Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Technology credit rating system for funding SMEs

  • Case-oriented Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

Technology evaluation has played a crucial role in selecting and supporting companies with innovative technology. Previous studies have focused on developing technology evaluation methods such as scorecard. However, technology credit rating is rarely applied, despite its convenient usage for technology financing. In this paper, we propose a technology credit rating system, called cross matrix, based on empirical data obtained from the technology scoring model and examine their properties. The proposed rating system is expected to provide valuable information for effective management of the technology credit fund.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackermann F, Eden C, Williams T and Howick S (2006). Systemic risk assessment: A case study. J Opl Res Soc 58: 39–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajamian G and Koen PA (2002). Technology stage gate: A structured process for managing high risk, new technology projects. In: Belliveau P, Griffin A and Sorermeyer S (eds). PDMA Toolbook for New Product Development. John Wiley and Sons: New York, pp. 267–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Åstebro T (2004). Key success factors for technological entrepreneurs' R&D projects. IEEE T Eng Mngt 51(3): 314–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Åstebro T and Michela JL (2005). Predictors of the survival of innovations. J Prod Innovat Mngt 22(4): 322–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balachandra R and Friar J (1997). Factors for success in R&D projects and new product innovation: A contextual framework. IEEE T Eng Mngt 44: 276–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bangia A, Diebold FX, Kronimus A, Schagen C and Schuermann T (2002). Ratings migration and the business cycle, with application to credit portfolio stress testing. J Bank Financ 26: 445–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bank for International Settlements (2006). The New Basel Capital Accord. Available from http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbsca.htm.

  • Belliveau P, Griffin A and Somermeyer S (eds) (2002). The PDMA Toolbook for New Product Development. John Wiley and Sons: New York.

  • Cooper R (1979). The dimensions of industrial new product success and failure. J Marketing 43: 93–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper R (1986). Winning at New Products. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper R (1993). Winning at New Products, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper R (2001). Winning at New Products. Perseus Publishing: Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper R, Edgett S and Kleinschmidt E (2002). Optimizing the stage-gate process: What best practice companies are doing—Part I. Res Technol Mngt 45(5): 21–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouhy M, Galai D and Mark R (2001). Prototype risk rating system. J Bank Financ 25: 47–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dussauge P, Hart S and Ramanantsoa B (1992). Strategic Technology Management, 2nd edn. Wiley: New York pp 87–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edosomwan A (1989). Integrating Innovation and Technology Management. Wiley: New York pp 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldred E and McGrath M (1997). Commercializing new technology—II. Res Technol Mngt 40(2): 29–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldred E and Shapiro A (1996). Technology management. In: McGrath ME (ed). Setting the PACE in Product Development. Butterworth and Heinemann: Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin A (1997). Modeling and measuring product development cycle time across industries. J Eng Technol Mngt 14: 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunert J, Norden L and Weber M (2005). The role of non-financial factors in internal credit ratings. J Bank Financ 29: 509–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand D, Sohn SY and Kim YS (2005). Optimal bipartite scorecards. Expert Syst Appl 29(3): 684–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henard DH and Szymanski DM (2001). Why some new products are more successful than others. J Marketing Res 38(3): 362–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heslop L, McGregor E and Griffith M (2001). Development of a technology readiness assessment measure: The cloverleaf model of technology transfer. J Technol Transfer 26: 369–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu YT, Kiesel R and Perraudin W (2002). The estimation of transition matrices for sovereign credit ratings. J Bank Financ 26: 1383–1406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeon HJ and Sohn SY (2008). The risk management for technology credit guarantee fund. J Opl Res Soc 59: 1624–1632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim YS and Sohn SY (2007). Technology scoring model considering rejected applicants and the effect of reject inference. J Opl Res Soc 58(10): 1341–1347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koen P, Ajamian G, Boyce S, Clamen A, Fisher E, Fountoulakis S, Johnson A, Puri P and Seibertet R (2002). Fuzzy-front end: Effective methods, tools and techniques. In: Belliveau P, Griffin A and Sorermeyer S (eds). PDMA Toolbook for New Product Development. John Wiley and Sons: New York, pp. 2–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laitinen EK (1993). Financial predictors for different phases of the failure process. Omega 10: 215–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilien GL and Yoon E (1989). Determinants of new industrial product performance: A strategic reexamination of the empirical literature. IEEE T Eng Mngt 36(1): 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linton JD, Walsh ST and Morabito J (2002). Analysis, ranking and selection of R&D projects in a portfolio. R&D Mngt 32(2): 139–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maidique M and Zirger B (1984). A study of the success and failure in product innovation: The case of the U.S. electronics industry. IEEE T Eng Mngt 31: 192–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martino JP (1995). R&D Project Selection. Wiley Inter-science: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCollough R (1998). The ProGrid system: A customized expert system for evaluation of intellectual capital. Proceedings of the Workshop on Evaluating Technology for Commercial Exploitation. Federal Partners for Technology Transfer: Ottawa.

  • McGrath M (1996). Setting the PACE in Product Development. Butterworth-Heinemann: Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell G and Hamilton W (1988). Managing R&D as a strategic option. Res Technol Mngt 31(3): 15–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mock J, Kenkeremath D and Janis F (1993). Moving R&D to the Marketplace: A Guidebook for Technology Transfer Managers. Technology Prospects, Inc: Falls Church, VA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Montoya-Weiss M and Calantone R (1994). Determinants of new product performance: A review and meta-analysis. J Prod Innovat Mngt 11: 397–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon TH and Sohn SY (2010). Technology credit scoring model considering both SME characteristics and economic conditions: The Korean case. J Opl Res Soc 61: 666–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore G (1991). Crossing the Chasm. Harper Business: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickell P, Perraudin W and Varotto S (2007). Ratings-based credit risk modelling: An empirical analysis. Int Rev Financ Anal 16(5): 434–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozer M (1999). A survey of new product evaluation models. J Prod Innovat Mngt 16: 77–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park Y and Park G (2004). A new method for technology valuation in monetary value: Procedure and application. Technovation 24: 387–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter J (1978). Post audits and aid to research planning. Res Mngt 11(1): 28–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenborn T and Fredette J (1997). So You Want to Set Up a Technology Evaluation Program? Federal Laboratory Consortium: Cherry Hill, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin YS and Moore WT (2003). Explaining credit rating differences between Japanese and US agencies. Rev Financ Econ 12: 327–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sohn SY, Moon TH and Kim S (2005). Improved technology scoring model for credit guarantee fund. Expert Systems with Applications 28: 327–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Souder W and Chakrabarti A (1978). The R&D marketing interface: Results from an empirical study of innovation projects. IEEE T Eng Mngt 25(4): 88–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treacy WF and Carey M (2000). Credit risk rating systems at large US banks. J Bank Financ 24: 167–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang J and Hwang WL (2007). A fuzzy set approach for R&D portfolio selection using a real options valuation model. Omega 35(3): 247–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins J, Wegen B and Hoog R (1997). Understanding and valuing knowledge assets: Overview and method. Expert Syst Appl 38(5): 22–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolstenholme EF (2003). The use of system dynamics as a tool for intermediate level technology evaluation: Three case studies. J Eng Technol Mngt 20(3): 193–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yap C and Souder W (1993). A filter system for technology evaluation and selection. Technovation 13(7): 449–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) grant funded by the Korea government (MEST) (No.R01-2008-000-11003-01).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    T H Moon, Y Kim & S Y Sohn

Authors
  1. T H Moon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Y Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S Y Sohn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S Y Sohn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moon, T., Kim, Y. & Sohn, S. Technology credit rating system for funding SMEs. J Oper Res Soc 62, 608–615 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2010.15

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2010.15

Keywords

Search

Navigation