Introduction. The relevance of this article is determined by the need to establish a mechanism for ensuring the technological leadership of corporations. To achieve this, it is necessary to understand the history of scientific and technological progress (STP) in the field of technology in order to improve the efficiency of projects aimed at creating new technologies under the conditions of the sixth (according to K. Perez) and fourth (according to K. Schwab) industrial revolutions, the formation of a new 22nd technological order, and changes in the international system of specialization and division of labor.

The hypothesis of the work can be considered to be the assumption that the creation of a general theory of technology and the mechanism of technological leadership will enable corporations to more effectively formulate their practical strategies for technological leadership.

The problem addressed in the article is the formation of the conceptual foundations of a scientifically grounded strategy and the development of a mechanism for corporate technological leadership.

The goal of the work is to ensure the technological leadership of corporations in the context of the formation of a new technological order.

To achieve the goal set in this work, the following tasks are addressed:

- the concept and essence of corporate technological leadership are described;

- a description of the history of technology evolution and the formation of a general theory of technology has been provided; – a description of the conceptual approach to developing a strategy for technological leadership of a corporation has been made. The object of this work is the technological leadership of corporations. The subject of this article is the methods and mechanisms for developing the technological leadership of corporations.

An analysis of the literature on the topic of this work shows the following. Russian researchers are discussing the issue of transitioning from technological sovereignty to the formation of technological leadership [1, pp. 70-72]. Experts in the chemical industry are discussing sector‑specific problems related to the transition to a strategy of technological leadership [2, pp. 357-368]. Experts believe that technological sovereignty can be a structural element of technological leadership [3, pp. 899-914]. Analysts are discussing the specifics of the mechanism for transitioning from technological sovereignty to the implementation of a strategy of technological leadership [4, pp. 50-57]. Scientists in the field of metalworking consider the formation of startups to be a way to ensure technological leadership in this area [5, pp. 73-79]. Experts propose using monitoring of the level of technological development of firms as a method for ensuring their competitiveness [6, pp. 653-657]. Researchers studying economic development consider innovative competitiveness to be a key factor in a country’s technological sovereignty [7, pp. 65–70]. Scientists hold the view that in the post‑industrial period, the task of modernizing the innovation and scientific spheres is relevant [8, p. 2]. The authors of a foreign book on management describe the main concepts from the field of technology. This book notes that Lewis Davis developed methods for designing work. It was L. Davis who described the definition and composition of the concept of “technology”. Technology was defined as a systemic combination (aggregation)Such elements include: production methods; the qualifications of employees; and the company’s production equipment [9, p. 63]. Furthermore, these authors express the view that the influence of technology on the functioning of organizations has not yet been sufficiently studied. This book defines the concept of the “technological base” of an organization (the set of technologies used by that organization) [9, p. 63]. Russian scholars are developing the theory of technological paradigms. Gurieva L. K. suggests that a technological order should be understood as a set of technologies used by firms (which duplicates the concept of a firm’s “technological basis”) [10, pp. 70–75]. Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) S. Yu. Glazyev describes the significance of world economic orders in the processes of global economic development. This academician suggests that a world economic order should be understood as a system of economic institutions designed for the reproduction of capital and characteristic of a certain period in history [11, pp. 3–29]. Professor V.V. Glushchenko of the university develops a scientific theory of technological paradigms based on the theory of hierarchical systems [12, pp. 488-504]. V.V. Glushchenko conducted a historical analysis of the emergence of major inventions. Based on the facts of major inventions of global significance, 22 (twenty‑two) technological paradigms in the history of humanity’s scientific and technological progress were identified [13, pp. 39-41]. V.V. Glushchenko studied technological paradigms as complex hierarchical systems. This scientist proposed a definition of a technological order as a large, complex system that includes: technologies; management methods; forms of business operations; and other elements. [14, p. 6]. At the end of the 20th century, the increasing complexity of control objects led to the emergence of the theory of large hierarchical systems [15, p. 2]. Experts are developing the theoretical foundations of system analysis of technological development processes and crises characteristic of the period of change in technological paradigms [16, p. 2]. Carlota Perez describes the role of financial capital in technological revolutions, but does not address the very essence of technologies [17, p. 2]. Russian scientists are developing methods for designing technologies, including designing technologies with specified characteristics, in particular, inclusive technologies [18, pp. 8–15]. Tim Brown proposed a methodology for designing technologies and business processes that is popular abroad, which he called “design thinking” [19, p. 2]. Genrich Altshuller described the synthesis of technologies within the framework of the theory of inventive problem‑solving (TRIZ) [20, p. 2]. In 2012, A. Ayvazov described what he called the “Periodic System of Global Capitalist Development.” This model was later used by other researchers, in particular, by representatives of the Russian Academy of Sciences [21]. The shortcomings of A. Ayvazov’s model can be considered: its eclecticism; its divergence from the actual data in the history of technology. Thus, from the history of technology, it is known that the Ford Model T was produced in 1908, and the Wright brothers’ airplane took off in October 1903. Would these events have been possible without reliable internal combustion engines? This suggests that the internal combustion engine emerged within the technological order that lasted from 1880 to 1930. However, A. Ayvazov referred to the “internal combustion engine” only as the next technological paradigm, which lasted from 1930 to 1970. At the same time, did A. Ayvazov omit or ignore the major events — namely, the invention of the computer, cybernetics, and the nuclear bomb — that occurred between 1930 and 1970?

S. V. Ilkevich develops an integrative theory of the life cycle of technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution [22, pp. 44–54]. Clayton Christensen, in his well‑known book The Innovator’s Dilemma, described disruptive technologies and their impact on markets [23, p. 2]. Russian scientists are developing technologies for testing complex mechanical engineering products [24, p. 2]. Overall, the analysis of literary sources confirms the relevance of this article.

Method. By the paradigm of technological leadership of a multinational corporation, we will understand a systemic combination of its following elements: the company’s philosophy of technological leadership; the company’s ideology of technological leadership; the organizational culture for achieving technological leadership by the company; and the company’s policy for ensuring technological leadership.

By the philosophy of technological leadership of the company, we will understand the wisest and most general view of the company’s leadership in the field of technology.

By the ideology of technological leadership of a multinational corporation, we can understand:

First, the main goal of such leadership is to ensure the company’s technological competitiveness;

Secondly, the distribution of power in the processes of achieving technological leadership by a company among the stakeholders of this process.

The stakeholders in the process of achieving technological leadership by a company can include: government bodies; the company’s shareholders; the company’s employees; the company’s management; and others.

We will call the organizational culture of technological leadership of a multinational company a set of: values that are used to achieve such leadership; behavioral stereotypes of the participants in the innovation process; ways of responding to emerging problems by innovative projects; and other elements.

When forming a paradigm of technological leadership, it is important to ensure the scientific validity of such a paradigm, in particular within the framework of the theory of technological paradigms.

As the analysis of literature sources has shown, in international scientific literature there are four interpretations of the concept and essence of technological paradigms [10, pp. 70–75; 11, pp. 3–29; 12, pp. 488–504; 17, p. 2; 21]. Within the framework of the first approach (author: L.K. Gurieva [10, pp. 70–75]), the concept of a technological order is identical to the concept of the “technological base” of an organization, as described in the work [9, p. 8]. The second approach (by Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences S.Yu. Glazyev [11, pp. 3–29]) describes a technological order within the framework of economic theory as a set of economic institutions for capital reproduction during a specific cultural and historical period. At the same time, the factor that distinguishes a new technological order is considered to be the invention of a new engine [9, pp. 3–29]. Unfortunately, in this interpretation of a technological order, the connection between economic institutions and technologies is not clearly traced? The third version of the theory of technological orders was developed by the British‑Venezuelan researcher Carlota Perez. This approach is also based on an analysis of the relationship between financial and production capital and does not take into account such a concept as production technology [17, p. 2].

Furthermore, a major methodological problem with the second and third versions of the theory of technological orders is that these periods cover only the period of capitalist development (from the 1770s to the present). In this regard, a number of questions arise within the framework of the Socratic method (maieutics):

1. «Do you really believe that there was no scientific and technological progress or technological paradigms before the 1770s?”

2. “If there were no technological paradigms before 1770, then what are the reasons for the emergence of the first technological paradigm precisely in 1770?”

3. “If scientific and technological progress has taken place throughout human history, then why do these theories (by A. Ayvazov, S. Yu. Glazyev, and K. Perez) fail to take this fact into account?”

Additionally, there is the question of which specific fact or event should be taken as the basis for the formation of a new technological order. Thus, S. Yu. Glazyev declares that the basis of his classification of technological orders is the fact of the invention of a new engine. However, when analyzing the classification of technological paradigms used by S. Yu. Glazyev (which was actually proposed by A. Ayvazov), there are paradigms that are not related to the emergence of new engines. These are the following technological paradigms: the first — the loom (machine); the fifth — microelectronics (devices); the sixth — nanotechnologies (technologies)? Taking into account the answers to these questions, the fourth version of the theory of technological paradigms was developed.

The fourth version of the theory of technological paradigms (author: V.V. Glushchenko, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Associate Professor [12, pp. 488–504; 13, pp. 39–41; 14, p. 2; 16, p. 2]) covers the entire history of technological progress and is based on the theory of complex systems. Within this framework, a technological order is understood as a systemic combination (aggregation) of mutually complementary elements: production technologies; socio‑professional institutions; forms of business; management concepts; types of money; forms of payment; personnel management concepts; and others. At the same time, the basis for identifying a new technological order is considered to be a major technical and technological invention that had a global impact on the scientific and technological progress (STP) of humanity. [13, pp. 39–41]. Within the framework of the fourth approach in the theory of technological paradigms, the scientific and technological progress (STP) of humanity can be described in the form of 22 successive technological paradigms. At the same time, it can be said that the emergence of any new technological paradigm is always associated with the formation of a certain segment (pattern) of new technologies. Let us examine the specifics of the history of humanity’s technological development within the framework of the theory of complex systems [13, pp. 39–41].

Within the framework of a systematic approach in the theory of technological paradigms, the following 22 technological paradigms can be identified [13, pp. 39–41]:

The 1st technological paradigm (from the moment of the emergence of humanity to 3 million years BC) is called “gathering” and is characterized by the development of technologies for searching for, recognizing, and assessing the usefulness (or harmfulness) of plants, extracting plants, preserving food products, materials for clothing, and shelters in caves.

The 2nd technological paradigm (from 3 million years BC to 1.5 million years BC), the “Stone Age,” saw the emergence of “handy man” (Latin: Homo habilis), who was the first to make tools (he lived around 2.6–1.5 million years ago in East and South Africa); it is associated with the development of stone‑working technologies that made it possible to use stones as tools (the prototype of modern innovation marketing emerged).

The third technological paradigm (from 1.5 million years BC to 1.0 million years BC), which we will call the “bone age,” is characterized by the invention of technologies for processing bones and bone tools, and their use as tools, items of labor, and weapons.

The 4th technological paradigm (from 1.0 million years BC to 20,000 years BC), which we will call “fire,” is associated with humans’ mastery of fire and the development of technologies related to obtaining fire (ignition) and methods of controlling fire.

The 5th technological paradigm (from 20,000 to 10,000 BCE) is called the “spindle” paradigm; it is associated with the invention of the spindle, spindle‑making technologies, and textile‑making technologies that use the spindle.

The 6th technological paradigm (from 10,000 BC to 5,500 BC) is called “animal domestication” and “agricultural technologies”; sleds appeared (in North America); during this period, technologies for catching and domesticating animals, technologies for caring for animals, technologies for using animals in agriculture and transportation, and other related technologies developed.

The 7th technological paradigm lasted from 5500 BC to 4000 BC; its name was “writing and sails”; during this period, writing technologies and ink‑making technologies developed, as did sail‑making technologies, sail control during voyages, and other related technologies.

The 8th technological paradigm covers the period from 4000 BCE to 3300 BCE and is known as the “potter’s wheel, wheel, and copper smelting era (Copper Age).” During this time period, technologies developed rapidly: the manufacture of potter’s wheels; the production of pottery using potter’s wheels; the use of pottery; the technology of making wheels and their practical application; and the smelting and use of copper in the economy and military affairs.

The 9th technological paradigm (from 3300 BCE to 2000 BCE), which can be called the “Bronze Age,” saw the development of bronze smelting technologies and the use of bronze in everyday life.

The 10th technological paradigm (from 2000 BC to 1200 BC) is called “horse‑drawn transport”; it is associated with the invention of the cart and is characterized by the development of transport technologies, technologies for using animals as draft power, and technologies for optimizing routes and travel time using horse‑drawn transport; trade technologies and other developments also emerged.

The 11th technological order lasted from 1200 BC to 400 BC; it is known as the “steel age” and is associated with the development of steel smelting technologies and their practical application.

The 12th technological order (from 400 BC until the 1st century) is called “saddle (pack animal transport)” and is defined by saddle‑making technologies and the development of technologies for creating and using pack animal transport; the Alexandrian Museum is established, where for the first time scientific work became an independent type of activity;

The 13th technological order lasted from the 1st century to the 9th century; it is called “paper” and is associated with the development of paper‑making and paper‑using technologies, as well as the development of writing technologies for recording, storing, and transmitting information.

The 14th technological order (from the 9th to the 14th century) is called “wind and water mills, universities” and is characterized by the development of technologies for creating mills and the synthesis of technologies for using mills (grinding, pressing, etc.); the first universities appear, creating mechanisms and institutions for transmitting knowledge from one generation to the next.

The 15th technological order (from the 14th century to 1670) is called “gunpowder and small arms”; it is characterized by technologies for the manufacture, storage, and use of gunpowder in various spheres of human activity; it corresponds to the era of colonization and capital concentration.

The 16th technological order (1670–1770) is called “the microscope”; it is characterized by the development of technologies for the manufacture, maintenance, and practical use of microscopes for their intended purpose in medical technologies, which led to an increase in life expectancy to 35–40 years.

The 17th technological paradigm (from 1770 to 1830), known as the “loom,” is characterized by the development of technologies for creating textile machines and the advancement of machine‑based textile technologies; the First Industrial Revolution began in 1771 (England).

Note. In this part of the article, industrial revolutions are presented according to C. Perez’s classification.

The 18th technological order covers the period from 1830 to 1880 and is referred to as the “steam engine” era; during this period, technologies for designing and manufacturing steam engines, as well as designing transport systems, developed; the second industrial revolution, 1829 (England); the third industrial revolution of heavy engineering, 1875 (USA, Germany), and others.

The 19th technological paradigm (from 1880 to 1930) can be described as “electric motor and internal combustion engine”; mechanical engineering technologies are developing (airplanes, cars, tractors, and others); transport technologies and technical service technologies are developing; the fourth industrial revolution — mass production of automobiles and others, 1908 (USA).

The 20th technological order (1930–1970) can be described as “computer, nuclear engine, nuclear bomb, genetics” and is associated with the development of mechanical engineering, information technology, and automation.

The 21st technological paradigm lasted from 1970 to 2010 and is known as “micro‑miniaturization technologies, microprocessor technology”; it involved the development of technologies for producing microprocessor equipment and gadgets, as well as the emergence of e‑commerce and payment technologies; the fifth industrial revolution, focused on informatization and telecommunications, began in 1971 (USA).

The 22nd technological order (covering the forecast period from 2010 to 2050) is called “nanotechnology”; the sixth industrial revolution, the development of artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, neurotechnology, digitalization technologies, neuromarketing technologies, and others. The historical analysis of the processes of technological development of humanity carried out in this section of the work confirms the hypothesis about the profound impact of technology on all aspects of human life. At the same time, the analysis shows that the technological sphere of human activity is a super‑complex, large system, and a general theory of research and design of technologies is still lacking.

For this reason, it is important to formulate methodological provisions for a metatheory of technologies (technologology). Positioning technologology (the general theory of technologies) as a metatheory of technologies means that it is a theory of the second hierarchical level, aimed at managing the methods for solving research tasks and designing the technological basis of the economy and the social sphere.

Let us describe the methodological provisions of this metatheory of technologies by analogy with the works [8, pp. 15–25; 18, pp. 52–58].

When describing the metatheory (the general theory of technologies — technologology), technological activity (as substantiated in this work) should be considered in systemic unity with socio‑professional institutions and the квалификационные skills of personnel that ensure the synthesis and operation of such technologies. As has already been noted, a socio‑professional institution can be understood as a system of social relations and professional interactions among people in the process of their joint technological activity.

The object of the metatheory of technology (technologology) can be the sphere of human technological activity.

Technological activity, as an object of the metatheory of technology: – includes the entire range of actions performed by production personnel (humans) to transform raw materials and components into a finished product;

- The technological activity of people (production staff) implies the purposeful interaction of the subject of labor (raw materials and supplies), the means of labor, and labor;

- It encompasses the entire complex of relationships between the company’s employees (individuals) and society, as well as between society and the state, business, and the social and natural environment;

- It is related not only to utilitarian needs (products, wages, etc.) but also to existential and higher spiritual needs of employees (people) and society.

- The technological activity of firms is characterized by purposeful and specific: material flows; infrastructure; information flows; methods and tools of transformation; – The technological activity of organizations (of a person) is also characterized by the specifics of technological communications between people; – The technological activity of organizations is based on specific methods of financing (in particular, advance payments) and resource provision for technological processes; – The technological activity of organizations (of a person) has a systemic impact on all other spheres of human life (socio‑professional institutions; forms of business management; medicine, education, science, culture, and others).

The subject of the metatheory of technological activity (technologology) of organizations can be taken as a complex of technical, design, resource, project, production, humanistic, economic, managerial, organizational, financial, social, and professional relations.

The technological relations that serve as the subject of the metatheory of technology (micro-, macro-, and meso-levels) are observed in the course of technological communications and technological processes in the real economy and the social sphere, taking into account the factor of management of social and economic processes in society and the economy, geopolitical economy, demography, geopolitical competition, and the conflictology of super‑ethnic groups.

Technologology (metatheory of technologies, general theory of technological activity) as a scientific discipline is characterized as follows: technologology is a theory of management that deals with methods for solving problems in fundamental and specific scientific research in the technological sphere; technologology can be identified and developed as a structural element of post‑industrial science; technologology is an object type (type) of scientific disciplines; the results and conclusions of technologology can strategically influence the stability and pace of economic development of the state and society, and so on.

We will refer to the scientific discipline concerned with the creation of scientific knowledge and technologies as “technologology” (or the metatheory of technologies, the general theory of technological activity). This discipline encompasses: – a set of methods for managing the ways to solve problems in the research of human technological activity; – a set of scientific problems, philosophy, ideology, politics, motives, methods, techniques, and tools of technological activity and the management of technological systems and processes at the global, national, corporate, and family levels.

From a cognitive (epistemological) perspective, the metatheory of technological activity (technologology) should be studied as a methodology: – of scientific research, analysis and synthesis of methods for managing the ways to solve scientific and practical problems facing the technological sphere of modern society; – a methodology for studying the impact of technologies on all spheres of human life (geopolitical, economic and social activities of a person; the efficiency and risks of processes and projects in the state, business and society).

Let us describe the scientific method, the object, the subject, the functions, and the roles of the metatheory of technological activity and technological systems (technologology). We will use the term “scientific method” in the metatheory of technologies (technologology) to denote a set of techniques and principles that, when applied, make it possible to achieve an objective understanding of real and scientific processes, as well as the socio‑economic results of technological activity.

By functions (from the word “I carry out”), we will agree to call a set of research activities that can be implemented as part of this scientific discipline in terms of studying: the technological sphere itself; the mechanisms of technology’s influence in the geopolitical, political, social, economic, environmental, and cultural subsystems of the state and society, as well as in the global economy and society.

In technologology, its geopolitical, economic, and social significance (role) is determined by the effectiveness with which this metatheory of technology (technologology) performs its functions. This refers to the functions that this metatheory performs in relation to meeting the needs of the sphere of technological activity, the state, society, and the individual in the process of their existence and life activities.

Taking this into account, we will consider the main functions of the metatheory of technology (technologology) to be: methodological, cognitive, instrumental, law‑making, optimization, predictive, preventive, psychological functions, the function of knowledge socialization, minimizing technogenic, environmental and social risks, and the system‑forming function of the metatheory of technology.

The methodological function of the metatheory of technology lies in the formation of a conceptual framework, the theoretical foundations of scientific research, and the methodology for studying the technological sphere, specific types of technological activity, phenomena, and processes, as well as in formulating the laws and categories of the metatheory of technology (technologology). The cognitive function of the metatheory of technology (technologology) encompasses the processes of accumulating, describing, and studying facts of reality in the field of technology, its scientific research, technological innovations, and technologies in various spheres and at various levels (global, national, sectoral, regional, municipal, etc.). In the metatheory of technology (technologology), its instrumental (regulatory) function has a practical focus and character, as it consists in the formation of: methods and tools for managing scientific research in the field of technology; the development of practical recommendations for government bodies, research organizations, and organizations implementing technological innovations; and the preliminary assessment of the effectiveness and consequences of various types of technological activities of organizations. The law‑making function of the metatheory of technology (technologology) is carried out in the course of substantiating the need and forming international and national legal norms that would facilitate the legal regulation of methods for designing and carrying out technological activities, and so on.

In technologyology, its optimization function consists in synthesizing and/or selecting the best methods (from a certain perspective, for example, reducing the risks of man‑made disasters) and the projected results of organizations’ technological activities.

The predictive function of technologyology includes: a probabilistic assessment of the state of the technological sphere and individual types of technological activity; the probability of changes in the technological sphere under the influence of scientific and technological progress.

In the metatheory of technology, its preventive function can be realized through the implementation of proactive and preventive measures based on the results of forecasts regarding the development of the technological sphere, taking into account the possibility of the development and realization of man‑made disasters and other types of negative phenomena arising as a result of the emergence of negative phenomena in the field of technological activity.

The psychological function of the metatheory of technology (technologology) consists in explaining to citizens the need for financial and other expenditures on the continuous development of scientific and innovative activities in the field of technological activity in order to reduce socio‑economic and technological risks.

In the metatheory of technology (technologology), its function of socializing knowledge in the field of technology consists in systematizing, presenting, and disseminating knowledge in society about the role and significance of technology, the general theory of technology, taking into account the impact of technology on socio‑economic processes, and on the development of the state, business, and society. The system‑forming function of the metatheory of technology (technologology) consists in forming a body of knowledge, structuring it, and accumulating it, aimed at providing comprehensive scientific support for the functioning of the technological sphere of human life, scientific support for the functioning of technological systems, and other things.

The roles of technologyology (the metatheory of technology) can be described as follows: 1) ensuring optimal management of methods for solving research tasks in the technological sphere; 2) optimizing the processes of developing scientific support for technological activities and the innovative development of technological activities in the context of the emergence of a new 22nd technological order; 3) reducing the risks of man‑made disasters and lowering the risk of losing technological competitiveness by the national economy.

The laws of the metatheory of technology (technologology) can be defined as stable cause-and-effect relationships between the methods of scientific research and the implementation of innovative projects in the field of technological activity, stable logical relationships in the interaction of parts, and the relationships that arise in the course of further development of technologies in post‑industrial conditions. Let us describe the laws of the metatheory of technologies (technologology): 1) technology is a complex system that includes means of labor and tools, production methods, the competence and organizational culture of personnel, which are systemically integrated in the process of transforming raw materials and materials into finished products.

2) The possibility of technological development and its effectiveness are closely linked to certain socio‑professional institutions in the economy and society;

3) The process of technological development of civilization is the foundation of humanity’s scientific and technological progress and has an impact on all aspects of human life (the state, forms of doing business, types of money, and others);

4) The process of humanity’s technological development can be represented in the form of successive technological orders;

5) The technological basis of an organization can be defined as the set of technologies that the organization uses in its activities.

6) The technologies used by an organization influence its organizational structure and organizational culture;

7) Historically, the process of technological development of humanity has been random in nature (in the form of inventions and innovations) and has reflected the process of self‑development of the Universe;

8) Since the process of technological development of humanity is one of the manifestations of the process of self‑development of the Universe, it cannot be stopped.

9) Any technological system can be represented by a model called the “five‑level technological pyramid,” which includes the following hierarchical levels: the 1st level — conceptual (forming a general view of the system); the 2nd level — technological (combining production methods, means of production, and labour); the 3rd level — the specific hardware implementation of the technological system; the 4th level — the level of operating the technological system; the 5th level — the level of technical support for the technological system and training of personnel for this technological system.

10) The mismatch between socio‑professional institutions and the requirements of new technologies gives rise to a crisis that occurs every time there is a shift in technological paradigms;

11) There is a technological specialization of ethnic groups in the world, which is linked to their psycho‑physical characteristics, geo‑economic conditions, religious affiliation, and other factors. We will consider the tasks of the metatheory of technologies (technologology) to be:

- the scientific substantiation and development of the methodology of new scientific fields: data processing technologies, artificial intelligence; additive technologies, disruptive technologies, and others.

- the development of methods for designing certain types of technologies in the context of technological development processes;

- classification of technologies (agricultural technologies, industrial technologies, technologies in the service sector, etc.);

- study of the content and specifics of modeling various technologies;

- development of methods for researching and managing the life cycle of technologies;

- study of the impact of technologies on market processes (technological leadership, catching‑up technologies, disruptive technologies).

- the development of methods for managing technological development processes at various hierarchical levels (state, region, municipality, organization (firm));

- research into the mechanism of technology’s influence on all aspects of human life (religion, politics, the state, culture, medicine, etc.) and other areas.

A previously conducted historical analysis showed that the first industrial revolution was preceded by the following factors:

- the emergence of scientific work as an independent type of activity during the 12th technological order, which occurred at the Library of Alexandria (early 3rd century BC), where the scientific work of its staff became an independent type of activity;

- the invention of paper as a medium and a way to preserve scientific and technical knowledge during the 13th technological order.

- During the 14th technological order (from the 9th to the 14th century), the first universities emerge and begin to operate; they establish mechanisms and institutions for transmitting knowledge from one generation to the next, and later transform into research universities, where the integration of science and education is ensured;

- Concentration of capital within the colonial model of development during the 15th technological order (from the 14th century to 1670).

- an increase in life expectancy to 35–40 years, as a result of the development of medical technologies based on the invention and use of the microscope, during the 16th technological order (1670–1770), which is called the “microscope” period; such an increase in life expectancy allowed humans to accumulate the competencies (knowledge and skills) necessary to carry out the first industrial revolution? Additionally, it should be noted that even at the beginning of the 21st century, about 80% of significant inventions are made by people around the age of 35. Consequently, it can be assumed that as long as human life expectancy was less than 35 years, people simply did not have time to accumulate the competencies necessary to invent the technologies that formed the basis of the first industrial revolution. In addition, it can be said that K. Perez’s hypothesis has been confirmed: financial resources in the form of productive and financial capital play a significant role in the synthesis of new technologies and technological leaps. Are there grounds to assert: “Technological leaps (revolutions) occur in places of maximum capital concentration”?

However, the presence of a high concentration of capital is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a technological leap?

At the same time, an analysis of the content of the technological paradigms that preceded the first industrial revolution in 1770 allows us to identify the structural elements of the processes involved in the synthesis of new technologies? After and as a result of such an analysis, the emergence of the idea of a certain new technology and the formation of a model for a new technology can be considered: on the one hand, a natural process, prepared by the entire process of previous development (including the process of capital concentration); and on the other hand, the invention of a new technology is largely a random event? An analysis of Carlota Pérez’s materials shows that the location where a new technological leap emerges may be linked to the location with the highest concentration of capital? It can be assumed that it is precisely the concentration of capital that creates the maximum demand for the emergence of new technologies and products?

At the same time, the synthesis of new technologies is closely linked to the action of factors that can be divided into external and internal factors.

External factors influencing the development of new technologies include: the concentration and accumulation of capital; the existence of a demand from the real economy (or the social sphere) for the emergence of new technologies; the availability of funding sources; adequate innovation‑oriented socio‑professional institutions, and others.

Internal factors contributing to the development of new technologies include: the accumulation and maintenance of the necessary body of knowledge in a specific field within the project team; the existence of a mechanism for transferring and accumulating knowledge within socio‑professional institutions; the presence of an innovator as a subject of technological innovation; the existence of creative rights and freedoms; the existence of a socio‑professional mentoring (support) mechanism for innovations, and other factors.

Discussion. Technologyology (metatheory of technology), depending on the research objectives, can be considered a structural element of the theory of technological paradigms (TTP) or an independent scientific discipline.

Prior to the description of the methodological provisions of technologyology (metatheory of technology), the process of technological development of humanity was of a random nature (in the form of inventions and innovations). The process of technological development of humanity can be considered one of the forms and a reflection of the process of self‑development of Nature (the Universe).

An important task of the metatheory of technology is the development of methods for designing technologies. Carlota Pérez highlights the significant role of financial capital in the creation and development of technologies (the “invasion” phase). Financiers deal with concepts such as “investment object,” “project business plan,” and others. However, as is well known, financiers do not create technologies themselves. For a technology to become an object of venture investment, the following must first emerge: the subject of innovation (an individual or a project team); the technology’s idea, its model, the business plan for creating a new technology, and so on. Only after studying the business plan do venture investors make decisions about such investments..

The creation of a technologyology (a metatheory of technology) opens up the possibility of an orderly and purposeful synthesis of various classes of technologies, including the segment of inclusive technologies.

Additionally, it should be noted that, according to foreign experts, about 66% (two‑thirds) of company (organization) employees do not understand the meaning and consequences of their own activities for the organizations in which they work. By analogy, we can assume that 66% of employees in the technology departments of organizations may not understand the significance of their work (or the work of inventors and innovation teams) for the organizations, the economy, the state, and society?

If this particular hypothesis is correct, then a metatheory of technology is primarily needed by managers at various levels (top, middle, or lower management) to better understand the meaning and socio‑economic significance of innovations in the field of technology?

Analysis shows that a conceptual approach can be used to ensure the technological leadership of corporations. The conceptual approach to fostering technological leadership in corporations is based on: a systemic view of the company’s desired technological leadership; consideration of all factors and elements that shape such technological leadership, in their systemic interconnection and mutual influence on each other.

The elements of the strategy formation mechanism and the mechanism of technological leadership of corporations are proposed to include: further development of the theory of technological structures and methods for analyzing the impact of the technological basis of organizations on the functioning of corporations; development of methods for designing technologies and professions of the future; formation of a corporate organizational and economic mechanism for technological innovation in a company; development of methods and tools for venture financing innovative projects to create new technologies; development and improvement of the effectiveness of public-private partnership models in the field of new technologies; formation of the concept of national and social responsibility of corporations; development of information and communication platforms for interaction between employers and innovatively active personnel; creation of management systems for the development of social and professional institutions within a particular corporation; development and improvement of the efficiency of technological scientific andpedagogical schools; improving the efficiency of scientific and publishing organizations; developing and increasing the productivity of innovative organizational culture of project teams in the development of new technologies; analyzing and optimizing the model of technological leadership of companies; creating strategic risk management systems for technological development (including the creation of risk management systems for companies based on business models of their activities; developing a culture of emotional leadership in innovative project teams and more. All these elements of the mechanism for ensuring technological leadership of corporations must be harmonized with each other, and their functioning must be carried out within the framework of a single organizational and economic mechanism established in a specific corporation. In the context of the 22nd technological order, the importance of managing the life cycle of technologies may increase. In particular, the well‑known integrative theory of the technology life cycle can be used to manage the life cycle of technologies [22, pp. 44–54]. This theory integrates classical S-shaped models, technology availability levels (TRL), and concepts of economic structures. This approach can be used to explain the birth, rapid growth, and changing innovations. At the same time, the integrative theory of the technology life cycle connects scientific research with such a factor as market demand.

Within the framework of this model, the main stages of the technology life cycle can be called: the origin of technology (the emergence of an idea and the conduct of scientific research (TRL levels 1-3), which is characterized by high uncertainty of the result; the growth of technology and its scaling (prototyping, overcoming the “valley of death” (TRL levels 4-7), ends with market entry; maturity and recession (mass adoption of technology, saturation of demand and replacement of morally aging technology with a new breakthrough or disruptive technology).

In the context of the sixth industrial revolution, the likelihood of disruptive technologies emerging is increasing, and their impact on markets may intensify? As is well known, the author of the concept of disruptive technologies is the American scholar Clayton Christensen [23, p. 2]. He classified as disruptive technologies (or disruptive innovations) such new technological solutions and/or products, as well as design methods, that, thanks to fundamentally new approaches, radically change the established technological market. Disruptive technologies replace well‑known complex technologies and products with simpler, cheaper, or more convenient alternatives (and thereby вытесняют familiar goods from the market).

At the same time, within the framework of technology studies, it is important to examine the relationship between technologies and socio‑professional institutions. Analysis shows that disharmony (mismatch) between socio‑professional institutions and the requirements of new technologies gives rise to a crisis that occurs every time there is a shift in technological paradigms. This statement is justified within the framework of the science of crises (crysology) [16, pp. 120-126].

The meta-theory of technology may also be associated with the further development of the technological theory of the state and law, which asserts that the forms of the state and the political systems of the state are closely related to the level of technological development.

The process of forming a technologyology (meta-theory of technology) can stimulate the further development of the technological theory of money, which is the only methodological basis for the current stage of development of the international monetary system.

Conclusion. This article provides a historical and systemic analysis of the processes of technological development of humanity, using the methods of the theory of technological paradigms and the theory of complex systems. Methodological provisions of technologology (meta‑theory of technologies) were formulated. The development of the meta‑theory of technologies (technologology) creates conditions for the purposeful design of new patterns (classes) of technologies. The paper presents elements of the strategy and mechanism of technological leadership of corporations.

The following areas can be identified as potential directions for further research on the topic of this article: studying and developing the functions of technology; synthesizing new methods for designing technologies; investigating the impact of technology on socio‑economic processes, including such issues as the transformation of state forms and legal systems under the influence of technological development, the impact of technology on the international monetary and credit system, and other related matters.

References

1. Matveev V.I., Kurapina T.V. From technological sovereignty to technological leadership // World of Measurements. 2025. No. 1. Pp. 70–72.
2. Maksimov A.L.  From technological independence to technological leadership in the chemical industry //Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2026. Vol. 96. No. 4. Pp. 357–368.
3. Rodina I.B. Technological sovereignty of the defense‑industrial complex sectors: a national idea and a factor of technological leadership.Leadership and Management. 2025. Vol. 12. No. 4. Pp. 899–914.
4. Elenev K.S., Malkova T.B., Uspenskaya E.G. Mechanisms of transition from technological sovereignty to technological leadership in the machine‑tool industry //Economics and Management: Problems, Solutions. 2026. Vol. 1. No. 6 (171). Pp. 50–57.
5. Almerekov N.A., Tokmurzin T.M., Razumova E.V. Development of small technology companies as a tool for ensuring the technological leadership of Russian industry //Forging and Stamping Production. Material Processing by Pressure. 2024. No. 7. Pp. 73–79.
6. Yunik A.V. Ensuring the competitiveness of chemical industry enterprises based on monitoring the level of technological development //In the collection: Issues of Modern Science: Problems, Trends and Prospects:. Electronic collection of materials from the IX International Scientific and Practical Conference. Samara, 2025. Pp. 653–657.
7. Melnikova D.A., Ermolina L.V. Innovative competitiveness as a mainstream approach to strengthening the technological sovereignty of the state // Economics and Entrepreneurship. 2026. No. 2 (187). Pp. 65–70.
8. Glushchenko V.V., Glushchenko I.I. Naukology: the task of modernizing science and innovative activity — Moscow: Glushchenko Irina Ivanovna, 2015. — 116 p.; ISBN 978-5-9906163-0-1.
9. Mescon, Michael. Fundamentals of Management: translated from English: classic edition / Michael H. Mescon, Michael Albert, Franklin H. Fredendall. — Moscow, Saint Petersburg: Dialectic; Dialectic, 2020. — 665 p.: ill., tabl.: 24 cm; ISBN 978-5-907144-89-7.
10. Gurieva L. K. The concept of technological paradigms // Innovations: journal.- St. Petersburg, 2004. — No. 10. — Pp. 70–75.
11. http://innov.etu.ru/innov/archive.nsf/779e63082286adbbc325672f003bdcf2/88e58149614c800fc325703000360bb3
12. Glazyev S.Yu. World economic structures in global economic development // Economics and Mathematical Methods.  2016. Vol. 52. No. 2. Pp. 3–29.
13. Glushchenko V.V. Scientific theory of technological structures and research into the areas of its practical application // Bulletin of Science and Practice. 2020. Vol. 6. No. 4. Pp. 488-504. https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/53/59 13. Glushchenko V.V. 22 technological paradigms in the history of humanity’s scientific and technological progress [Text] //Models and methods for improving the effectiveness of innovative research: A collection of articles based on the results of an international scientific and practical conference (Samara, September 9, 2025). Sterlitamak: AMI, 2025. 39-41 p. https://ami.im/mnpk-712
14. Glushchenko V.V., Theory of technological structures. Moscow: Glushchenko Valery Vladimirovich, 2020. 80 p. ISBN 978-5-9908432-4-0
15. Mesarovich M., Mako D., Takahara I. Theory of hierarchical multilevel systems. Moscow: Mir Publ., 1973. 344 p.
16. Glushchenko V.V. Theories of technological paradigms, complex systems, crisisology, and systems analysis of technological development processes. – Moscow: Glushchenko Valery Vladimirovich, 2023. – 168 p.. ISBN 978-5-6050108-0-7
17. Perez C. Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital. The Dynamics of Bubbles and Prosperity / Carlota Perez; translated from English by F.V. Mayevsky. — Moscow: Publishing House “Delo” ANKh, 2011. — 232 p.: ill. — (Series “Modern Institutional‑Evolutionary Theory”). ISBN 978-5-7749-0626-0
18. Glushchenko V.V. Technology Design: Inclusive Production Technologies. – Moscow: Glushchenko Valery Vladimirovich, 2026. – 67 p. ISBN 978-5-6056924-0-9
19. Brown T. Design Thinking: From Creating New Products to Designing Business Models / Tim Brown; translated from English. Vladimir Khozinsky. – Moscow: Mann, Ivanov and Ferber, 2012.
20. Altshuller G.S. Find an Idea: An Introduction to TRIZ – the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving. – Moscow: Alpina, 2022, – 402 p.
21. Ayvazov A. (2012). Periodic System of World Capitalist Development. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: http://ajvazov.ru/articles/periodicheskaya-sistema-mirovogo-kapitalisticheskogo-razvitiya.html, free. Title from the screen. Russian language (accessed: December 2015).
22. Ilkevich S.V. Integrative theory of the life cycle of technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution//Economic Sciences. 2023. No. 227. Pp. 44–54.
23. Christensen C. The Innovator’s Dilemma. How the Best‑Run Companies Are Destroyed by New Technologies. Moscow: Alpina Publisher, 2019. 364 p.
24. Glushchenko V.V. SMART Technologies for Project Management of Functional Testing of Cyber‑Physical Systems: Monograph by V.V. Glushchenko. — Moscow: RUSAYNS, 2026 — 122 p., ISBN 978-5-466-13675-3 https://www.knorus.ru/catalog/informatika/726931-smart-tehnologii-upravleniya-proektami-funkcional-nyh-ispytaniy-kiberfizicheskih-sistem-aspirantura-bakalavriat-magistratura-monografiya/

---

Все статьи автора «Глущенко Валерий Владимирович»

© Если вы обнаружили нарушение авторских или смежных прав, пожалуйста, незамедлительно сообщите нам об этом по электронной почте.