Date Approved


Date Posted


Degree Type

Open Access Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Education (EdD)

Department or School

Leadership and Counseling

Committee Member

Martha W. Tack, Ph.D., Chair

Committee Member

David Anderson, Ed.D.

Committee Member

Alphonso Bellamy, Ph.D.

Committee Member

Patrick Melia, Ph.D.


Technology management skills have become increasingly important to employers in today’s rapidly changing technological environment; yet a scarcity of research exists regarding desired core competencies of undergraduate technology management majors. The purpose of this study was to determine the core curricular elements of an effective undergraduate technology management academic program.

A quantitative mixed-mode (Internet-based and paper-based) survey design using a 5-point Likert rating (strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, and strongly disagree) was used to solicit opinions from members of the sample population regarding core curricular elements of effective undergraduate technology management programs. Implementation of this research project included the following 5 phases: (a) identification of the sample population, (b) selection of survey software, (c) survey instrument design and pilot testing, (d) data gathering, and (e) data analysis. This exploratory descriptive study employed purposive expert sampling of 180 people with technology management expertise in four industry sectors (i.e., business services, education, government, and manufacturing); in addition, 18 executive board members of the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and 30 members of the Southern Wayne County Chamber of Commerce were queried.

Information regarding the relative perceived importance of each of the following eight core technology management competency areas was sought: (a) strategic management of technology, (b) management of innovation and product development, (c) management of technological change, (d) management of organizational change, (e) project management, (f) assessment and evaluation of technology, (g) quality management of technology, and (h) information and knowledge management. Significance was determined at the .05 level.