English   Danish

2022/2023  KAN-CCMVV1441U  Analyzing technology & competition

English Title
Analyzing technology & competition

Course information

Language English
Course ECTS 7.5 ECTS
Type Elective
Level Full Degree Master
Duration One Quarter
Start time of the course First Quarter
Timetable Course schedule will be posted at calendar.cbs.dk
Max. participants 60
Study board
Study Board for MSc in Economics and Business Administration
Course coordinator
  • Kristina Dahlin - Department of Strategy and Innovation (SI)
Main academic disciplines
  • Innovation
  • Management
  • Strategy
Teaching methods
  • Face-to-face teaching
Last updated on 11-02-2022

Relevant links

Learning objectives
  • Learn core strategy and technology concepts and models to analyze the past, present and future of technologies
  • Find and apply data to technology models
  • Understand the linkages between technological evolution and firm-level strategic options
  • Understand intellectual property options for different technologies
  • Learn to analyze the role of technical standards in different contexts and understand their impact on competition
  • Link industry and IP context with entry options for new technologies and firms
  • Be able to forecast technology
Analyzing techonology & competition:
Exam ECTS 7,5
Examination form Oral exam based on written product

In order to participate in the oral exam, the written product must be handed in before the oral exam; by the set deadline. The grade is based on an overall assessment of the written product and the individual oral performance, see also the rules about examination forms in the programme regulations.
Individual or group exam Oral group exam based on written group product
Number of people in the group 2-4
Size of written product Max. 20 pages
Definition of number of pages:
Groups of
2 students 10 pages max.
3 students 15 pages max.
4 students 20 pages max.

Students who wish to have an individual exam might be able to write a term paper in the course. Please see the cand.merc. rules for term papers for more information.
Assignment type Project
Written product to be submitted on specified date and time.
15 min. per student, including examiners' discussion of grade, and informing plus explaining the grade
Grading scale 7-point grading scale
Examiner(s) Internal examiner and second internal examiner
Exam period Autumn
Make-up exam/re-exam
Same examination form as the ordinary exam
Course content, structure and pedagogical approach

This course trains you in understanding how technology changes over time so that you can predict what options entrepreneurial as well as established firms face at different stages: how competition will change and what tools firms have in impacting the direction of a technology. The focus is both on the technology-level of analysis and the opportunities and constraints technology imposes on firm choices.


A core part of the course is collection and analysis of data, from patents, scientific publications, industry reports, firm documents as well as other sources. The theoretical models in the course are explored by students in their projects and much guidance will be given on how to implement models in a powerful way.


Examples of prior project topics: block chain technology, cyber security, drones, 3D printing, DNA sequencing, golf clubs.


The course is intended to appeal to those interested in managing technology-oriented firms, creating technology-driven start-ups, consulting to such firms, or valuing technology for financial institutions. Students with public policy interests may also find the course rewarding. Models taught in the course are helpful when assessing the future of a technology for investment reasons.

Description of the teaching methods
Besides theory-oriented lectures there are data-sessions where we work on finding the right information about and mapping a technology over time using theoretical models.
The lectures are interactive and we use student projects as illustrations to gain a deeper understanding of concepts and models presented in readings.
Feedback during the teaching period
Non-graded, elective 2-4 one-page hand-ins for each group summarizing different aspects of research the group has done will get feedback useful for the final project document.
The data-sessions involve students getting on-going feedback from the instructor.
Student workload
Lectures and data sessions 33 hours
Preparation of lectures and data sessions (incl. reading) 75 hours
Exam project (research and writing of report) and exam preparation (reading) 98 hours 98 hours
Expected literature

Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (1991). Managing through cycles of technological change. Research-Technology Management34(3), 26-31.


Arora, A. and Gambardella A. 2010. Ideas for rent: an overview of markets for technology. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(3), 775–803.


Arthur, W. Brian. (1990). Positive Feedbacks in the Economy. Scientific American, February, pp. 92-99.


Article collection on block chains and crypto currencies from the Economist and other business press.

Baer, T. 2019. Understand, manage and prevent algorithmic bias. A guide for business users and data scientists. APress, ISBN: 9781484248843. Chapters 1 and 2.

Christensen, C.  (1998). "The Evolution of Innovation" in Dorf, R. (ed.) Technology Management Handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp.3,2-3,10

Cohen W.M., R. Nelson, J. P. Walsh. 2000. Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or not). National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 7552. http:/​/​www.dklevine.com/​archive/​cohen-survey.pdf

Cohen, S., Hsu, T.S. and K. B. Dahlin. 2016. “With Whom Do Technology Sponsors Partner During Technology Battles? Social Networking Strategies for Unproven (and Proven) Technologies." Organization Science 27(4):846-872. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2016.1063 


Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128-152.


Dahlin, K. B., & Behrens, D. M. (2005). When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness. Research Policy, 34(5), 717-737.

Dougherty, 1992. Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in larger firms. Organization Science. 3(2): 179-190.

Duhigg, C., 2016. THE WORK ISSUE. What Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team. New research reveals surprising truths about why some work groups thrive and others falter. The New York Times Magazine, February 25. https:/​/​www.nytimes.com/​2016/​02/​28/​magazine/​what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html


Foster, R. N. (1985). Timing technological transitions. Technology in Society, 7(2-3), 127-141.

Gans, J. S., & Stern, S. (2003). The product market and the market for “ideas”: commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy32(2), 333-350.

Gawer, A. & M. A. Cusumano 2014. Industry Platforms and Ecosystem Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 31 (3), 417-433


Hagiu, A., & Yoffie, D.B. (2009). What's Your Google Strategy? Harvard Business Review, 87, 74-81.

Hargadon, A., R. Sutton. 1997. Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development Firm, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (4), 716–749. h


Helfat, C.E. & Raubitschek, R. S. 2018. Dynamic and integrative capabilities for profiting from innovation in digital platform-based ecosystems. Research Policy (47), 1391-1399


Hill, Charles W. L. (1997). Establishing a standard: Competitive strategy and technological standards in winner-take-all industries. Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 11(2): 7-25.

Ho, T. H., & Chen, K. Y. (2007). New product blockbusters: The magic and science of prediction markets. California Management Review50(1), 144-158.

Joshi, A. and H. Roh. 2009. The role of context in work team diversity research: a meta-analytic review, Academy of Management Journal, 2009, Vol. 52, No. 3, 599–627.


Kretchmer, Ken. (2000). The Fundamental Nature of Standards: Technical Perspective. IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 38 (6): 70 http:/​/​www.csrstds.com/​fundtec.html

McIntyre, D., Srinivasan, A., Afuah, A., Gawer, A and T. Kretschmer. 2021: Multi-sided platforms as new organizational form. Academy of Management Perspectives.

Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy15(6), 285-305.

Last updated on 11-02-2022