Technology audit model by Garcia-Arreola

In 1996, Garcia-Arreola developed a technology audit model that aims to:

(i) determine current technological status,
(ii) stress areas of opportunity,
(iii) take advantage of the firm’s strong capabilities.
TAM is a three-level model, with each level going deeper into more specific functions. TAM
assesses the company’s position in technology. The model is based on the following six
categories (1st level):
(i) technological environment,
(ii) technologies categorization,
(iii) markets and competitors,
(iv) innovation process,
(v) value-added functions,
(vi) acquisition and exploitation of technology (Khalil, 2000, 265-266).
Comment: this model is aimed at auditing companies that compete in a market economy and
not to other organizations, so this is not a generally applicable technology audit model. The
model assesses ‘‘company’s position in technology’’ and from this it follows that all the
elements that are somehow (directly or indirectly) connected to the relationship between a
company and technology should be assessed. In case of the largest companies, such a
relationship between a company and technology and all the elements that are connected to it is
a very complex phenomenon and Khalil correctly points out that ‘‘a technology audit can
become a very demanding and complex process.’’
The aims of the model are not all directly technology related (2nd and the 3rd aim) in the sense
that these aims may include many non-technological elements (from the model it is not clear,
how exactly they are related to technology).
Categories (and their descriptions) on which the model is based are also not all directly
technology related (markets and competitors, innovation process, value-added functions) in
the sense that these categories may include many non-technological elements (again, from the
model it is not clear, how exactly are they related to technology). Consequentially, assessment
areas (2nd level) and elements (3rd level) of the model are also not all directly technology
related (reward system, empowerment, innovation in marketing, intrapreneurship,
entrepreneurship, market pull, cross-functional teams) in the sense that these assessment areas
may include many non-technological elements (again, from the model it is not clear, how
exactly are they related to technology).
From all this it follows that this model does not result only in assessment of company’s
technological status, but also in assessment of some other non-technological elements, albeit
relevant to companies’ success. This model is then according to its own substance more than
just a technology audit model.
Elements of the model (3rd level) are then rated according to 5 qualitative determinations:
poor (1), below average (2), average (3), good (4), outstanding (5). From the Garcia-Arreola’s
model it does not follow, how this rating process should be performed. This rating may be
based on a subjective evaluation or opinions or on some objective criteria. It is proposed that
numbers that are assigned to the above 5 qualitative determinations can be added up and
overall score can be calculated by adding all the individual scores. But such reasoning might
be mistaken in that:
(i) Qualitative determinations cannot be added up, because addition presupposes the same
quality (measure) – ‘‘good’’ cannot be summed up with ‘‘poor’’.
(ii) Numbers from 1 to 5 above are not quantitative determinations of elements but they
are indexing numbers for qualitative determinations – 1 does not quantitatively
determine an element in the model but only stands for a qualitative determination
‘‘poor’’ – therefore, we could just as well select numbers 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 for the
above qualitative determinations and nothing would change. (Our experience shows
that auditors usually choose ‘‘somewhere in the middle’’ when they evaluate a
company, but this does not result in a realistic evaluation)
Khalil correctly points out that ‘‘quantitative evaluation for a technology assessment is a
challenge’’ (Khalil, 2000, 274). Garcia-Arreola’s model aims at quantitative technology
assessment but operates with qualitative determinations and in that it may be inconsistent. Its
aim is to result in a number that would express how well a company is doing in relation to
technology. But the question is, not only if such a number is based on a correct reasoning, but
also what is practical value of such rating process for individual companies. If some complex
and demanding technology assessment of a large company results in only one number (e.g.
3,4568), then what basis for practical activity of a company does such a number provide that
is the result of an attempt to quantitatively evaluate a company? What concrete practical
measures can follow from one number (an overall score)?