|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Technology management article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The article on "Technology Management" has nothing to do with technology management
The article on "Technology Management" has nothing to do with technology management. I would expect a definition, a relation to the main concepts in this field. At the end, external links to some universities offering a program on technology management might be provided, although this list would never be exhaustive and objective in terms of teaching quality.
Revision Jan 2008
I agree with the previous comment - the article was an advertisement for a couple of academic programs. I have began a more informative revision and will add to it over the rest of this month. As a practitioner of the discipline of technology management I am keen to see the view of others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogercoates (talk • contribs) 17:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The new article on this page seems fairly interesting - the one you are discussing has been taken out?
I added a few things to the page yesterday. Today the additions disappeared, and there was a message from someone named MrOllie, saying, "Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)" I cannot find "MrOllie," and there is no apparent way to reply to him. I am a recognized authority on Technology Management, and intended to return to contribute to what is now a very naive entry. But I'm frustrated and have other things that need doing, so now I will not contribute. Looks bad for Wikipedia's rep. -BizDean --Bizdean (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The link cited under "Companies" now leads to a page saying that buang will be buang the domain name is expired or soon to be deleted. I don't know how to flag a page in that way yet, so I guess I'll put it here as a comment. Sorry, I'm kind of a noob. -- MeddlingScribe (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This article with its identification of three most significant contributions is highly misleading about the interdisciplinary field of “Technology Management”. At first, it is surprising that none of the academics, practitioners or students of the field have significantly contributed to this page. More surprising is the fact that very few have even pointed or discussed about the poor quality of what is written.
Just for an example, the so-identified second most significant contribution i.e. “Capability Maturity Model” can be viewed as a specific practitioners’ model for capability build up in software and systems industries, which actually falls under the Resource Based View (RBV) of the Firm in “Technology Management’ terms. There are many real significnat contributions to only RBV view, what to talk of many others.
For sure, it does not need a revision but a complete re-writing starting with a definition, major disciplines covered, areas of enquiry and practice encompassed, significant theories and models, and their contributions and weaknesses. A section on professional associations, conferences and journals can be useful. A separate heading or article should cover/point to Technology Management Programmes across the globe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thameed (talk • contribs) 08:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)