A hybrid approach for identifying and prioritizing critical success factors in technology transfer projects (case study: Diesel locomotive manufacturing)

Mohammadi, N; Heidary Dahooie, J and Khajevand, M (2023) A hybrid approach for identifying and prioritizing critical success factors in technology transfer projects (case study: Diesel locomotive manufacturing). Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 21(5), pp. 1389-1413. ISSN 1726-0531

Abstract

Purpose: With the rapid advancement of technology, companies use new technologies to produce their products and services to maintain a competitive advantage. As companies alone cannot research and develop their technologies, they should use knowledge sources outside the organization that may exist throughout the world; hence, organizations need technology transfer. Because the success rate of technology transfer projects is low, the need to accurately assess and investigate the critical success factors of technology transfer projects is felt. In this regard, this study aims to identify and prioritize the critical success factors in technology transfer projects. Design/methodology/approach: In this research, 56 critical success factor (CSF) were extracted from the context of the articles and were adjusted using experts' opinions in different phases, as well as the fuzzy-Delphi approach. Finally, 15 factors were categorized in the form of steps of the technology transfer model: STAGE-GATE. In the next step, the set of criteria needed to prioritize CFSs was extracted from the literature and finalized with the help of the experts. Then, how each of the CSF influences the identified criteria was scored according to the organization’s export opinions. Finally, the priority of each key success factor was calculated using the additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method. Findings: The results obtained for prioritization of the critical success factors show that experience in technology transfer in the transferee company, the existence of experienced technology transfer managers, sufficient organizational infrastructure and documenting project problems, achievements and experiences are four critical success factors of the technology transfer projects. Considering the long-term and short-term specific goals of the technology transfer process and the choice of technology in line with the company’s commercial strategy are also the critical success factors with the next priorities. Originality/value: The combination of ARAS and step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis methods for identifying and prioritizing managerial decisions in the high-tech industries is a value of this research. Also, a combination of novel multi-attribute decision-making methods by the older framework of new product development is another contribution of this research.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: multi-attribute decision-making; stage-gate; swara; technology transfer
Index terms: export, new product development, ratio analysis, competitive advantage, new technology, case study, prioritizing, technology transfer, critical success factor, methodology, decision-making, strategy, success factor, manager
Subjects: market analysis, decision analysis, management, research methods, knowledge management, innovation and technology management, health monitoring assessment and metrics, economic analysis, data collection methods, control systems, practitioner, innovation studies
Topics: Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Roles and Professions, Risk Management
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here