3), 189-219.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 7 is available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Technology strategy, Technology management, Strategic technology management, Sales revenue growth","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5463769/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5463769/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eWhile the environmental costs of economic success are becoming increasingly obvious, economic success remains a preoccupation for all firms and for the governments in whose countries firms conduct business. For those who manage firms, the crucial questions concern the reproduction of success achieved, by either like firms or by those in different industrial sectors. For those in government, the crucial questions concern the promotion or facilitation of success amongst all firms that operate in their country. One success story is that of the electronics and electrical industry in Malaysia. A survey instrument, developed from Strategic Technology Management (STM) literature, was administered to the Chief Executive Officers and senior management in these high-tech firms. The results were analyzed to identify technology strategy (TS) and technology management (TM) attributes within this industry at that time. The results demonstrated that key positioning and strategic R\u0026amp;D were positively correlated to the successful performance of firms, while technology leadership, up-to-date plants and facilities, technology consciousness, formal planning, and external technology acquisition were not. This has profound implications in terms of selecting and applying appropriate TS and for attempts to facilitate economic success. This research contributes empirical support to the field of STM research by developing a new model and strategies relevant to the Asian economy.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"From Technology Management to Strategic Technology Management – An Asian success story","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-11-21 06:28:29","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5463769/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"9a5bac2e-87d9-41e4-b2cb-be78c338353a","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 21st, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-11-21T06:28:29+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-11-21 06:28:29","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5463769","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5463769","identity":"rs-5463769","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}