Theory and practice of technological corporate assessment

International Journal of Technology Management

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 504-521

  Hartmann, Matthias H ^a,b  

^a AT Kearney Management Consultants   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN NUREMBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST ACCOUNTING; RISK MANAGEMENT; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

BALANCE SHEETS; RATIO ANALYSIS; TECHNOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT;

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT;

EID: 0032672064     PISSN: 02675730     EISSN: None     Source Type: None    
DOI: 10.1504/IJTM.1999.002730     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Cf Klein/Jonas (1998) [2] and Drukarczyk (1996), [3] esp. pp.87ff.
2. Klein, K.-G.; Jonas, M. (1998): 'Due Diligence und Unternehmensbewertung', in: Berens, W.; Brauner, H.U. (Hrsg.), Due Diligence bei Unternehmensakquisitionen, Stuttgart, pp.155-169.
3. Drukarczyk, J. (1996): Unternehmensbewertung, München.
4. "Key figures generated by outdated accounting systems are often of no help when investments in new technologies and markets are a must for a sustained positioning in global markets." Eccles (1991), [5 p.15].
5. Eccles, R.C. (1991): 'Wider das Primat der Zahlen - die neuen Steuergrößen', in: Harvard Business Manager 4 pp.14-22.
6. Cf "Typical issues in strategically positioning companies in technological markets", Gaynor (1996), [7, esp. Chapter 33. 12 ff.].
7. Gaynor, G.H. (1996): 'Measuring the benefits from managing technology', in: Gaynor, G.H. el al, Handbook of Technology Management, New York, Chapter 33.
8. Pfeiffer, W., Metze, G., Schneider, W., Amler, R. et al.: Technologie-Portfolio zum Management strategischer Zukunftsgeschäftsfelder, 6. Auflage, Göttingen (1. Auflage 1982).
9. Specht, G., Beckmann, C. (1996): F&E-Management, Stuttgart.
10. Wildemann, H. (1993): Fertigungsstrategien, München.
11. Eversheim, W., Böhlke, U.H., Martini, C.J., Schmitz, W.J. (1996): Innovativer mit dem Technologiekalender, in: Harvard Business Manager 1, pp.105-112.
12. Cf On additional tools' Pfeiffer/Weiß (1995) [13].
13. Pfeiffer, W.; Weiß, E. (1995): 'Methoden zur Analyse und Bewertung technologischer Alternativen', in: Zahn, E. (Hrsg.), Handbuch Technologie Management, Stuttgart, pp.663-679.
14. Hartmann, M. (1997): Technologie-Bilanzierung - Instrument einer zukunftsorientierten Unternehmensbeurteilung, Göttingen.
15. Cf in detail On the technological and market developments in the smart card industry', Lender (1997), [16].
16. Lender, F. (1997): Herstellung, Personalisierung und Versand von Chipkarten - Ein Überblick, in: it+ti-Informationstechnik und Technische Informatik, Heft 5, pp.7-13.
17. Hauschildt (1988) [18, p.14].
18. Hauschildt, J. (1988' Unternehmenskrisen - Herausforderungen an die Bilanzanalyse, in: Hauschildt, J. (Hrsg.), Krisendiagnose durch Bilanzanalyse, Köln, pp.1-16.
19. Cf on Problematic of Assessing Newly Established Technological Enterprises, Peemöller/Seeberger/ Keller (1997), [20].
20. Peemöller, V.H.; Seeberger, U.; Keller, B. (1997): 'Möglichkeiten zur Bewertung junger Technologieunternehmen', in: BddW v. 5.9.1997, p.5.
21. Cf Pfeiffer/Weiß (1995), [13 esp. p.672ff.].
22. Lehmann, M.R. (1955): Die Quintessenz der Bilanztheorie, in: ZfB 1955, pp.537-552 und pp.669-688.
23. Within the context of this document, technology is an explication of know-how for functionally abstract problem-solving principles. This presents a key difference to structural know-how about technical systems that can be identified by analyzing part lists or components. Also see Binder/Kantowsky (1996) [24, pp.87ff.]
24. Binder, V.A.; Kantowsky, J. (1996): Technologiepotentiale, Wiesbaden.
25. Cf Hartmann (1997), [14], pp.24-29 as well as analogously for the technology balance sheet, p.155.
26. Cf on the structural design of a technology balance sheet, Hartmann (1997 [14], pp.155ff.).
27. "An abstract functional feature presupposes an abstract description of the task to be completed through problem-solving." Lender (1991) [28], p. 15 Fn. 12.
28. Lender, F. (1991): Innovatives Technologie-Marketing, Göttingen.
29. The annual profit/loss statement is not allocated to equity capital in the trade balance sheet in order to emphasize the similarity between trade and technology balance sheets.
30. Cf. on the risk of a market cycle mindset and the fundamentals of an integrated life cycle mindset, Pfeiffer et al. (1991) [8], pp.22ff.
31. Pfeiffer (1980 [32], p.433) defines The Principle of System Knowledge as follows: "In practice, one refers to construction, construction idea, constructive principle or innovation principle as well as solutions depending on the degree of product development. As a rule, only by designing the system principle can precise theoretical and practical information be identified, i.e. the specific problem-solving relevance can be determined." See other components of knowledge in [32], pp.426ff.
32. Pfeiffer, W. (1980): 'Innovationsmanagement als Know-How-Management', in: Hahn, D. (Hrsg.), Führungsprobleme industrieller Unternehmungen. Friedrich Thomée zum 60. Geburtstag, Berlin, New York, pp.421-452.
33. Pfeiffer, W.; Metze, G. (1989): 'Technologische Analyse', in: Szyperski, N. (Hrsg.), Handwörterbuch der Planung, Stuttgart, pp.2002-2015.
34. Cf Pfeiffer/Metze (1989 [33], Sp. 2004); also especially Betz (1996), [35].
35. Betz, F. (1996): 'Forecasting and planning technology', in: Gaynor, G.H., Handbook of Technology Management, New York et al. 1996, Chapter 12.
36. In terms of technical functionality, it should be noted that the programming of smart cards is not just pure data storage like the traditional memory chip cards. It is much more an interactive process with data interchange between smart cards and encoding units. It is also necessary to note the different, flexible selection of subroutines during the encoding process. See Lender/Hartmann (1997), [37], p.43.
37. Lender, F.; Hartmann, M. (1997): 'Assessing take-over opportunities', in: Card Forum International 4, pp.42-46.
38. Cf in detail Lender/Hartmann (1997) [37].
39. Cf Pfeiffer/Weiß (1995) [13], esp. p.672ff.. see Grupp (1997) [40], and esp. pp.396ff. on Problems of Measuring and Explaining Technical Progress. Also see Pfeiffer (1971) [41] on the General Theory of Technical Development.
40. Grupp, H. (1997): Messung und Erklärung des Technischen Wandels, Berlin u.a.
41. Pfeiffer, W. (1971): Allgemeine Theorie der technischen Entwicklung, Göttingen.
42. Cf on Cost Dynamics of Innovative Technologies. Hartmann/Mild/Sasse (1997), [43].
43. Hartmann, M.; Mild, T.; Sasse, A. (1997): 'Technologiekostenanalyse als Instrument des Innovationskostenmanagements', in: Kostenrechnungspraxis 6, pp.312-318.
44. Besides this comparative measurement structure, other indicator structures can also be applied. For more details, also see Pfeiffer/Weiß (1995) [13] and Hartmann (1997) [14], pp.164ff..
45. The hidden weighting mentioned herein can be replaced at all times by weighting factors of single technologies (requires further clarification). See Hartmann (1997) [14], p.188 and p.193.
46. On a comparable key figure of Technological Profit, that is, however, not derived from a balance sheet. See Iansiti/West (1997) [47], p.53.
47. Iansiti, M.; West, J. (1997): 'Technologie-Integration: Der andere Weg zu neuen Produkten', in: Harvard Business Manager 4, pp.43-53.
48. Cf, among others Baetge/Sieringhaus (1996) [49], and critically by Hirsch (1996) [50].
49. Baetge, J., Sieringhaus, I. (1996): 'Bilanzbonitäts-Rating von Unternehmen', in: Büschgen, H.E.; Everling, O. (Hrsg.), Handbuch Rating, Wiesbaden, pp.221-249.
50. Hirsch, U. (1996): 'Rating ist objektiv subjektiv', in: Büschgen, H.E.; Everling, O. (Hrsg.), Handbuch Rating, Wiesbaden, pp.657-672.
51. Cf also Discussions on the Problematic of Recording New Business Trends in Financially oriented Rating Sytems, among others by Balzer/Ehren (1998) [52].
52. Balzer, A.; Ehren, H. (1998): 'Prüfer auf der Watchlist', in: Manager Magazin 3, pp.64-73.
53. Schmalenbach, E. (1962): Dynamische Bilanz, 13. Auflage, bearbeitet von R. Bauer, Köln (1. Auflage Leipzig 1919).