Two-phase approach: Requires two components: a one-time use password, usually tied to a code
generated by a separate smart card that the users carry with them, and a dedicated authentication
server that holds a database of the users and their password.
Virus protection: Most viruses are introduced into office systems on disks transported from homes.
Security managers suggest having a policy that prohibits employees from bringing disks from home
to use on office PC or setting up a dedicated PC that can be used to screen disks for viruses before
they are used at work
References
Moore, M. Telecommuting is on the rise in U.S. firms, says survey, PC Week, October 10, 1995, 1995.
Riggs, B. US ISDN renaissance, IEEE Computer, 28(1): 11, 1995.
Snizek, W. E. Virtual offices: some neglected considerations, Commun. ACM, 38(9): 15–17, 1995.
San Francisco Examiner, May 29, 1994.
Telecommunications, The Wall Street Journal Reports, February 11, 1994.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Transportation Implications of Telecommuting Washington, DC,
April, 1993.
The future of telecommuting, Wired, October, 1995, p. 68.
Further Information
Handy, S. L. and Mokhtarian, P. L. The future of telecommuting, Futures, 28(3): 227–240, 1996.
7.16 The Nature of Technological Paradigms:
A Conceptual Framework
John P. Ulhøi and Urs E. Gattiker
The development of new technology, chaotic as it may seem, tends to follow certain procedures and
preconceptions, or paradigms; these “dictate” the kind of problems the technology community deals
with. In this section, a conceptual framework based on a survey of current literature in the field is outlined,
describing the nature and mechanisms of technological development at the macro level. This may be of
help to technology managers trying to “discern an overall picture” from the ongoing renewal of the
technological landscape. Identifying and understanding the ruling technological paradigm(s) can thus
prove very useful prior to deciding the direction of further technological development [Green, et al.,
1994]. The framework is designed to identify the key actors and elements that influence the direction of
technological development in general and the design of technological strategies in particular. Understanding the process of technological change requires studying the firms involved, since these are major
actors in the process of innovation. By viewing industrial innovation processes in terms of companyspecific configurations, the existing macro-oriented technological paradigm theory can be greatly
improved.
As recently pointed out by Freeman [1994], one of the ongoing paradoxes of economic theory is the
increasing recognition that technological change is both the most important source of drivers in capitalist
economies and relatively neglected in mainstream economic theory. While various explanations have
been offered for this, most have in common an explicit or implicit assumption that technological change
is outside the domain of economists and is best left to technologists and scientists. This “black-box”
approach has led to the dangerous assumption that science and technology are best treated as exogenous
variables.
The public perception of new technology is characterized by two extremes: a positivistic and a pessimistic view. Techno-optimists argue that technology can be controlled (to the extent that this is necessary),
© 2000 by CRC Press LLC
whereas techno-pessimists are more defeatist, believing that there can be little or no strategic influence
on the direction of technological development. Such an “either/or dichotomy” is too rigid, however.
In this section, the overall process of technological change is seen not as the result of a deliberate
“plan”, but of a dynamic and chaotic web of local actions, decisions, and increases in knowledge, which
spread and interact in ways that no one can predict or control [Ulhøi, 1996]. This does not, a priori,
exclude the possibility for exerting deliberate influence on the process of technological change, however.
We therefore propose an “in-between” view, one that offers some latitude for strategic actions that may
influence the overall process of technological development. The importance of the individual firm in this
connection is beyond question. The business community has most of the resources and know-how
necessary to sustain the process of technological change. Notwithstanding, the actual level of firms’
research and development (R&D) is heavily influenced by local government business policy, infrastructure, etc. This will not be discussed further here, however.
The framework outlined in this section can be used by decision makers in their attempts to identify
certain characteristics of and trends in the overall process of technological change. By interpreting
technological “patterns” within the framework of technological paradigms, strategic potentials for influencing the outcome or direction of development may be substantially improved. We provide an outline
of a normative conceptual framework for use in the assessment of the developmental directions of new
generic technologies through the concept of technological paradigms.
Current literature on technological paradigms tends to overlook the importance of the individual firm,
thus inadequately reflecting the multidimensionality and complexity of the technological innovation
process. This is a serious flaw that may invalidate the overall value of the technological paradigm
framework. We discuss the theory of technological paradigms in relation to the individual firm and
present conclusions and implications.
Technological Paradigms and Trajectories
The concepts of technological paradigms and technological trajectories are closely intertwined, both
focusing on strategic and normative prescriptions for the direction technological change must take and
the technological options that must be rejected. According to Dosi [1982], a technological paradigm can
be defined as a set of procedures, a definition of “relevant” (i.e. relative to the group of technologists
involved) technological problems and the specific knowledge needed for their solution. It follows from
this that, based on specific technological, economic, and social trade-offs, each technological paradigm
strongly influences its own concept of progress. Thus, a technological trajectory indicates the direction
of progress within a certain technological paradigm. History provides many examples of how technologies
have followed specific directions or trajectories [Rosenberg, 1976; Hughes, 1989]. Rosenberg [1976]
described this phenomenon as technological development directed by “focusing devices”.
A more recent example may illustrate how the technological paradigm framework works. When Steve
Wozniak, Apple Computers, first introduced the idea of the personal computer, it was based on user
friendliness. However, the existing technological paradigm at that time was based on the philosophy that
the computer was a specialist product not able to be used by “ordinary people” (see TP1 in Fig. 7.16).
Nonetheless, subsequent software research no longer focused solely on technological performance but
devoted increasing attention to the user-interface problem. Two fundamentally new design issues were
at stake: (1) the idea that computing could be done on a personal computer (as opposed to the mainframe)
and (2) that computing could be done by nonspecialists. For a number of years, this new user-friendly
software paradigm existed side by side with the predominant “specialist” paradigm (see TT1 in Fig. 7.16).
Then, during the 1980s, as it became increasingly institutionalized through its widespread use in business,
education, and administration, the new paradigm gradually began to take over. Today, no one in the
computer industry would question the importance of user friendliness.
According to the theory of technological paradigms, technological innovations are supposed to follow
general prohibitive and/or permissive rules, leading to accumulative and continuous improvements. The
paradigm metaphor is taken from the Kuhnian framework of scientific development [1962]. This in turn
© 2000 by CRC Press LLC
FIGURE 7.16 Increase of knowledge over time through the development of technological paradigms. A technological paradigm results in a technological trajectory being followed by industry and, for example, scientists and
technologists in the field concerned, which may ultimately result in radical or derivative innovations [Gattiker, 1990].
This leads to divergence in developments (e.g., Betamax vs. VHS, Unix vs. Windows, Apple vs. PCs), but ultimately,
the convergence of these approaches results in the establishment of a new technological paradigm. Once more and
more people share the new paradigm it becomes TP2 and is again shared by a larger group, ultimately becoming the
dominant paradigm. The process of change then starts a new with TT2. The process described in this figure may
sometimes be gradual and other times consist of rapid leaps by certain groups, countries, and/or firms. During the
process, a firm or country can increase its knowledge and understanding while at the same time improving its
technological competency (e.g., Gattiker and Willoughby [1993] and Gattiker and Ulhøi [1998]). TPn: Technological
paradigm, which can be defined as a set of procedures with relevant technological problems and specific knowledge
related to their solution; well-developed paradigms result in shared meanings, values, and beliefs by technologists
and/or scientists involved. TTn: Technological trajectory, which can be defined as the direction of advance within a
technological paradigm being followed by scientists and developers/technologists. TIn: Technological innovations may
be radical or derivative. TD: Technological divergence, by which is meant that the paradigm is being constantly
bombarded by new potential paradigms and ideas, i.e., shared values and beliefs are being frequently challenged,
ultimately resulting in the paradigm’s demise. TC: Technological convergence, develops from TD by bringing one or
more ideas and approaches to the forefront. Alternatively, new ideas and approaches shared by various groups of
scientists and/or developers/technologists gradually take over, thus leading to a new paradigm (see TP2).
generates technological sequences according to preferential paths or trajectories [Biondi and Galli, 1992].
Radical technological innovation, which occasionally occurs, involves some change in the organization
of production and markets. In other words, organizational and institutional innovations are inextricably
associated with the technological innovation process. The fact that technological paradigms become
institutionalized suggests that they can be seen as social as well as technical resources. However, due to
lack of space, we are unable to discuss the importance of the institutional aspect further.
The concept of technological trajectories was first introduced by Nelson and Winter [1977] and later
supplemented by alternatives, e.g., the notion of technological guideposts and avenues [Sahel, 1985]. The
idea that “something” is guiding the direction of the innovative search process dates back to the late
1960s, however, when the notion of “technological imperatives” was first coined [Rosenberg, 1969].
Figure 7.16 shows that, for a certain period, the development of new technology tends to follow a
dominant paradigm, which in turn defines relevant research questions and provides guidelines for how
to deal with technological problems. Gradually, a stream of more- or less-focused technological developments leaves new technological “tracks”, which indicates a temporary direction of technological development within the overall trajectory (see TT1 in Fig. 7.16). During this period, during which the
established paradigm is becoming more and more worn down, i.e., the scope for new innovations and
© 2000 by CRC Press LLC
improvements of existing innovations is drastically decreasing, the need for a more fundamental revision
and/or substitution increases. At this point, continuity in R&D is time and again replaced by discontinuity
and the existing paradigm is gradually dissolved, leaving room for maximum “freedom” for the technologists. This period can best be described as a period of technological turbulence, in which new technological development is rooted in rival technological variants, each aiming at dominance.
At the beginning of the “intermediate” phase between two paradigms, i.e., the turbulent period, new
technological developments tend to diverge to the point where the contours of a “winner” can be identified
and convergence (see TC in Fig. 7.16) sets in, leading to a new technological paradigm (see TP2 in
Fig. 7.16). During such a period of “post-paradigm” or “preparadigm” development, there tends to be a
mismatch between the new technology and the old framework (markets and capital, educational, managerial, and regulative frameworks), which adds to the level of turbulence during the overall process of
technological change. Sooner or later, radical innovations (i.e., technological revolutions) succeed, to be
followed by other firms, thus leading to new dominant designs and a new technological paradigm. In
particular, during such periods, the potential role of the individual firm (i.e., its possibilities for introducing a new dominant design) reaches a peak. As pointed out by Saviotti [1995], this implies a relatively
short period of technological discontinuities, followed by relatively long periods of incremental development within an established paradigm, as suggested by the time axis in Fig. 7.16. As one paradigm is
gradually replaced by another, there will be a corresponding increase in knowledge and understanding.
A general framework has been outlined to account for the way in which major technological innovations tend to follow certain rules and paths. We expand the framework to include the role of the firm in
the technological innovation process.
Technological Paradigms and Firms
The role of the individual firm during the life and death of technological paradigms has not been very
well understood. Firms inject a significant amount of “fuel” into the overall process of technological
innovation. It is therefore necessary to expand the macro-oriented theory of technological paradigms
and trajectories to include the firm perspective.
It is somewhat paradoxical that, in the general theory of technological paradigms and trajectories, the
firm does not seem to play a particularly important role, despite the fact that firms are central actors in
the shaping of technological trajectories. However, some authors have explicitly pointed out the importance of firm-specific technological accumulation (e.g. Dosi [1984], Pavitt [1986], Granstrand and
Sjölander [1992], and Christensen [1995]).
Technological development can be seen as social construction capable of being institutionalized. Once
institutionalized, they tend to become paradigms, dominating development for a period of time (see
Fig. 7.16). During this process of social institutionalization, existing technological paradigms become
embedded in designers’, engineers’, and managers’ frameworks of perceptions, calculation, and routines.
This directs attention toward the way in which technological paradigms change, including how socially
constructed beliefs and expectations are created and maintained. This may be of interest from the point
of view of governance, since it takes account of how such social mechanisms can be influenced.
When a technological paradigm becomes institutionalized, the identification of its trajectory may
enable designers, engineers, managers and entrepreneurs to visualize likely future paths of development
[Nelson and Winter, 1977]. The individual firms in the industry in which the paradigm rules will typically
pursue incremental technological innovations, i.e., carry out continuous, but typically incremental,
changes in the product and/or process [Gattiker, 1990]. Over time, such changes will enable the individual
manufacturer to reduce the costs of machinery, labor and material inputs. However, the specific trajectory
pursued by a specific firm within a particular paradigm is mainly governed by decisions and actions in
the world outside.
It is only natural to focus on the individual technological actor (the firm level), since most R&D
activities either spring from, or are directly linked to, industry (which, incidentally, also has most of the
available financial and HRM resources, see Gattiker [1988]). Furthermore, focusing on the individual
© 2000 by CRC Press LLC
firm allows for both a less-aggregated understanding of the nature and mechanisms of technological
paradigms and a focus on the related social processes underlying technological development. The technological potential of the individual firm can be defined by its accumulated financial and know-how
resources, explicit as well as implicit [Gattiker and Willoughby, 1993] and its relative technological
performance compared with its competitors [Bye and Chanaron, 1995]. The individual firm’s potential
for influencing technological development depends on its own technological fit with the dominant
technological paradigm and its trajectory of products and/or services.
Adopting a resource-based perspective (e.g., Wernerfelt [1984], Prahalad and Hamel [1990], and Grant
[1991]) of the firm may facilitate a less-aggregated and rigid understanding of the technological innovation process, since this tends to understand the firm in terms of its present configuration of resources
and capabilities. By perceiving industrial innovation processes in terms of firm-specific configurations
of technological innovation assets associated with specific market opportunities, the framework of technological paradigm and trajectories can be further expanded. A change in the firm’s actual configuration
of technological assets can thus be seen as a strategic response to market and/or technological opportunities or threats. The trajectory of a technological paradigm allows the individual firm to identify the
opportunities for further incremental improvements in innovation, which in turn serves as an “early
warning” of increasing instability and new market and technological “breakthroughs”.
Conclusion and Implications
Green et al. [1994] suggest that the mechanisms by which one paradigm is overthrown and replaced by
another are not satisfactorily explained by the technological paradigm framework. We agree with Anderson
and Tushmore [1990] that the domination of technological paradigms is due not only to technological
forces but also to social, political, and organizational forces. This calls for a stronger focus on the social
embeddedness of the technological innovation process. Thus, the importance of the institutionalization
of technology is directly linked to the “selection environment”, which, as we have indicated, is not given
but is the result of an active and social construction. This in turn implies that more research is needed
on the formation, maintenance, and change of the social, political, and organizational forces underlying
technological development. A deeper insight into these processes may significantly improve the options
for managing (i.e., influencing the direction and speed of) technology.
An important practical implication of the framework outlined above is that major technological
investments during periods of technological divergence (TD), e.g., Sony’s investment in Betamax technology, is very risky because a rival technology (VHS technology in this example) can emerge as the
winning paradigm. However, as soon as a converging trend sets in (see TC in Fig. 7.16), the risk decreases.
Put another way, this conceptual framework may support the corporate technology management function
in making the difficult choice between alternative technologies [Ulhøi, 1996] and related assessments
[Madsen and Ulhøi, 1992].
Future research ought to pay more attention to the social, economic, and political embeddedness of
technological paradigms in general and to mechanisms related to the technological selection environment
in particular. This in turn may improve the understanding of the key inhibiting and catalysing forces
influencing technological development; these cannot be explained solely by technology itself but must
be ascribed to social, economic, and political aspects.
Defining Terms
Technological paradigm: A set of procedures, a definition of relevant, i.e., relative to the group of
technologists involved, technological problems and specific knowledge related to their solution.
Technological potential of the individual firm: The firm’s accumulated financial and know-how
resources (explicit as well as implicit) and its relative technological performance compared with
competitors.
Technological trajectory: Indicates the direction of advance within a certain technological paradigm.
© 2000 by CRC Press LLC
References
Andersen, P. and Tushman, M. L. Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical model
of technological change, Admin. Sci. Q., 35: 604–633, 1990.
Biondi, L. and Galli, R. Technological trajectories, Futures, 24(6): 580–592, 1992.
Bye, P. and Chanaron, J.-J. Technological trajectories and strategies, Int. J. Technol. Mgt., 19(1): 45–66, 1995.
Christensen, J. F. Asset profiles for technological innovation, Res. Policy, 24: 727–745, 1995.
Dosi, G. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change, Res. Policy, 11: 147–162, 1982.
Dosi, G. Technical Change and Industrial Transformation, Macmillan, London, 1982.
Freeman, C. The economics of technical change, Cambridge J. Econ., 18: 463–514, 1994.
Gattiker, U. E. Technology adaptation: a typology for strategic human resource management, Behav.
Inform. Technol., 7: 345–359, 1988.
Gattiker, U. E. Technology Management in Organization, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1990.
Gattiker, U. E. and Willoughby. Technological competence, ethics, and the global village. Cross-national
comparisons for organization research, In Handbook of Organizational Behavior, R. Golembiewski,
ed., pp. 457–485, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1993.
Gattiker, U. E. and Ulhøi, J. P. The matrix organization revisited, In The Handbook of Technology Management, R. C. Dorf, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1998.
Granstrand, O. and Sjölander, S. Managing innovation in multi-technology corporations, Res. Policy,
19(1): 35–61, 1992.
Grant, R. M. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation,
Calif. Mgt. Rev., 33: 114–135, 1991.
Green, K., McMeekin, A., and Irwin, A. Technological trajectories and R&D for environmental innovations in UK firms, Futures, 26(10): 1047–1059, 1994.
Hughes, T. P. The evolution of large technological systems, In The Social Construction of Technological
Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, and
T. J. Pinch, eds., pp. 51–82. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989.
Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1962.
Madsen, H. and Ulhøi, J. P. Strategic considerations in technology management: some theoretical and
methodological perspectives, Technol. Anal. Strat. Mgt., 4(3): 311–18, 1992.
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. In search of useful theory of innovation, Res. Policy, 6(1): 36–76, 1977.
Pavitt, K. ‘Chips’ and ‘trajectories’: how does the semiconductor influence the sources and directions of
technical change?, In Technology and the Human Prospect, R. Macleod, ed., pp. 31–55, Frances
Pinter, London, 1986.
Prahalad, C. K. and Hamel, G. The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Bus. Rev., May-June:
79–91, 1990.
Rosenberg, N. The direction of technological change: inducement mechanisms and focusing devices,
Econ. Dev. Cultur. Change, 18: 1–24, 1969.
Rosenberg, N. Perspectives on Technology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1976.
Sahel, D. Technological guideposts and innovation avenues, Res. Policy, 14: 61–82, 1985.
Saviotti, P. P. Technology mapping and the evaluation of technical change, Int. J. Technol. Mgt., 10(4/5/6):
407–424, 1995.
Ulhøi, J. P. The technological innovation management — strategic management relationship, In Innovation Strategies. Theoretical Approaches — Experiences — Improvements. An International Perspective, H. Geschka and H. Hübner, eds. pp. 15–26, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1992.
Ulhøi, J. P. Greener technologies for a cleaner environment. Hope or hot air?, In Proceedings of “The
IASTED International Conference on Advanced Technology in the Environmental Field”, Gold
Coast, Australia, 1996.
Wernerfeldt, B. A resource-based view of the firm, Strat. Mgt. J., 5: 171–180, 1984.
© 2000 by CRC Press LLC