2010
DOI: 10.1080/10429247.2010.11431851
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Defining a Set of Metrics to Evaluate the Potential Disruptiveness of a Technology

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Fundamentally, the indicators covering the following topics were included in the list of assigned indicators: (i) technology disruptiveness (Ganguly et al, 2010); (ii) performance indicators from a systems engineering perspective (Vanek et al, 2008); (iii) company-wide performance measurement for new product development processes (Driva et al, 2000); (iv) indicators focused on the designer level (Acosta et al, 2002); (v) indicators for product introduction from a lean standpoint (Haque and Moore, 2004); (vi) assessment of variety and creativity in concept-and idea generation (Verhaegen et al, 2013); (vii) design metrics for early supplier selection (Humphreys et al, 2007); (viii) performance indicators for collaboration management in the context of engineering design (Gendron et al, 2012) and (ix) high-level and firm-wide indicators based on the balanced score card (Bai et al, 2007).…”
Section: Results and Discussion From The Systematic Assignment Of Promentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fundamentally, the indicators covering the following topics were included in the list of assigned indicators: (i) technology disruptiveness (Ganguly et al, 2010); (ii) performance indicators from a systems engineering perspective (Vanek et al, 2008); (iii) company-wide performance measurement for new product development processes (Driva et al, 2000); (iv) indicators focused on the designer level (Acosta et al, 2002); (v) indicators for product introduction from a lean standpoint (Haque and Moore, 2004); (vi) assessment of variety and creativity in concept-and idea generation (Verhaegen et al, 2013); (vii) design metrics for early supplier selection (Humphreys et al, 2007); (viii) performance indicators for collaboration management in the context of engineering design (Gendron et al, 2012) and (ix) high-level and firm-wide indicators based on the balanced score card (Bai et al, 2007).…”
Section: Results and Discussion From The Systematic Assignment Of Promentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More references on ex ante prediction could be found in the literature (Ganguly et al, 2010;Rafii and Kampas, 2002;Sainio and Puumalainen, 2007).…”
Section: Figure 1 Proposed Assessment Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Christensen (1997) described digital disruption as an evolving technology based on conventional standards, with lower costs and better performance but higher auxiliary capacity. Ganguly et al (2010), Palekar and Sedera (2012) reported that digital transformation is detrimental to the efficiency of media organizations as digital disruption or transformation can lead to job losses (Fairlie & Fossen, 2018). On the other hand, their study found that organizational digitization could reduce the risk of human unemployment (Fossen & Sorgner, 2018).…”
Section: Empirical Review On Continuous Digital Disruptionmentioning
confidence: 99%