Innovation Management in Defensive Organizations

Innovation Management in Defensive Organizations

Providing a pattern for prioritizing defense technologies

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Mohammad hassan Ahmadzadehfard 1
Sepehr Ghazinoory 2
Abolghasem Sarabadani 3
Mohammad Taghi Partovi 4
1 Ph.D. Student of science and technology policy, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2 Prof. of Information Technology Management Department, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
3 2. Assistant Professor, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University
4 Assistant Prof. of the Command and Staff University of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army, Tehran, Iran.
10.22034/qjimdo.2023.395291.1583
Abstract
Background & Purpose: Limited resources and the existence of numerous innovation opportunities have revealed the need to pay more attention to intelligent prioritization in the field of science, technology and innovation. Based on this, in this research, a mechanism for prioritizing defense technologies has been provided.
Methodology: In this research, the methodology of design science was used, which focuses on solving specific problems by designing and making new artifacts. This method has 3 main stages including awareness, development and summation and each stage has four sub-stages. In this research, in-depth interview tool was used. 24 experts were selected as the statistical population by snowball method. To analyze the research data, general methods based on theme analysis and a combination of inductive and theory-based approaches were used to identify and categorize themes and semantic patterns (themes) in the data.
Findings: The proposed model for prioritizing defense technologies included the following eight steps; Extraction of basic cross-sector - upstream - national and international strategic values, identification of technologies and continuous estimation of the probability of their use and dimensions of use in the military field, explanation of the current and future consequences and results of the development of each of the technologies, the affected areas and the beneficiaries of each of the technologies, determining the weights Each of the criteria of capability, attractiveness and compatibility and reflection in the three-dimensional matrix and choosing the best portfolio of technology development projects, finalizing the portfolio of projects, continuous monitoring and evaluation of technological priorities.
Conclusion: In the issue of prioritizing potential or actual defense technologies, it is necessary to consider the expectations of stakeholders or economic, political, social and cultural sectors. Also, as a policy recommendation, the need to focus as much as possible on dual-purpose technologies and the connection of defense and non-defense industries was emphasized.
Keywords
Defense technology
prioritization
attractiveness-capability
attractiveness-capability- compatibility model

Subjects

Ahmadzadefard, M.H., Bahramipour, H. and Pertovi, M.T.(2023). Presenting policies for the use of technology acquisition methods in the defense industries of the Islamic Republic of Iran using capability-feasibility analysis. Innovation Management in Defense Organizations, 6(2),117-142.(In Persian).
Ahmadzadefard, M.H. and Bahramipour, H.(2023). Explaining the challenges, requirements and methods of commercialization of defense technologies: a systematic review. Quarterly Journal of Military Sciences and Techniques, 10.22034/QJMST.2023.1971459.1797.(In Persian).
Ahmadian, M., Pedram, A.R. and Zali, S.(2014). Designing Robust Prioritization Paradigm Focusing on Strategic Industries, Management Improvement, Year 9: pp. 31-59.(In Persian).
Bagheri Moghadam, N., Sahafzadeh, M., Emamiyan, M.S. and Irankhah, A.(2008). Priority Setting of R&D Issues: A Case Study of Membrane Technology in National Iranian Gas. Scientific-Research Journal of Science and Technology Policy; pp. 1-10.(In Persian).
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S.(2004). Business Research Methods. Tata McGra-Hill, isbn:9780070532472. 
Doukas, H. C., Andreas, B. M., & Psarras, J. E.(2007). Multi-criteria decision aid for the formulation of sustainable technological energy priorities using linguistic variables. European Journal of Operational Research, 182(2), 844-855.
Dresch, A., Lacerda, D. P. and Antunes, J. A. V.(2015). Design Science Research . Springer International Publishing, (pp. 67-102).
Durand, T.(2003). Twelve Lessons from Key Technologies: The French Technology Foresight Exercise. Journal of Forecasting, 22(2‐3), 161-177.‏
Dussauge, P., & Ramanantsoa, B.(1987). Technologie et Stratégie D'entreprise (No. hal-00708989).‏
Fatemi, S. M. and Arasti, M.R.(2018). Prioritizing the fields of science, technology and innovation. Scientific-Research Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 12(2), pp. 119-133.(In Persian).
Gassler, H., Polt, W., Schindler, J., Weber, M., Mahroum, S., Kubeczko, K. and Keenan, M.(2004). Priorities in science & technology policy: an international comparison. Project Report, Vienna/Seibersdorf: Institut fur Technologie-und Regionalpolitik.‏
Geisler, E.(2002). The metrics of technology evaluation: where we stand and where we should go from here. International Journal of Technology Management, 24(4), 341-374.‏
Godinho, M. M. and Caraça, J.(2009). Setting research priorities: A taxonomy of policy models. In 2009 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy (pp. 1-10). IEEE.‏
Ghazi-Nouri, S.S and Ghazi-Nouri, S.S (2021). An introduction to the policy making of science, technology and innovation. Tehran, Tarbiat Modares University Scientific Works Publishing Center.(In Persian).
Grebenyuk, A., Shahsnov, S. and Sokolov, A.(2016). S&T Priority Setting. International Practices and the Case of Russia. Higher School of Economics Research Paper No. WP BRP, 67.
Hellström, T., Jacob, M. and Sjöö, K.(2017). From thematic to organizational prioritization: the challenges of implementing RDI priorities. Science and Public Policy, 44(5), 599-608.
Kahraman, C. and Kaya, İ.(2010). A fuzzy multicriteria methodology for selection among energy alternatives. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(9), 6270-6281.‏
Lempert, R. J. and Collins, M. T.(2007). Managing the risk of uncertain threshold responses: comparison of robust, optimum, and precautionary approaches. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 27(4), 1009-1026.‏
Mohammadi Fateh, A. and Ebrahimi, S.A.(2019). Identification and ranking of emerging information technologies in the defense-military sector. Scientific Research Journal of Future Defensive Future Studies, 5(17), 171-143.(In Persian).
Maleki, Gh. and Ahmadzadefard, M. H.(2021). Hybrid Warfare. Monograph number 17. Tehran, Army Command and Staff University, Tehran.(In Persian).
Mehdiani Khotbah Sara, R., Ghazi Nouri, S.S. and Radfar, R.(2021). Factors affecting the formation of fundamental innovations in defense companies. Journal of Innovation Management in Defensive Organizations, 5(1), 113-136.(In Persian).
OECD, Development. Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy.(2003). Governance of Public Research: toward better practices.‏
Salo, A. and Liesiö, J.(2006). A case study in participatory priority setting for a Scandinavian research program. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 5(01), 65-88.‏
Sharma, M., Gupta, R. and Acharya, P.(2020). Prioritizing the critical factors of cloud computing adoption using multi-criteria decision-making techniques. Global Business Review, 21(1), 142-161.‏
Shokatian, T.(2018). Designing a model for prioritizing and supporting fundamental researches by Iran's national institutions. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University.(In Persian).
Shokatian, T. and Ghazinouri, S.S.(2019). Elaboration of basic research prioritization framework for government support. Quarterly Journal of Public Policy, 6(2), 75-93.(In Persian).
Stewart, J.(1995). Models of priority-setting for public sector research. Research Policy, 24(1), 115-126.‏
Tabrizi, M.(2013). Qualitative content analysis from the perspective of analogical and inductive approaches. Quarterly Journal of Social Science, 21 (64), pp. 105-138.(In Persian).
Taqavi, M. and Pakzad, M.(2009). Explaining a model for determining research and technology priorities. Scientific Research Quarterly Journal of Humanities Methodology, 16(63), 135-158.
Tegart, G.(1997). A review of Australian experience with Foresight studies and priority setting. Australian Network for Research and Technology Policy, University of Canberra.‏
The 20-year vision document of J.A. on the horizon of 1404(1384). Notification of the Supreme Leader.
Thornton, P. K., Whitbread, A., Baedeker, T., Cairns, J., Claessens, L., Baethgen, W., ... & Keating, B.(2018). A framework for priority-setting in climate smart agriculture research. Agricultural Systems, 167, 161-175.‏
Kamali, Y.(2017). Theme analysis methodology and its application in public . Quarterly Journal of Public Policy, 4(2), 189-208.(In Persian).
Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J. and Baskerville, R.(2012). A comprehensive framework for evaluation in design science research. Design Science Research in Information Systems: Advances in Theory and Practice. 7th International Conference, DESRIST 2012, Las Vegas, NV, USA, May 14-15, 2012. Proceedings 7 (pp. 423-438). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.‏
Vernet, M. and Arasti, M. R.(1999). Linking business strategy to technology strategies: a prerequisite to the R&D priorities determination. International Journal of Technology Management, 18(3-4), 293-307.‏
White, A.(2005). R&D strategy and organisation, managing technical change in dynamic contexts. World Scientific Publishing Company Pte Limited. Isbn: 9810245262,  9789810245269
Yusuff, R. M., Yee, K. P. and Hashmi, M. S. J.(2001). A preliminary study on the potential use of the analytical hierarchical process (AHP) to predict advanced manufacturing technology (AMT) implementation. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 17(5), 421-427.‏