A context factor approach towards network based
strategic environmental analysis in technology
management
Natalie M. Theissen
Institut für Technologie- und Innovationsmanagement
Universität der Bundeswehr München (UniBw)
Neubiberg, Germany
theissen.nat@gmail.com
Abstract— This research introduces a new approach for the
strategic analysis of interrelated external influences on an
organization’s competitive, innovative and business performance
based on a context factor approach: The propagative Context
Factor Approach (proCoFA). Requirements for an effective
strategic analysis tool are determined as basis for a better
understanding of the chosen design for the proCoFA. A two
staged iterative study of generic and application-specific
literature is presented as method to develop a clustered context
factor model. The approach is applied to the European mobile
network equipment industry to present and discuss a context
factor model for this sector as basis for the nuanced analysis of its
interrelated strategic environmental influences.
Keywords—context factor, strategic technology analysis,
propagative cause-effect network/matrix, European mobile network
equipment industry,
I. INTRODUCTION
As part of an organization’s strategic policy, technology
management has a significant share of a company’s long term
market success [1]. Strategic technology management deals
with the resource of knowledge and aims to generate
conditions in which ideas and new technologies can effectively
be transferred into products and processes that generate
sustainable economic and competitive advantage [2].
Successful strategic management highly depends on
uniqueness and individuality with regard to the context and
situation [3] and a good timing in terms of anticipated and
prescient strategic action. Due to growing popularity of
strategic planning, several strategic analysis and management
tools have been developed for decades to satisfy the demand
for simple and (apparently) consistent solutions to strategic
questions [4]. This trend of reducing strategy “to boxes,
bubbles and regression coefficients” [5] has come under
reasonable criticism: Many (over-)simplified tools lose a
holistic sight in favor of the focus on one isolated aspect and
fail thus to sum up the complexity of strategic reality and
context. As a consequence, heterogeneity is replaced by
uniformity and generic procedures substitute creative and
unique solutions. That development depresses the potential of
strategic management and makes a sensitive forward-looking
timing of strategic action difficult. This research aims to
provide an approach that models the interdependencies of
978-1-5386-1469-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
environmental context factors and their relation to business and
innovative performance. The approach captures and utilizes the
complexity and interdependencies of external influences to
generate a sound basis for individual, context dependent and
forward-looking strategic action and (design) decisions. The
propagative context factor approach (proCoFA), inverts the
handling of strategic complexity as an “existing evil”, which is
at best levelled, towards its utilization as an adjuvant source for
effective strategic context analysis. It is expected that a
nuanced understanding of the interdependencies and
interrelations of environmental influences facilitates to predict
consequences of environmental changes, which results in
competitive advantage due to prescient strategic action.
This paper introduces a context factor taxonomy as part of
the proCoFA. The first part of this paper is committed to
context factors as a research tool to generate a common
understanding of context (factors) and to introduce the used
method for context factor identification. With this basis, the
correlating context factor approach is introduced. The third part
gives a summarized analysis of the use case to which the new
approach is applied: the European mobile network equipment
industry as part of the information and communication
technology (ICT) sector. In the fourth part, the context factor
taxonomy for the use case is introduced. The paper is
concluded by a short discussion and a prospect on further
research.
II. CONTEXT FACTORS AS A RESEARCH TOOL
A. Definition of context (factor)
The definition of the term “context factor” is based on
existing research: Referring to Hales and Gooch, influencing
factors comprise all people or things that have power, meaning
“the ability to affect outcomes” [6]. Pettigrew, who conducts
research in strategic management, defines context as “anything
that may be seen to shape a process” [7]. Adapted to
technology management, that includes all factors that affect
(the success of) the process of generating new ideas and
transferring them into economically successful products and
processes, including people, organizations, structures, policies
and procedures. Context is commonly understood as ‘the
circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or
idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood’ [8].
2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering,
Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC)
According to the studies of many researchers [9], [10], [11],
Merriam-Webster further specifies these circumstances as
“interrelated conditions” [12] emphasizing the complexity of
context and the interdependency of contributing parameters.
Context factor as it is used in this study is a combination of the
above definitions: Context factors are a set of interrelated
parameters – including people, organizations, rules, structures
and procedures – that form the setting in which an organization
has to generate competitive advantage. Accordingly, a context
factor is an interrelated parameter that directly or indirectly
affects the process of transferring new ideas into economically
successful products and processes. Context factors can be
divided into internal and external context factors (for other
approaches to structure context factors see [6], [13], [14]). In
strategic management research, many scientists found their
own definition and dimension of inner and outer context. The
strategic scientist Pettigrew defines outer context as “the
economic, social, political, competitive and sectorial
environment in which the firm is located” and inner context as
“the inner mosaic of the firm” [15]. The following definition
for this research is related to Pettigrew’s view, but focuses on
the dominant sphere of influence: Internal context factors are
all parameters that are within the direct influence scope of the
organization and thus characterized by the bidirectional
exertion of influence. External factors on the other hand are
predetermined, environmental variables beyond an
organization’s direct influence. They can be seen as the
preexisting framework in which an organization operates. This
study focuses on the analysis of external factors. This
definition is important for an effective context factor
identification that contains and focuses the context factor
model.
B. Context factors in research
The use of context factors as a research tool is established
in several – mainly management – domains like product
development and design management (e.g. [16], [17], [18]),
project management (e.g. [19], [20]), general management and
organization theory (e.g. [21], [22]), but also in psychology
(e.g. [9]). On the contrary, context factors as an interrelated set
of parameters are not yet in the focus of researchers in the field
of technology and innovation management. In the area of
innovation management, the influence and relationship of
context factors on innovation (processes) is studied, mostly
focusing on internal influencing factors (e.g. [23], [24]). Within
the scope of technology management there is very little
nuanced research on the interrelation of context factors:
Geschka et Hahnenwald introduce non-technical internal and
external influencing factors for scenario-based exploratory
technology roadmapping. But they do not go into a detailed
analysis of these input factors and their interrelations [25].
Inspiration for the new correlating context factor approach is
research of Gericke, Meißner and Paetzold [10]: In 2013, they
adapted the context factor approach to the domain of product
development with the aim to transform abstract design
methodologies into concrete, context-depending models. Based
on an extensive literature study, they generated a
comprehensive set of context factors for design methodologies.
To make the amount of factors manageable, they introduced a
978-1-5386-1469-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
very powerful and novel organization scheme: a three leveled
context factor dependency structure matrix
C. Method for the development of a context factor model for
the proCoFA
The main requirements for the context factor model are the
following: A) The context factor model is all-embracing to
capture the entirety of external contextual influence. B) The
context factor model is structured and focused to manage and
utilize complexity. The challenge and key for a powerful
context factor model is to balance the two – partially
conflicting - requirements. That leads to an iterative two-stage
identification process: In the detection step, all context factors
with the potential of strategic relevance are assembled in a
holistic approach. In the allocation step, a first classification
and evaluation of the strategic relevance of each context factor
with regard to the scope of application is conducted in a sector-
specific analysis. As a key feature, the identification process is
not completed with the development of one initial context
factor model. In fact, to balance the above requirements the
best possible, the context factor model is iteratively enhanced
as findings are progressively consolidated. The detection step is
based on a comprehensive, but not exhaustive empirical
literature study. Reviewed literature is divided into two
domains: In the domain of strategic (technology) management,
the focus is put on strategic analysis approaches that follow the
outside-in theory, which study the outer context as source for
potential competitive advantages. Common examples are
Porter’s Five Forces, which is limited to the analysis of sectoral
influences, or the PEST-analysis (also STEP), that takes
political, economic, sociocultural and technological aspects
into account. The organisation of outer context is similar to
Pettigrew’s classification (see section of Definition). That
discloses context factors, whose strategic relevance have
already been identified within the scope of application of the
different approaches. Literature review of the field of context
factor research (beyond strategic management) reveals context
factors, which are not yet included into strategic studies, as
well as different approaches to cluster context factors. That
leads to a generic list of external context factors, which is
independent of the scope of application. In a comparative
screening of all identified context factors congruencies are
detected to incorporate overlapping context factors and to form
homogenous groups of context factors. That results in a
consolidated list of clustered context factors. In the allocation
step, a detailed analysis of the scope of application based on a
deep and extensive review of literature and statistical data is
conducted to generate the best possible model with regard to
the object of research. That requires the identification of
context factors and specifics within the sector, which have not
been considered in the above sector-independent literature, but
potentially have a strategic relevance. Found specifics are
transferred into context factors. The findings are then aligned
with the context factors of step one. That allows reassessing
and completing the context factor list generated in step one
according to the knowledge about the scope of application: The
relevance of single context factors might be questioned,
2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering,
Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC)
clusters are refined and adjusted if necessary and the allocation
of context factors is modified accordingly. In this step, it is
very important to base all adaptions of the model on proven
facts and to exclude interpretation and speculation. As a result,
a clustered and consolidated context factor model is developed
that matches the scope of application. The iterative proceeding
intends to repeat either both steps or just step two as often as a
it is indicated by new findings to enhance the informative and
explanatory value of the proCoFA.
III. THE PROPAGATIVE CONTEXT FACTOR APPROACH
A. Requirements
The approach is supposed to provide a method that allows
strategic analyzing of external context factors which affect an
organizations competitive advantage with regard to their
interdependencies and their effects on innovation and
economic performance as a basis to develop context-specific
prescient technology strategies. A set of requirements has been
identified, which a new approach has to meet to result in a
powerful tool.
A. Multidimensional analysis: A comprehensive
interdisciplinary analysis of all influences is essential to
draw a completed picture of external affecting factors as
basis for strategic decisions.
B. Generic foundation: The generic foundation is essential to
qualify the approach for broad applicability.
C. Sector-specific implementation: The sector-specific
implementation is the prerequisite for an approach to be
applicable in practice.
D. Clear breakdown: A clear focus combined with a
simplifying structure helps to make the mass of
information manageable.
E. Cause-effect tracing: The tracing of cause-effect relations
and interdependencies is the key element of the approach,
although it is a very challenging and error-prone
requirement: (1) Interdependency tagging: The
identification of interdependencies is a main function of
the approach to generate significant results.(2) Impact
detection: The detection of the impact of context factors to
innovation and business performance is the most relevant
aspect of the approach to serve as basis for the
development of technology strategies. It links and
translates theoretical findings from the approach to
practical applicability.
B. Design
To fulfill the above requirements, the introduced context
factor approach has three main features: (1) three leveled
organization of context factors, (2) propagative retrospective
implementation and (3) a matrix structured analysis.
The three leveled organization of context factors is based
on the organization scheme of [10]. Their organization
structure reduces the complexity of the set of context factors
and allows representing interdependencies among context
factors. The three levels are used in the proCoFA to escalate
978-1-5386-1469-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
sector-specification (see Fig. 1): leading to some significant
advantages
Fig. 1: Three leveled context factor organization with
enhancing sector specification
x It structures and clusters the large quantity of influencing
factors making them manageable (meeting requirement
D.). For example the evaluation of interdependencies is
less complex on a cluster level.
x The introduced clusters on the first level are generic
(meeting requirement B.): Level one of the context factor
model can be transferred to many sectors and applications
without revisions. For very distant sectors or applications,
clusters might simply be added or substituted. Results
generated on cluster level might have a general character
allowing the translation to other sectors or applications.
x The categories of level two are predominantly universal
(bridge between requirement B. and C.): Level two of the
context factor model can be transferred to related sectors
without any revisions or with slight modifications to more
distantly related sectors. Results might have a general
character for related applications.
x The specific context factors in level three are sector- or
even organization-specific (meeting requirement C.): This
level is individually created for each sector or application
to which the context factor shall be applied providing the
precise modulation of any sector with all its
characteristics. That leads to very specific and detailed
results which represent the individual conditions of a
market in detail. The specific analysis helps the theoretical
approach to find applicability in practice.
Other than Gericke et al. [10], the proCoFA focuses on
hard factors, meaning factors that are quantitatively or
qualitatively assignable and not biased by subjective
perspective (meeting requirement F.). That is appropriate since
the proCoFA analysis outer context beyond an organization’s
direct sphere of influence which is suitably described by hard
factors.
The propagative retrospective implementation is chosen to
meet the most challenging requirements E. As a matter of fact
for influencing factors with strategic relevance (for example a
policy), there is often a significant time offset between the
occurrence of the trigger and the emergence of its impact. An
analysis taken at a rather bounded instant of time aims to reveal
a static snapshot of a problem or situation. It might not detect
dynamics, especially not interdependencies with a time offset.
2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering,
Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC)
With the timeline-based approach, it is possible to record
occurrences chronologically over a period of time.
A matrix structured analysis is suitable to chart the
complex interrelation of context factors (meeting requirement
E.). The matrix structured analysis is the key feature, which
distinguishes this approach of other methods: instead of linear
relations, this approach uses networks to model influences and
their interrelation. In addition, it facilitates to manage and
simplify the amount of information (meeting requirement D.).
In order to model the entire strategic environment including its
complexity, a Multi-Domain Matrix (MDM) is used. A MDM
merges different Design Structure Matrices (DSMs) and
Domain Mapping Matrices (DMMs) into one model [26]. The
MDM allows thus cross analyzing a system of different
domains and relationships. The DSM has identical parameters
on both axis, providing a perfect basis to model the
interdependencies of context factors [26]. The DMM charts
parameters of two different so called domains on its axis,
allowing for example the tracing of the impact of context
factors on chosen indicators [27]. The proCoFA introduces
time as one set of parameters to map the timely offset of
coincidences. The resulting MDM is shown in figure 2. The
coCoFA uses different weighting patterns to enhance the
information value (meeting requirement D.). An impact’s
offset is either instantaneous, mid-term or long-term.
Interdependencies and impact is categorized as minor, major or
severe. An evaluation of the offset is necessary to develop
strategies that timely respond to changing conditions.
For the completed picture of the external context, the
context factor model is based on a broad, interdisciplinary
(literature) review (meeting requirement A.): It reaches from
political and juridical analysis over economic and sectoral
evaluation to technological and procedural considerations. As a
multidimensional tool, all aspects are examined on different
levels: For example, the economic analysis starts with
macroeconomic aspects followed by a sector specific
evaluation and finally goes down to product specifics and
microeconomic details. Relevant players are evaluated on a
level of political, economic and mediating influence and origin.
Fig. 2: Matrix-structured analysis of the proCoFA
978-1-5386-1469-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
IV. USE CASE: EUROPEAN MOBILE NETWORK EQUIPMENT
INDUSTRY
The new approach is applied to the European mobile
Network Equipment industry (EU mobile NEI). This sector is
particularly qualified as test object for this application, because
the uniqueness of the principles for new product development
in the NEI are one of a kind. These exceptional conditions
imperatively demand for tailored technology strategies. The
short introduction into the specifics of the NEI concretely
displays the sectoral uniqueness and illustrates the importance
to consider these contextual influences for technology and
innovation strategies.
The sector of European telecommunication network
equipment as part of the Information and communication
technology (ICT) is a high-technology sector which is amongst
others characterized by heavy research and development efforts
[28]. While many markets share the high R&D input, the NEI
has always been governed by additional specific conditions that
led to a unique economic subsystem. One significant
distinction from other industries is the amenability to formal
standardization, which reaches back to the very beginning of
modern telecommunication1: While standardization generally
arouses suspicion, its advantages of enhanced transmission
speed and reduced error proneness by standardized
transmission systems have been concordantly realized by the
pioneers of telecommunication [30]. In consequence, the first
transnational standardization body was founded in the
telecommunication industry in 18502. The incorporation of
telecommunication network infrastructure industry and
standardization is since than very strong and a case sui generis
[32]. Today, the development of telecommunication
infrastructure is embedded into a mature standardization
system. The telecommunication industry has strong bias to
patenting, which is caused by the nature of its technologies,
which generally combine many or at least several different
(patented) components within one product [33]. Another
formative specifics of the telecommunication industry is its
history as a governmental dominated sector with very few
(national) monopoly companies: Until about 1990, when the
EU obtained liberalization of the telecommunication market
with means of policies, telecommunication had been seen as a
natural monopoly, which was under national state control [34].
Liberalization on a pan-European level shifted market power
from public to the private sector towards a socially self-
regulated market [35]. The entry of numerous new players into
the market resulted in proliferated involved interests and
complex power structures. That enhanced need and expenditure
of coordination was and is clearly noticeable on a technical as
well as on an organizational level. Regardless of liberalization,
the distinctive European and national governmental interest in
the telecommunication market is unchanged due to its
importance for economic growth and common welfare [36].
That is why the degree of EU and national activity – including
1
In 1833 C.F. Gauß and W. Weber founded modern telecommunication by
inventing the electromagnetic telegraph, [29]
2
The first transnational standardisation body was founded by Prussia,
Austria-Hungary, Bavaria and Saxony in July 1850: They confederated in the
Deutsch-Österreichische Telegraphenverein (DÖTV; "Austrian-German
Telegraph Union"), [31]
2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering,
Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC)
amongst others policies, regulations and subsidies - in the
telecommunication sector is still much higher than in other
high-technology sectors [37, p. 1214].
The NEI is strongly dominated by big mature players with a
long history in telecommunication network infrastructure [38].
There are several reasons why the barriers to entry the NEI
market are very high for new players: The development of
telecommunication networks precedes long-term high
technology research, which requires besides high technological
and network experience and knowledge the potential to afford
an immense financial input [39]. Above that, networks are
generally to some extend build upon preceding network
solutions and standards, impeding market entry for new players
further. That is why the entrance of new players is generally
linked to fundamental technological or service changes like
digitalization or the shift towards software applications [40].
Due to long development periods and volume and complexity
of telecommunication network infrastructures, pooling of risks
to several players is inevitable and unquestioned by all
participants. That is why collaboration and alliances are
commonplace in the NEM [41].
The selection of the European mobile network equipment
industry as use case has significant advantages: Due to its
distinctive and unique external technology environment, the
external context of and its specifics have already been research
subject of many scientists resulting in a sound amount of
applicable literature and research results. The European mobile
network industry is a relatively closed and well-defined sector
which supports a precise analysis.
V. CONTEXT FACTOR MODEL FOR THE EUROPEAN MOBILE NEI
The identification of context factors for the European
mobile NEI follows the introduced two staged literature
review. In the domain of strategic management, findings are
mainly based on [7], [15], [42], [43]. Studied literature on
context factor research beyond strategic management is [10],
[13], [44]. The most important literature for the analysis of the
European mobile NEI are [35], [45], [46]. The generated
context factor model is illustrated in figure 4. According to the
three leveled approach, context factors are organized in seven
generic clusters, which are each subdivided into different
categories of context factors. In the sectoral cluster, market and
technology specific aspects are considered. The governmental
cluster concentrates on judicative and legislative actions
including policies and case law, but also on additional public
incentive systems that influence the mobile NEI. The
institutional cluster introduces players that are neither common
private enterprise market participants nor political actors and
analyses their motivation and role in the market. All economic
and strategic instruments that are used to coordinate and
structure interaction in the mobile NEI are allocated to the
implemental cluster. In the procedural cluster the course of
action of new product development and innovation exploitation
is retraced. For enhanced robustness of the model and to reduce
the probability of defective interpretation and allocation of
occurrences and impacts, there are two more clusters which
deal with occurrences beyond the study’s main focus: There is
the internal cluster to accommodate for in-house changes in a
company that might account for measures within another
978-1-5386-1469-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
cluster. The external cluster considers all intersectoral aspects
like bank crises that might cause measurable effects in the
other clusters.
A. Sectoral Cluster
The sectoral cluster maintains all context factors that
describe the telecommunication industry and in particular the
mobile NEI. It can be divided into market and technology
considerations. On the market side, the economic area is
examined concerning its geographical dimension on an
economic, administrative and functional level. As in many
markets, globalization causes a development from regional or
national expansion towards European or even global solutions.
Although the mobile NEI has been dominated by pan-
European solutions, national and global aspects are not to be
neglected [37, p.1206]. On a functional level, different
submarkets like the NEI or terminal equipment manufacturing,
network operators and service providers have to be
distinguished [47]. Resulting from these distinctions, there are
different administrative competences. The functional
differentiation is closely related to the analysis of submarkets,
which is done in the category market structure. Besides the
submarkets, players and their relation to each other are
examined with focus on the mobile NEI. Caused by the fusion
with the infotainment sector, new technological solutions (like
software applications) and fields of application (like device to
device communication), the number and groups of (new) actors
develop very dynamically [48]. By means of a vertical and
horizontal analysis, relations between different actor groups are
described concerning rivalry, cooperation and power. That is
where incentives also need to be considered. That includes the
description of existing lobby as well as motives and interests of
different player (groups). On a technological level, the actual
network technology is examined as well as its technological
environment. Design requirements for a system have a high
impact for further development, innovation and innovative
success. Are there revolutionary innovations like digitalization
that influence not just the new technology but also the market
structure? Are there competing technological solutions?
Another important aspect for technological evaluation is the
technological framework: A technology is not developed in a
free space, but there are preceding and often even archetype
technologies (in other economic areas) that influence new
developments.
B. Governmental cluster
For the mobile NEI, the governmental cluster is very
important due to the above mentioned high political interests in
this sector. Political action concerning the European mobile
NEI is mainly on the European scale, wherefore power,
motives, objectives and actions of involved European bodies is
in the focus of this cluster. The judicative is represented by the
European Court of Justice. Most important EU actors for
legislative affairs are the European Commission, the Member
States which are represented by the Council of Ministers, and
to some extend the European Parliament. Although most
legislative initiation originates from the EU, the Member States
are still responsible to translate EU policies into national laws
[49]. That is why legislative as well as judicative action on a
national level needs to be considered. As globalization
2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering,
Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC)
progresses, the World Trade Organization (WTO) is attracting
notice. There are different means of governmental action
reaching from regulatory (laws and policies) to incentive
(subsidies) tools. The EU generally prefers free movement to
regulation. That is why the exertion of influence by the EU is
limited to those areas, where it is seen as necessary. The sphere
of regulation concerns mainly implementation issues and
competition policy. In the field of implementation, the EU
mainly influences the sections of licensing, numbering, radio
frequency spectrum, terminal equipment and procurement [44,
p. 99]. Interpretation of laws and policies is often not
unambiguous until clarified by case law. That is why an own
category is introduced to examine relevant case law like for
example the cases Huawei v ZTE, Qualcomm Inc. v Broadcom
Corp or the decisions on Rambus (concerning patent ambush in
the DRAM standard) or Magill (TV listings companies v
Magill TV Guide Ltd).
C. Institutional cluster
In the institutional cluster, intermediaries and supporting
bodies of the mobile NEI are analyzed. Due to the special
situation of formal standardization in the mobile NEI, they
mainly deal with standardization and/or intellectual property
(rights). It can be distinguished between constitutive bodies and
project-specific structures. Constitutive organizations are long-
term cross-project institutions, which are widely recognized by
the NEI as well as by official bodies. Project-specific structures
like consortia are generally temporarily existing for a specific
purpose within on project. They are not necessarily officially
recognized and often found by consensus of some (not
necessarily all) involved parties. The most important
constitutive organization for the European mobile NEI is the
European Telecommunication Standards Institute (ETSI), but
also the Conférence Européenne des Administrations des
Postes et des Télécommunications (CEPT) and the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU). ETSI has a
significant role in all standardization processes within the
examined period of this study, while CEPT is mainly involved
into the second generation network [50]. The relevance of ITU
only starts with the development of third generation networks,
when interoperability beyond the European boarder is
attracting notice [51]. The structure of all constitutive bodies
will be analyzed to get an insight of how they ensure to be
widely recognized and to produce high quality results, how
decisions are made but also who is allowed to participate and
on what terms. A very delicate aspect is their factual power to
enforce their members’ compliance to their policies and thus
their potential to compel a certain behavior of their
participants. The influence and function of project-specific
structures like the GSM MoU cannot uniformly be described,
but needs individual analysis.
D. Implemental Cluster
The implemental cluster considers all instruments that
enable and influence the infrastructure and interaction within
the European mobile NEI. Due to the distinctive bias to patents
and standards, the most important economic and strategic
instruments are Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), standards
and supporting tools to manage and coordinate resulting
structures. There are many different kinds of technical
978-1-5386-1469-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
standards that need to be distinguished to classify a concrete
standard but also its value and impact correctly [52]. A
technical standard can be described by its regulation objective,
its development process, its supervision and its accessibility.
Based on the classification, a precise analysis of the
technological, economic and societal objectives of a standard
needs to be conducted. Is there a limiting time frame for the
development process? Another focus of consideration are the
lobby and involved parties into a standard’s development as
well as in its usage and application. The geographical
expansion also needs to be considered. Depending on a
standard’s design, the system level on which standardization
occurs and the technical scale of a standard varies [53]. The
application and use of IPR is not project specific, but a
strategic and economic tool which is widely used in the mobile
NEI (as well as in many other industries). Without restriction to
the mobile NEI, there is a heated debate on the benefit of IPR
ongoing (for more details, see [54]-[56]). Notwithstanding,
intellectual property and intellectual property rights is firmly
established in law, economy and society. In the mobile NEI,
patent strategies are one major device for economic success.
That is why a precise analysis of the patenting behavior is
needed. But the best patent strategy is just as good as the
quality of the underlying patents. That raises the question if
(European) patents meet the necessary quality requirements
[57]. That is also important for the practicability, acceptance
and amenity of standard-essential patents (SEP), which is an
important tool to make the complexity of IPR within a
telecommunication network standard manageable. The
European Commission defines each patent ‘that protects
technology essential to a standard’ as standard-essential.
Essential in this context means ‘that it is impossible to
manufacture standard-compliant products such as smartphones
or tablets without using technologies covered by one or more
SEPs’ [58,p. 2]. Essential patents are defined for each standard
and induce special value and power to its owner: As a standard
is implemented, the market is de facto locked not only to the
standard but also to the involved SEPs. Depending on the SEP-
agreement within a standard, a SEP makes the owner’s till ring
each time the standard is implemented. That is one reason, why
litigation involves more often SEP are more often litigated than
non-SEP [59]. Another reason is that a SEP gives the SEP-
holder imbalanced power over other market participants that
holds the potential to conduct anticompetitive actions like
patent hold-up or the exclusion of competitors from the market
[58, p.3]. Is this an existing problem in reality or do SEP-
holders commit to a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory
(FRAND) (licensing) behavior? Other implements to back up a
company’s market position are also considered within this
study like cartel agreements or cooperation on a horizontal and
vertical level. Supporting tools are for example patent pools
(like AVANCI) or platforms. The effect of (some) supporting
structures is controversially discussed and needs to be analyzed
carefully for each case [44, p. 250-255].
E. Procedural Cluster
Standard setting in the telecommunication network industry
is a multi-annual complex process [45]. The course of this
process significantly influences the innovation processes of
each participant but also the technological outcome. That is
2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering,
Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC)
why a detailed analysis of the processes is inevitable to link one hand, there are the mobile NEIs in other geographical areas
and explain economic success. An important question is who like in Japan or the US [44, p. 462]. On the other hand, markets
the initiator of the development of a new network, technology with an overlapping or even fusing profile concerning
and/or standard is. Dynamics are very different if the industry technology and manufacturing (like the switches industry) or
itself pushes a new technology or if a governmental target group (like the infotainment sector) also influence the
requirement triggers a process. The choice of the coordinating European mobile NEI significantly.
body is also game-changing: That determines the subsequent Cluster Category Context Factor
development process in terms of access to the process, Mark et: regional
dimension national
participation requirements and decision making [60]. The European
members who enter the standardization process highly global
structure player
influence the diversity of technological solutions and the way relation
of collaboration. To pool risks and the immense research and submarkets
development effort, alliances are often found among supporters Sectoral
distinctions interoperabilty
consortia
of the same technological vision. As a result, standardization is culture lobby
generally not just a rational but also a political process in which Technology
interests
design requirements
different parties try to push their favored technological solution alternative technologies
through [61]. For this reason, aspects like timing and filling of archetype systems
revolutionary/latest innovation
leading positions might be decisive for a standard. It is preceding technologies
important to analyze who takes an active or passive role in the regulator stance
objectives
process. There are different ways to participate in a scope of regulation
standardization process because of the high volume of work in Governmental laws antitrust, IPR
directives
the standardization process: while big companies can afford to subsidies R&D programms
have their captive delegates, smaller companies need to make other regulative means
use of provided uncommitted agents who participate to constitutive bodies structure
objectives
represent the interests of several companies. The way decisions Institutional
policies (incl. IPR)
are made is also crucial for the result of a standardization committed structures
patent pools
process: Who is allowed to participate in a decision and does it Consortia
require consensus or majority? The procedural analysis gives a Standards: technological
objectives economic
good insight to explain occurrences and decisions that do not societal
follow rational motives. obligation de jure
de facto
time frame
F. Internal cluster participants
supporter/lobby
As mentioned above, the internal cluster is part of the error territorial expansion regional
national
prevention mechanism. In-house activities and changes are European
plotted for identified lead user or in case of statistical spikes. global
design architecture of standz.
That helps to avoid that occurrences that are caused by internal Implemental
degree of standz.
incidences are wrongly linked to triggers of another cluster. Strategic: cartel agreements
Important internal developments might be strategic cooperations vertical
horizontal
reorientation, intern development like the reorganization of IPR pro und cons
business units and/or employees, new focal points like a essential IPR
patent strategies
modification of the product portfolio or financial losses. patent quality
Strategic reorientation might for example trigger changes in case law
violation
Huawei
collaboration on a vertical as well as on a horizontal level. New Qualcomm
intellectual property strategies are also likely to become visible Rambus
Magill
by a “patent counts” analysis [61]. On the other hand, internal initiation
developments like a change of product portfolio might also be lead management/supervision ETSI…
accessibility members
triggered by incidences of other clusters. Most of these Procedural conditions
incidences are preceded by and linked to changes in the top participation activ/passiv
role
management of a company and/or to financial distress. decision making
business strategy collaboration
IP behaviour
G. External cluster intern development personal
Internal
strategic
The external cluster also supports to prevent mismatches of product portfolio
incidences and effects. As a matter of course, macroeconomic innovation/R&D strategy
and intersectoral incidences also influence context factors. For macroeconomic influences
financial crises
example, economic or severe environmental crisis leave their environmental crisis
multifaceted marks in many sectors. But also political changes External
political changes
new policies
and new policies and case laws beyond the European mobile case law
NEI might influence a company’s activity in a way that related markets geographically
overlapping profile
becomes visible in this context factor analysis. Another
important aspect is the development in related markets: On the Fig. 3: Context factor model for the European mobile NEI

978-1-5386-1469-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering,

Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC)
 VI. DISCUSSION
With the use of context factors as a tool to measure
interdependencies of influences in strategic technology
management, this study is in unchartered water: As the
literature review discloses, technology management research
does not noticeable focus on interdependencies of context
factors so far. That is why the developed model draws on
findings of other research fields, which as a matter of course
need significant transfer pitches and adoption to the new field
of application. The basic approach of the context factor model
to describe and cluster the outer context is in line with
prevalent methods for strategic analysis like PEST and
Pettigrew’s theory of the three dimensions of change. To meet
the requirements for strategic technology management, this
context factor model is extended by the focus on sector-
specific, implemental and procedural aspects for technology
and product introduction. These aspects augment the
explanatory power of the introduced approach and help to
provide two important questions of strategic technology
management: How and especially when are strategies,
technologies, innovations and products best placed in the
market? What are appropriate strategies for the handling of
know-how with regard to sector and technology specifics?
Because existing strategic analysis tools remain on a rather
generic descriptive level with regard to interrelation of
influences, the use of context factors in other research domains
is consulted to enhance the level of detail: There is for once,
Gericke, Meißner and Paetzold [20], who give example for a
very extensive list of – mainly intern - context factors. [62]
introduces a fair amount of outer context factors. The resulting
context factor model provides a sound basis for the analysis of
interdependencies of strategic relevant context factors to
capture the entirety of the strategic outer context. The
extension of the model causes the risk, that the complexity of
interdependencies is not manageable. But the hierarchical
organization of the context factor model helps to reduce this
risk by directing and structuring the proceeding: analysis starts
on cluster level and continues on the second level by a cluster-
wise category analysis. The intra-clusteral results are then used
for cross-clusteral evaluation on category level. The analysis is
completed by an examination of single context factors in level
three of the context factor model. The leveled structure of
analysis is advantageous, because strategic relevance and
accumulation of interdependencies of certain context factor
(groups) are detected in a very early stage of analyzation. That
allows focusing on the hot spots while minimizing the effort on
less decisive factors and reduces thus the overall analysis
effort. For the application of the context factor model in the
proCoFA, the main challenge is to find evidence for and to
measure strategic relevance of clusters and especially concrete
context factors. Due to the current state of research on context
factors in strategic technology management and on the
European mobile NEI, there are no preceding studies to
directly rely on. In fact, data and findings on relevance and
interdependencies of context factors have to be generated by
further extensive empirical studies of literature and data sets
about the European mobile NEI. To conduct these studies
effectively, research on each context factor (group) has to
precede to generate feasible measuring methods. The (partial)
evaluation and illustration of interdependencies in the
978-1-5386-1469-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
proCoFA matrix structure and derived graphs also uses the
three leveled context factor organization by conducting inter-
and intra-clusteral analysis on different levels.
VII. CONCLUSION
With the proCoFA this paper introduces a tool for context
factor based research and analysis in the field of strategic
technology management. The application of the proCoFA
allows analyzation of external influencing factors and their
interrelation with regard to competitive advantage and
economic success as a basis for the development of prescient
technological strategies. The key characteristic of the proCoFA
is the network – instead of linear – modeling of context factors
and their cause-effect relations. That becomes visible in the
following features of the approach: Context factors are
organized in a three leveled structure to make the amount of
factors manageable and to provide a generic model that can
easily be modified for the application in different test fields.
Secondly, a propagative retrospective implementation is
chosen that accommodates for the commonly detected time
offset between strategic incidences and their measurable
impacts. Thirdly, a matrix structured analysis allows charting
the complex interrelation of context factors and facilitates to
manage and simplify the amount of information.
A concrete context factor model for the chosen use case,
the European mobile NEI is developed in two steps: Firstly, a
summary of the specifics of the European mobile NEI is given
as a basis to tailor the three leveled context factor model to
chosen use case. Secondly, the introduced method for the
identification of context factors for the proCoFA is used to
develop the three leveled context factor model for the
European mobile NEI. Based on this context factor model, the
European mobile NEI will be analyzed in further research with
means of the proCoFA to serve two main research objectives:
On the one hand, the performance of the coCoFA as strategic
analysis method of the outer context is tested and room for
improvement is identified. On the other hand, generated
findings about the complexity of the outer context and the
interdependencies of influencing context factors in the
European mobile NEI provide a basis for prescient adjustment
and improvement of strategic action in this sector.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I thank Kristin Paetzold for our constructive discussions,
her scientific guidance and the highly encouraging supervision
of my research.
REFERENCES
[1] H.-J. Bullinger. 1994, Einführung in das Technologiemanagement.
Wiesbaden, p. 89
[2] Y. Qian. 2002, Strategisches Technologiemanagement im
Maschinenbau. Stuttgart, p. 39
[3] E. G. Carayannis. 2001, Strategic management of technological learning.
Boca Raton, Fla., p. 14
[4] C. Rasche. 1994, Wettbewerbsvorteile durch Kernkompetenzen.
Wiesbaden, p. 11
[5] C. A. Bartlett, S. Ghoshal. 1991, Global strategic management: Impact
on the new frontiers of strategic research, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 1991, 5–16, p. 7
2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering,
Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC)
[6] C. Hales, S. Gooch. 2004, Managing Engineering Design. 2nd ed.
London
[7] A. Pettigrew. 2005, Strategy as process, power and change, in: Images
of strategy, S. Cummings, D. C. Wilson and D. Angwin (Eds.). Malden,
Mass., pp. 301–330
[8] Oxford Dictionary (2017). Definition context. Available from
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/
[9] D. Dörner. 1996, The Logic of Failure. New York Pp
[10] K. Gericke, M. Meißner and K. Paetzold. 2013, Understanding the
Context of Product Development, in: Proceedings of the 19th
International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED13), Udo
Lindemann, Srinivasan V, Yong Se Kim, Sang Won Lee, John Clarkson,
Gaetano Cascini (Eds.)
[11] P. Badke-Schaub, E. Frankenberger. 2004, Management kritischer
Situationen. Berlin Heidelberg
[12] Merriam-Websters (2012). Definition context. Available from:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/context
[13] M. Meißner, K. Gericke, B. Gries. 2005, Eine adaptive
Produktentwicklungsmethodik als Beitrag zur Prozessgestaltung in der
Produktentwicklung. in H. Meerkamm, ed. Design for X. Neukirchen, p.
67–77
[14] J.C. Ponn. 2007, Situative Unterstützung der methodischen
Konzeptentwicklung technischer Produkte. doctoral thesis, Technische
Universität München
[15] A. Pettigrew. 1997, What is processual analysis?, Scandinavian Journal
of Management, Vol. 13, No. 4, 337–348, p. 341
[16] T. Burns, G.M. Stalker. 1961, The management of innovation. London
[17] K. Ehrlenspiel. 2003, Integrierte Produktentwicklung. 2nd ed. München
[18] R.E. McQuater, A.J. Peters, B.G. Dale, M. Spring, J.H. Rogerson, E.M.
Rooney. 1998, The management and organisational context of new
product development: Diagnosis and self-assessment. International
Journal of Production Economics, 55, 121–131
[19] C. Engel, C. Holm. 2004, Erfolgreich Projekte durchführen, GPM
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Projektmanagement, P.A. Consulting Group
[20] D. White, J. Fortune. 2002, Current practice in project management - an
empirical study. International Journal of Project Management, 20, 1–11
[21] J. Woodward. 1965, Industrial Organisation: Theory and Practice.
London
[22] C. Vahs. 2009, Organisation: Ein Lehr- und Managementbuch. Stuttgart
[23] R. F. Hurley, G. T. M. Hult. 1998, Innovation, market orientation, and
organizational learning: An integration and empirical examination,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 1998, 42–54
[24] A. G. Vieites, J. L. Calvo. 2011, A study on the factors that influence
innovation activities of spanish big firms, Technology and Investment,
Vol. 2, 8–19
[25] H. Geschka, H. Hahnenwald. 2013, Scenario-Based Exploratory
Technology Roadmaps – A Method for the Exploration of Technical
Trends, in: Technology Roadmapping for Strategy and Innovation, M.
G. Moehrle, R. Isenmann and R. Phaal (Eds.). Berlin, pp. 123–136
[26] S. D. Eppinger, T. R. Browning. 2012, Design structure matrix methods
and applications. Cambridge, Mass, p. 4
[27] M. Danilovic, T. Browing. 2007, Managing complex product
development projects with design structure matrices and domain
mapping matrices, Int. Journal of Project Management, 25 (3), 300–314
[28] OECD. 2009, Business R&D by technology intensity, OECD Science,
Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2009
[29] F. Martín-Rodríguez, G. B. García and M. Á. Lires. 2010, Technological
Archaeology: Technical description of the Gauß-Weber telegraph, in:
2010 Second IEEE Region 8 Conference on the History of
Telecommunications Conference (HISTELCON). Piscataway, NJ
[30] R. Wenzlhuemer, Die Geschichte der Standardisierung in Europa, in:
Europäische geschichte Online (EGO), n. 26
[31] J. Reindl. 1993, Der Deutsch-Österreichische Telegraphenverein und die
Entwicklung des deutschen Telegraphenwesens 1850 - 1871. Berlin
[32] S. Dorn. 2014, Technische Standardisierung im Spannungsfeld von
Immaterialgüterrecht, Kartellrecht und Innovation. Hamburg, p. 4
978-1-5386-1469-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
[33] M. A. Lemley. 2007, “Ten Things to do About Patent Holdup of
Standards (And One Not To),” 48 B.C.L. Rev., 149–168, p. 151
[34] R. Niederlaak. 2000, Consumers Benefit der Liberalisierung des
Telekommunikationsmarktes. Hamburg, p. 20-21
[35] K. Schultheiß. 2004, Europäische Telekommunikationsstandardisierung.
Münster, p. 133
[36] Europäische Kommission, Grünbuch zur Konvergenz der Branchen
Telekommunikation, Medien und Informationstechnologie, KOM(1997),
632 endg., p. ii
[37] M. Hess, N. M. Coe. 2016, “Making Connections: Global Production
Networks, Standards, and Embeddedness in the Mobile-
Telecommunications Industry,” Environment and Planning A, Vol. 38,
1205–1227
[38] M. Friedewald, P. Zoche, K. Knüttek, T. Magedanz, I. Schubert, D. P.
Singh, J. Tiemann and P. Weik. 2004, Wechselseitiges Verhältnis
hochbitratiger Funknetze in künftigen Telekommunikationsmärkten.
Karlsruhe und Berlin, p. 46
[39] M. Lapedus, Leading-Edge Fab Costs Soar to $4 Billion
[40] G. Bailey, C. Seider. 2007, And then there were few, IBM Global
Business Services, p. 4
[41] H. Humgenberg. 1998, Schmalenbachs Z betriebswirtsch Forsch, Vol.
50, p. 480
[42] A. F. Alkhafaji. 2003, Strategic management: formulation,
implementation and control in a dynamic environment, New York
[43] F. X. Bea, J. Haas: Strategisches Management, 9. Auflage, Konstanz
[44] R. Böttcher. 1995, Global network management, Wiesbaden, p. 53
[45] R. Bekkers. 2001, Mobile telecommunications standards. Boston
[46] F. Hillebrand (Ed.). 2002, GSM and UMTS. Chichester ß
[47] EITO. 2002, “Entering the UMTS era - mobile applications for pocket
devices ans services,” European Information Technology Observatory
2003, 190–247, p. 205
[48] J. Wulf and R. Zarnekow. 2011, “Cross-Sector Competition in
Telecommunications,” Business & Information Systems Engineering,
Vol. 3, 289–298
[49] K. A. Eliassen and J. From (Eds.). 2007, The privatisation of European
telecommunications. Aldershot, p. 56
[50] L. Fuentelsaz, J. P. Maícas and Y. Polo. 2008, “The evolution of mobile
communications in Europe: The transition from the second to the third
generation,” Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 32, 436–449
[51] H. Glimstedt. 2010, Competitive dynamics of technological
standardization: The case of third generation cellular communications,”
Industry and Innovation, Vol. 8, 49–78
[52] A. Balitzki. 2014, Patente und technische Normen, Marburg, p. 8
[53] H. van der Veer, A. Wiles. 2008, ETSI White Paper No. 3: Achieving
technical interoperability . the ETSI approach, 3rd edn., p. 6
[54] M. Boldrin, D.K. Levine. 2013, The case against patents, Journal of
Economic Perspectives, Vol. 27 (1), 3–22
[55] A. B. Jaffe, J. Lerner. 2011, Innovation and Its Discontents. Princeton
[56] J. Bessen and M. J. Meurer. 2008, Patent failure. Princeton
[57] J. Henkel, H. Zischka. 2015, Why most patents are invalid -extent,
reasons, and potential remedies of patent invalidity
[58] European Commission. 2014, Competition policy brief: Standard-
essential patents, Issue 8, p. 2
[59] ECSIP Consortium. 2014, Patents and standards. Brussels, p. 126
[60] M. A. Lemley. 2002, Intellectual property rights and standard setting
organizations, California Law Review, Vol. 90, Issue 6, 1889–1980
[61] J. Hagedoorn, M. Cloodt. 2003, Measuring innovative performance: is
there an advantage in using multiple indicators, Research Policy, Vol.
32, 1365–1379
[62] G. A. Cole. 2006, Strategic management, 2nd edn. London, p. 29
2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering,
Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC)