Technology roadmapping for R&D planning: The case of the Korean parts and materials industry

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Technovation 27 (2007) 433–445 www.elsevier.com/locate/technovation

Technology roadmapping for R&D planning: The case of the Korean parts and materials industry Sungjoo Leea, Sungryong Kangb, YeSeuk Parkb, Yongtae Parka, a

Department of Industrial Engineering, School of Engineering, Seoul National University, San 56-1, Shillim-Dong, Kwanak-Gu, 151-742, Seoul, Korea b Research Center for Technology Policy, Korea Industrial Technology Foundation, 135-513, Seoul, Korea

Abstract A technology roadmap (TRM) is a management tool to support strategic and long-term R&D planning. Providing a framework to link business to technology, it is especially useful for, and thus has been widely used in, current R&D management strategies that focus on markets and customers. In spite of this popularity, the fact that only few practical guidelines are offered towards building TRM makes it appear to have limited flexibility in terms of building process and final outputs. To overcome these limitations and facilitate the spread of TRM technique, we focus on the TRM for R&D purposes, and propose a systematic process and detailed procedures with inputs/outputs for building TRM. We also attempt to integrate existing management tools with the TRM process. The proposed framework is applied to the R&D planning process of a government program managed by the Korea Industrial Technology Foundation. While the report is specific to the parts and materials industry, the proposed framework can be generalized to other industries, and we anticipate our paper will shed light on the processes of establishing R&D strategy, coordinating R&D programs and setting priorities among R&D projects. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Technology roadmap; R&D planning; Process; Parts and materials industry

1. Introduction Technology roadmap (TRM) is considered to be one of the most powerful techniques used to support technology management and planning. It provides a framework for linking business directly to technology, and thus has been widely used within industry by individual firms, government organizations and consortia (Barker and Smith, 1995; Bray and Garcia, 1997; Willyard and McClees, 1987). TRM enables R&D activities to be carried out in a more systematic manner, by laying out explicit plans about what technologies to develop when and how by forecasting future trends and identifying gaps between the firm’s current technology levels and advanced levels it desires to achieve. It also helps a firm identify and acquire core technologies in advance, and to share technological goals and strategies within an organization in support of its longterm and strategic R&D planning. Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 880 8358; fax: +82 2 889 8560.

E-mail address: [email protected] (Y. Park). 0166-4972/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2007.02.011

Despite its potential value, the application of this approach presents considerable challenges to firms, as, although TRM is fairly simple in structure and concept, its outputs depend on a strategy and planning process that involves considerable levels of detail (Phaal et al., 2001a). There is little support available, since there are few specific and detailed guidelines available for building TRMs (Phaal et al., 2004) and while roadmapping has been gaining increasing attention, the development of its methodology and practice are yet to be undertaken in earnest (Nakamura et al., 2006). In fact the evolution of roadmapping has been led by management practice rather than management theory (Holmes and Ferrill, 2005; Phaal et al., 2005), and its systematization has yet to be addressed academically (Nakamura et al., 2006). To overcome the lack of previous studies and help facilitate the spread of TRM technique, we first focus our attention on science-technology for R&D and propose a systematic process and detailed procedures for building a roadmap for such purposes. Unlike a product-technology roadmap, whose process includes strategic planning for

ARTICLE IN PRESS 434

S. Lee et al. / Technovation 27 (2007) 433–445

products and requires customization according to its business context (Groenveld, 1997), little attention has been paid to establishing guidelines for science-technology roadmapping (Garcia and Bray, 1997). However, we believe that an R&D-purposed TRM to forecast future technology and to develop an R&D plan could be standardized to some degree (Kostoff and Schaller, 2001) and could also cover both firm-level and sector-level planning process, and thus providing guidelines for an R&D-purposed TRM would be feasible and meaningful as well. We also attempt to integrate existing management tools such as technology valuation, cost analysis, portfolio analysis and patent analysis with TRM process, so that roadmapping is not isolated from existing management processes. We expect TRM will be a powerful tool when used collaboratively with other management tools (Kostoff and Schallar, 2001; Phaal et al., 2005). Our newly suggested framework is called TechStrategy. It was tested on an R&D planning process of government program initiated by KOTEF (Korea Industrial Technology Foundation) and, despite requiring some improvements, was found to be very useful overall. This paper presents a case study on R&D planning for the parts and materials industry to shed light on the process of establishing R&D strategy, coordinating R&D programs and setting priorities among R&D projects. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the fundamentals of the TRM approach in terms of its concept and construction process, and offers extensive reviews of the current literature. In Section 3, we turn our attention to TRM for R&D purposes, and suggest a framework of TRM for R&D planning, explaining the overall processes and specific TRM building procedures in detail. Section 4 validates the suggested framework through a case example. Finally, Section 5 discusses the implications and future direction of this research. 2. The technology roadmap The term ‘TRM’ is widely used, but appears to have no standard meaning or definition (Lee and Park, 2005). Kostoff and Schaller (2001) refer to TRM as a visual aid that crystallizes the links between research programs, development programs, capability targets and requirements. Rinne (2004) defines it as a map of the unfolding evolution of technologies and the products that utilize them. It can also include statements of theories and trends, the formulation of models, identification of linkages between and within sciences, identification of discontinuities and knowledge voids, and interpretation of investigations and experiments (Galvin, 2004). Due to these ambiguous definitions, variations exist among users about exactly what roadmapping entails. Moreover, the roadmapping approach has been adopted by organizations to support many different types of strategic aims, and so the term technology roadmapping

can refer to many related techniques and approaches (Phaal et al., 2004). It is these elements of ambiguity and flexibility that hinder the adoption of TRM (Phaal et al., 2003). A survey of 2000 UK manufacturing firms indicates that one of the reasons why companies struggle with the TRM application is that there are many specific forms, but that little practical support is available (Farrukh et al., 2001). Previous studies on TRM have usually dealt with the outcomes of roadmapping in specific technology areas (Arden, 2002; Edenfeld et al., 2004) or case studies of firms’ experiences with the roadmapping process (Barker and Smith, 1995; Groenveld, 1997; Willyard and McClees, 1987). A recent trend has emphasized the possibility of a wide application of TRM, and various exploratory studies have been conducted to integrate TRM with other strategic processes such as TRM for R&D planning (McCarthy et al., 2001), TRM for disruptive technology (Vojak and Chambers, 2004; Walsh, 2004), TRM for knowledge management (Brown and O’Hare, 2001), TRM for NPD (Petrick and Echols, 2004), etc. Again, while all these approaches are meaningful, they offer little practical help to those adopting TRM for the first time. Of course, there have been some efforts to share firms’ experiences in building TRM. For example, Bray and Garcia (1997) have suggested three phases of roadmapping where step-by-step activities were well described, but with only a one-page case study. Groenveld (1997) have developed a seven-stage process, but with only a one-line description of each stage. Strauss et al. (1998) summarized key roadmapping steps, trying to integrate scenario planning with technology roadmapping. However, few guidelines were provided to support scenario-based technology roadmapping, since the two techniques were explained separately and were combined only conceptually. While such work has yielded valuable information on roadmapping, there is still a lack of detailed guidance on how to initiate the technique (Phaal et al., 2004). An early attempt to fill this gap was made by the development of the ‘T-Plan’ for supporting the swift initiation of roadmapping (Phaal et al., 2001b). This, now famous, guideline comprised three stages: planning stage, roadmapping stage and roll-out stage. Subsequently, a modified T-Plan process has been introduced which takes a company through five key modules to create their first operation and technology roadmap (OTR) (Holmes and Ferrill, 2005). Those processes are extremely helpful, but the standard T-Plan is specialized to product planning (Phaal et al., 2002) and is also specifically company-centric (Phaal et al., 2003) rather than offering support for sectorlevel planning, creating a plan to integrate market, product and technology. In comparison, we focus on a sciencetechnology roadmap that is specifically R&D-centric and is intended to create a plan for developing future technologies (Garcia and Bray, 1997). Separate divisions in large companies tend to design both types of TRM—producttechnology roadmaps for products and product platforms,

ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Lee et al. / Technovation 27 (2007) 433–445

and science-technology roadmaps from their R&D centers (DeGregrio, 2000). Governments and research institutes (who do not generally offer any products) mainly employ science-technology roadmaps (Kostoff and Schaller, 2001). In fact, one of the major uses of roadmapping is in helping to plan and coordinate science and technology developments at any level, within a company, throughout an industry, or at the international level (Garcia and Bray, 1997; Kostoff and Schaller, 2001), and thus more specific guidance that can help develop a standard approach to roadmapping for R&D planning at any level is required (Garcia and Bray, 1997). The process for developing a science-technology roadmap will be different from that for a product-technology roadmap (Hassan et al., 2006). To meet the needs of R&D sectors, McCarthy et al. (2001) proposed a specialized science-technology roadmapping process comprising four phases, roadmap initiation; operational needs assessment; technical response development; and TRM report. This work is quite well customized to the R&D planning, but is specialized to their case study on voluntary consent order technology and needs further generalization to be of wider use. The framework of our study of TRM is based on the above-mentioned studies, but differs in three ways. Firstly, it suggests a roadmapping process specifically for R&D planning, unlike most previous studies that have given equal attention to market, product, technology and R&D concerns. For R&D-purposed TRM, in-depth planning for technology and R&D is essential and so we have designed our process after reflecting on the specific needs of R&D sectors. Secondly, unlike the work by McCarthy et al. (2001) with respect to TRM for project planning, this research suggests a more specific procedure on how to initiate TRM with interim reports, which describe the process in terms of its inputs, outputs and techniques, which we also feel allows for a greater level of generalizability. Finally, unlike those previous studies that focus mostly on the in-company application of TRM, we try to suggest roadmapping guidelines that can be used at any level. 3. TRM framework for R&D planning

435

technology needs, evaluating the current state of a firm’s technology compared to its competitors’, and producing a development plan to deal with these needs and fill the technological gaps revealed by the process. This process consists of six consecutive phases. The first phase, ‘TRM Initiation’, consists of preliminary TRM development activities. Specifically, a TRM team is organized, TRM reports are designed, and a roadmapping schedule is completed. The second phase, ‘Subject Selection’, is the starting point of real roadmapping. At this stage, customer needs are gathered and items to be improved are proposed and selected. Where the TRM is developed at the firm level, the firm’s operation divisions will be the operational sector for suggesting such items: where the development is at industry or government level, the operational sector will be at individual firm level. The third phase, ‘Technology Needs Assessment’, identifies specific technology needs for selected items. At this phase, each item is decomposed into its components to select what should be developed within the available resources. If the item unit is a product, its components will be its parts, while if the item unit is a technology, the component is its sub-technology. The components most urgently in need of improvement are then selected, and in the fourth phase, ‘Technology Development Plan’, development goals and strategies are created for each component. At the fifth phase, ‘TRM Implementation’, the TRM report, which details both the future outlook of the item (the macro TRM) and the development plan for its components (the micro TRM) is finalized and released for implementation. This information provides the basis for R&D budgets and project plan. The final phase is ‘Follow-up Activity’. Fig. 1 shows the overall TechStrategy framework: phases 2, 3 and 4 are described in more detail in the next section. 3.2. Standard process of TechStrategy The standard process of TechStrategy is described in Fig. 2. The whole process is carried out through a series of activities, with required inputs, specific action plans and expected outputs for each phase as listed in Table 1. (Most outputs from previous activities are utilized in performing subsequent activities, and are therefore not included in the input list.)

3.1. TechStrategy for R&D planning TechStrategy is a framework for technology roadmapping especially for the R&D sector, designed to support the needs of a specific program or project by providing a framework for planning and coordinating R&D efforts with operational requirements. Compared to the producttechnology roadmap, R&D-purposed TRM requires greater efforts in terms of selecting technology areas to be developed. Setting development targets in each technology area also requires more sophisticated techniques. Consequently, TechStrategy is a TRM technique that can give more weight to R&D planning activities by identifying

3.2.1. Subject selection In this phase, the subjects for TRM are selected by identifying, screening and prioritizing items through three modules: requirements analysis module, environmental analysis module, and technology valuation module. The need for and the role of each module are described below. Requirements analysis module: This module collects market needs so that technology can be linked directly to business needs. The roadmapping process begins by identifying market needs for the purpose of identifying technological development (McCarthy, 2003). Items to be the subject of TRM are proposed by operational sectors to

ARTICLE IN PRESS 436

S. Lee et al. / Technovation 27 (2007) 433–445

Fig. 1. Overall framework of TechStrategy.

Fig. 2. Standard TechStrategy process and detailed activities.

reflect market needs, since they work more closely with customers than other sectors, with reasons why a specific item should be further developed. Based on this, the TRM

team prepares a list of suggested items for submission to an operational committee that is taking responsibility for the environmental analysis and technology valuation, and usually consists of industry analysts and policy makers. Environmental analysis module: This module screens market needs based on environmental conditions. For this, the operational committee examines the R&D necessity of the suggested items, using techniques such as external market analysis, industry trend analysis, internal business analysis, objective and strategy analysis, and driver analysis in term of social, technological, environmental, economic, political and infrastructural factors to screen some out. As a final output of those analyses, a SWOT analysis is performed (Learned et al., 1969), which allows items that are unsuitable or relatively unnecessary for the current roadmapping program agenda or in the current environmental context to be eliminated from the candidate list for TRM development, saving time for the operational committee. Technology valuation module: This module prioritizes the market needs within a framework of firm’s internal capacity, by prioritizing those items remaining after the previous screening processes according to their importance. How their importance value is estimated usually depends on the TRM purpose, but one example is technology valuation analysis, which evaluates items from technological perspectives. Based on this evaluation, candidate items are prioritized, and those items of highest priority that fall within budget constraints are selected as the final subjects of TRM development. These items are called critical items. Once the list of critical items is decided, an expert

ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Lee et al. / Technovation 27 (2007) 433–445

437

Table 1 Inputs, processes and outputs for standard TechStrategy process Phase–module

Inputs

1. TRM initiation

Processes (or techniques)

Outputs

– TRM mission

– TRM process/report design

– TRM team – Process/report design results

Requirements analysis module

– Operational needs

– Needs gathering/needs analysis – Operational committee organization

– Item list – Committee list

Environmental analysis module

– Internal/external information – Committee opinion

– Market/industry/drivers analysis – Business/strategy analysis – SWOT analysis

– Candidate list for critical items

Technology valuation module

– Evaluation criteria, budget – Committee opinion

– Technology valuation and scoring – Experts committee organization

– Priority list for critical items – Experts list

Decomposition analysis module

– BOM, cost sheet, TT

– Decomposition analysis

– Component list for each item

Portfolio analysis module

– Importance – Development urgency

– Portfolio analysis

– Candidate list for critical components

Priority analysis module

– Customer needs – Budget constraint

– QFD – Strategy analysis

– Priority list for critical components

Performance measures module Technology evaluation module

– Component specifications

– Specification analysis

– Performance measures

– Component specifications – Expert’s opinion

– Capability/competitor/ gap analysis – Benchmarking

– Current capabilities – Capability gaps

Risk assessment module

– Patent documents – Expert’s opinion

– TRIZ or trend analysis – Patent valuation and risk analysis

– Development targets/ strategy – Risky patent list and IP strategy

5. TRM implementation

– Expert’s opinion

– TRM reporting and dissemination – R&D scheduling

– Macro/micro TRM – R&D plan and schedule

6. Follow-up activities

– Internal/external information – Expert’s opinion

– Environmental scanning – TRM update

– Updated TRM

2. Subject selection

3. Technology needs assessment

4. Technology development plan

committee is organized for each item. Here, the experts’ competence and objectivity are extremely important. Each expert should be technically competent in the subject area, and the competence of the expert committee should cover the multiple research, technology and product areas essentially relevant to the critical item (Kostoff and Schaller, 2001). 3.2.2. Technology needs assessment At this stage, the roadmapping process is focused on individual critical items, and moves from sphere of the operational committee to come under the control of the expert committees. This phase begins with identifying and

screening the item’s components, and ends with setting the development target for each of them. This phase determines which of the item’s specific components should be improved, and includes three modules: decomposition analysis module, portfolio analysis module, and priority analysis module. Decomposition analysis module: This module decomposes each critical item into its constituent elements to determine which components need to be improved to enhance the item. An item can be decomposed into various ways according to its applications. For example, in a market sense (rather that electronically) the component elements of a 17-inch TV for home use differ from those of a 42-inch

ARTICLE IN PRESS 438

S. Lee et al. / Technovation 27 (2007) 433–445

TV for business use. In such cases, the roadmapping agenda needs to assume the most representative application. Various methods, ranging from intuitive judgment to complex analytic models, including bill of material (BOM), cost sheet, or technology tree (TT) can function as a basis of decomposition. BOM and cost sheet are componentbased structures, whereas TT is a visual hierarchical representation, of possible research paths in dividing a technology into its sub-technologies. Consequently, a component list for each item is produced in which, where possible, components are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. Portfolio analysis module: The decomposed components are screened to select candidates for R&D. Portfolio analysis then eliminates relatively unnecessary components by grouping individual technologies into several categories in the form of a 2  2 matrix. Developing the portfolio involves two key issues: defining the technology units onto a portfolio map and quantifying two dimensions for categorizing the units (Petrov, 1982). In terms of the screening activity relevant to this stage, the technology elements of the components are assessed using two indexes measuring ‘technological importance’ and ‘development urgency’. All components are positioned on the portfolio map according to these two index values, and those components in the upper and right side are selected by expert committee as candidates for R&D. (Clearly, other dimensions can be used according to what are seen as relevant by the firm.) Priority analysis module: This module is employed to prioritize the candidate components by importance, and to select the final components for R&D. QFD techniques can be used to gain the customer’s point of view as to the relative importance of candidate components (Mizuno and Akao, 1978; Shillito, 1994). The simplest way to use this tool is to develop a matrix in which needs are listed on the left side of the matrix and components used to address these needs along the top (McCarthy, 2003). Or candidate components that corresponds more with the organizational strategy and roadmapping purpose could be given higher importance values, as judged by the committee. Highpriority components that fall within the budget constraints are finally classified as critical components, to be the end units of strategy development. 3.3. Technology development plan After the expert committee has decided on critical items and their critical components in the previous phase, the next step is to set a development plan for each component using three modules: performance measures module, technology evaluation module, and risk assessment module. Performance measures module: To map out the development plan for a component, the performance measures module allows an objective standard to be established to identify and measure each component’s technological level.

The functionality of the component, how well it works, is indicated by a set of performance measures. For instance, the performance measures for a tester may include ‘speed of testing’ and ‘error rate of testing’, while performance measures considered in image processing technology include ‘judgment time’, ‘collision time’, ‘scope of recognition’, ‘error rate of recognition distance’, etc. In this stage, technology performance measures are determined by experts who have knowledge about which technological attributes are important for the component. Of course, performance measures will vary according to the component’s application, and we recommend using the most representative application of the component in the most typical use of the item. Technology evaluation module: The next step is to evaluate the technological level of the firm and its competitor(s) using a comparative technology valuation process, and to establish a detailed development plan based on the valuation results. The organizational capabilities of the firm and its competitors are examined and analyzed to discover the technological ‘gap’ between the firm and competitors, using the average difference of specifications. When the firm lags behind its competitor(s) in these measures, the primary objectives are to close the gap and, then to surpass the performance measures of the leading competitor. Whereas the firm is already ahead of its competition, the R&D planning will be focused on maintaining its lead. Risk assessment module: The risk assessment module is required to identify any obstacles to technology development and, if possible, to resolve them before R&D activity starts. For this purpose, we suggest three analyses: trend analysis, patent valuation, and risk analysis. Firstly, trend analysis infers the technical maturity of the component, an important factor when considering technological availability and making R&D decisions. A highmaturity rating is given to technologies that are directly applicable with only minor development, meaning that development-related risks are relatively low (McCarthy et al., 2001). However, intellectual property (IP)-related risks might be relatively high. A simple patent map representing patenting activities (Grandstrand, 1999) or an S-curve estimation from the TRIZ technique can indicate the technical maturity in the growth curve (Slocum, 1999). Secondly, patent valuation is conducted to determine the legal status of preceding technologies. Patents that attract considerable attention should meet the following two conditions. First, they should be technologically advanced and significantly related to the current development objectives. A patent is evaluated by these performance measures and the average of evaluations is defined as a technological importance index (TII) for the patent. The second condition is that the patent itself should be valuable and of high quality. Indexes that are frequently used to measure the patent quality include citation frequency, granted status, technological scope, international scope, etc. (Ernst, 2003; Fabry et al., 2006). A combination of

ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Lee et al. / Technovation 27 (2007) 433–445

such indexes is considered to determine the patent criticality index (PCI). Patents with high scores on both TII and PCI are given a greater attention in the evaluation process. If necessary the development objective is adjusted after reviewing the patents. Finally, risk analysis is conducted. If the technology in consideration has already been developed and specified in a patent granted to another organization, a development strategy aimed at evading the preceding patent will have to be elaborated. During the process, TRIZ techniques can help envisage inventive solutions to current challenges that differ from the preceding patent (Hipple, 2005).

of the operational committee consisted of professionals in the relevant academic fields, research centers and enterprises. Over a 2-month period, both medium and smallsized firms and large enterprises suggested items they felt would be promising avenues for development over the next 10 years. The items were assigned into technology areas and evaluated by the operational committee. Following market analysis and a SWOT analysis of the Korea parts and materials industry, half of the items were eliminated from the TRM candidate list according to the following agenda for the third program of roadmapping.

 4. Case example

 4.1. Background

 The case example described in this section illustrates the overall roadmapping process in terms of inputs and outputs. This case documents an application of TechStrategy within KOTEF, established for the planning and management of national R&D programs in Korea. The decision to work with the TRM team at KOTEF was taken because KOTEF’s main role is R&D planning, which exactly corresponds with the purpose of TechStrategy, and because, as KOTEF plans and coordinates large-scale national R&D projects which demand substantial amounts of time and money, a systematic planning process was needed and we expected that TechStrategy would be helpful. TechStrategy was applied to help develop TRMs in the parts and materials industry on four occasions between 2002 and 2006. The case example records the third program, which focused on eight technology areas: electronic parts, electronic equipment parts, machine parts, automobile parts, electronic materials, metal materials, fiber materials, and chemistry materials. The process selected 125 components from 23 items and, consequently, 125 micro TRMs and 23 macro TRMs were established through four workshops. Among them, liquid crystal display (LCD), one of the 23 items, and back light unit (BLU), one of its components, are illustrated here. (LCD, the most common and diverse current electronic flat screen technology, is used in TV, computer monitors, wristwatches, digital thermometers and numerous other technologies, while BLU, used to ensure equal transmission of light across the entire LCD panel, is one of its most important components.) 4.2. TechStrategy application 4.2.1. TRM initiation and subject selection The objective of the TRM program was to build up the technological potential of the Korean parts and materials industry. Based on this mission, a TRM task force team was organized to design the overall TRM process and to prepare the list for the operational committee. Membership

439

To develop items that had large market potential, both domestic and overseas. To develop items that showed the potential for rapidly increasing market growth. To develop items that would avoid a heavy dependence on imports.

A technology valuation was then conducted on those items remaining on the list, using a simple scoring method. Scoring was based on nine equally weighted criteria, such as ongoing technology outlook, time required for development, usefulness to users and others, barriers to commercialization, ease of acquiring intellectual property, complexity of technology, degree of differentiation compared to existing technology, strategic positioning and competitive response. As a result, four items in the electronic parts, five in electronic equipment parts, two in machine parts, three in automobile parts, two in electronic materials, two in metal materials, two in fiber materials and three in chemistry materials were chosen to make up the final critical items list. 4.2.2. Technology needs assessment LCD was one of the four critical electronic parts items. Examining the LCD cost sheet supplied by enterprises to the expert committee, the item was further broken down into 32 components. A portfolio analysis was conducted, and at the expert committee’s first workshop discussion all components were plotted into a two-dimensional space (see Fig. 3). In this case, two criteria, ‘technological importance’ and ‘development urgency’, were applied to develop the portfolio map. The cost share of each component in the cost sheet was used as a proxy measure for ‘technological importance’, while ‘development urgency’ was evaluated subjectively with reference to the level of each component’s dependence on imports. Components with high technological importance and development urgency were selected as critical components and finally, in light of the current budget constraints, the eight components shown in the gray rectangular area were identified as candidates for improvement efforts. 4.2.3. Technology development plan Before the development plan was established for all eight components, they were combined into the following six

ARTICLE IN PRESS 440

S. Lee et al. / Technovation 27 (2007) 433–445

Fig. 3. Result of portfolio analysis for LCD.

components in order to increase R&D efficiency: flat fluorescent lamp (FFL) for dimming, BLU, touch screen panel (TSP), high-brightness film, reticular film and plate, and rubbing cloths. The example of BLU is described below. A second facilitated workshop was then held to validate the matching of identified needs and technologies, and concluded that the target requirements for BLU could be characterized as auto balance, single circuit, low mercury content and direct light. Assuming the most common utilization of BLU (for 42-inch LCD TV screens) and based on the strategic development agenda, six BLU performance measures were selected as important criteria for technical evaluation: (1) average brightness, (2) color temperature, (3) mercury content, (4) light efficiency, (5) light uniformity and (6) current fluctuation. For those performance measures, capability analysis, competitor analysis and gap analysis were conducted using specification information about 42-inch TV LCD screens, with the results as summarized in Table 2. As the table shows, the technology gap between the firm’s BLU and its competitor’s was not substantial, and so the 2010 target objective was set as eliminating the gap and achieving the highest position in that industry. To check if the development target had been properly set and for any patent infringement risks, the third workshop carried out a patent analysis. US, Japanese and Korean patent applications were retrieved using a keyword set of ‘‘mercury, Hg, straight, tube, lamp, backlight, back, light’’. A total of 193 patents were extracted from United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Japan Patent Office (JPO) and Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) database for the period between 1986 and 2005. The time period was based on the fact that the life of patent intellectual property rights is

20 years. TII and PCI values were obtained for patents retrieved by this search. To measure TII, each patent was evaluated by six performance measures using a 1-to-5 scale. Thus, where the technological level of a patent for ‘average brightness’ exceeded that of the development target (because the patent involved remarkably advanced and original technology) the patent was given a TII value of 5 for ‘average brightness’, where its technological level was similar to the current development target, the patent was given a value of 3, and where it was much inferior to the target, the patent was assigned a value of 1. Table 3 presents a list of patents showing a high TII of 4–5: only five patents exceeded the target specification. Finally, we concluded that the development target was realistic, and those patents would be used as a reference in future development processes. The final score for TII was calculated by averaging the scores for six performance measures. For example, patent number US4715687, which was given a score of 3.0 for average brightness, specifies technology similarly advanced to that adopted as the development target. On the same basis, its score for color temperature was 3.0, for light efficiency 4.0, and for light uniformity 4.0. However, as there was no information on mercury contents and current fluctuation it could not be given a score for those two measures. Therefore, its average TII score was 3.5, calculated as (3.0+3.0+4.0+4.0)/4. While TII was rated by the expert committee, PCI was rated solely based on patent-related information. Eight indexes were developed, and each patent given a PCI value by multiplying the index values. The patent indexes and ratings criteria are summarized in Table 4. Finally, the TII and the PCI for each patent were determined, and Table 5 shows the results of patent valuation. Patents are arranged in ascending order

ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Lee et al. / Technovation 27 (2007) 433–445

441

Table 2 Comparisons of technological ability between the firm’s BLU and competitor’s Performance dimensions (unit)

Average brightness (cd/m) Color temperature (K) Mercury contents (mg) Light efficiency (lm/W) Light uniformity (%) Current fluctuation (%)

Specifications

Technology inferiority to competitor

Firm’s, 42’’ TV

Competitor’s, 42’’ TV

Development target (2010), 42’’ TV

6000 5500 p5 55 p70 p10

6000 5500 p5 60 p75 p10

X8500 X9000 p3 X65 p80 p5

95%

Table 3 Patents specifying more advanced technology than the development objective Performance dimensions (unit)

2010 Development target

Patent number (specification)

Average brightness (cd/m) Color temperature (K) Mercury contents (mg) Light efficiency (lm/W) Light uniformity (%) Current fluctuation (%)

X8500 X9000 p3 X65 p80 p5

— US6840646 (over 9000) US4769576 (under 0.005) US4715687 (over 65), JP2004-354533 (over 65) US4715687(over 80) —

Table 4 Patent indexes and the ratings to measure PCI Perspective

Index

Description and ratings

Legal

Grant Index (GI) Protection Term Index (PTI) Tetradic Patent Index (TPI) Novelty Index (NI)

Whether a patent is applied or granted: 1.5 for granted, and 1.0 for applied The rest legal period of a patent protection: 1.0 for 1 year left, 1.1 for 23, 1.2 for 45, 1.3 for 67, 1.4 for 89, and 1.5 for more than 10 years left The international scope of a patent: 1.0 for Korea, 1.2 for Japan and US, and 1.5 for Japan, US and Europe The number of backward citations divided by the average number of backward citations of all retrieved patents The number of forward citations divided by the average number of forward citations of all retrieved patents

Litigation Avoidance Index (LAI) Commercial

Patent Expansion Index (PEI) Personal Property Index (PPI)

The number of family patents divided by the average number of family patents in the whole of the retrieved patents The number of claims divided by the average number of claims in the whole of the retrieved patents

Technological

Reliability Index (RI)

The number of inventors divided by the average number of inventors in the whole of the retrieved patents

Note: PI ¼ GI  PTI  TPI  NI  LAI  PEI  PPI  RI.

according to their importance score. US4715687, US6840646, US6472812, US6531823, and US20040189204 showed high scores in both TII and PCI. Significant BLU technologies had been developed in the patents themselves; while most TII values were around 3.0, PCI values were extremely high, at over 10.0. Next, all patents were mapped onto a two-dimensional space to find which might be risky when developing BLU technology. This process divided the patents into four groups on the map according to their TII and PCI scores, with those in the upper right sector

being treated as critical patents. The basis line for TII was set to 3.0, representing technology similar to that of the development target, while that for PCI was set to 7.8, the average value for all retrieved patents. Fig. 4 presents the result of the risk analysis to find the critical patents. Two patents, US6840646 and US4715687, were above the two basis lines, and further examination was required to reduce development risks such as IP or loyalty-related complications. Table 6 summarizes these two risky patents’ contents.

ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Lee et al. / Technovation 27 (2007) 433–445

442 Table 5 Results of patent valuation based on TII and PCI TII

PCI

Patent number

a

b

c

d

e

f

TII value

Patent number

PCI value

US4715687 US6840646 US6472812 US6531823 US20040189204 KR2004-0104499 JP1997-139190 JP2001-176445 KR2002-0078489 US6683405 KR2003-0063703 JP1996-190891 y

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

— — — — — — — —— 3.0 — 3.0

4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

— — — — — — — — — — — —

3.5 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

US6840646 US6472812 US6531823 US20040189204 US4715687 JP1999-135077 US6042241 EP0550937 EP0550937 EP0229428 US5422538 US6800997 y

30.7 26.3 26.3 22.7 22.5 21.9 20.3 19.0 19.0 16.9 15.2 15.1

Note: a: average brightness, b: color temperature, c: mercury contents, d: light efficiency, e: light uniformity, f: current fluctuation.

Fig. 4. Result of risk analysis to avoid patent complications for BLU. Table 6 Summary of risky patents: US6840646 and US4715687 Patent number

US6840646

US4715687

Application date Applicant (nation)

2002-02-15 PHILIPS (Netherlands)

1986-12-23 International Business Machines Corporation (US)

Title TII, PCI

Illumination system and display device 6.5, 30.7

Color variation in a passively illuminated display using fluorescent light sources 7.0, 22.5

Representative drawing

ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Lee et al. / Technovation 27 (2007) 433–445

4.2.4. TRM implementation and follow-up activity After the planning processes were repeated for the other five LCD components, a final workshop was held to synthesize the R&D plans for the entire six critical components, to fix development targets, to design R&D schedules and to construct the TRMs. Two types of TRM were built; a macro TRM, which emphasized the item and depicted its future trend, and a micro TRM, focusing on the item’s components and describing development strate-

443

gies for progress according to the performance measures. The expert committee came to a consensus about the TRMs’ target specifications and baseline technologies. Figs. 5 and 6 show the LCD macro and micro TRMs resulting from implementing TechStrategy. Based on the technology review, patent ratings, workshop discussions, expert inputs, engineering knowledge and other supplementary information, the TRM team with expert committee was able to complete the TRM report

Fig. 5. Macro TRM for LCD: a future outlook of LCD itself.

Fig. 6. Micro TRM for LCD: a development plan for LCD components.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 444

S. Lee et al. / Technovation 27 (2007) 433–445

covering the current and future technological ability and promising alternative technologies to meet the target objectives. Once the TRMs were completed, follow-up activities were carried out; the TRM report was reviewed, implementation plans were developed and budgets were allocated to the relevant R&D departments. It should be noted that TRMs should be periodically reviewed and reexamined to reflect the existing state of R&D and environmental changes, since the full value of TRM can be obtained only if the information that it contains is kept up-to-date as events unfold. 4.3. Discussions In the case reported, TechStrategy was verified as a useful procedure for developing promising R&D projects. In survey results after the roadmapping process, participants on both operational and expert committees indicated that they were quite satisfied with the results of TechStrategy, and had little difficulty in following the guidelines. In addition, TechStrategy had contributed towards integrating various strategic techniques that had been used from time to time for different purposes. In fact, KOTEF had been using portfolio analysis, patent valuation, risk analysis, etc. in different contexts, and TechStrategy made it possible to incorporate these analysis tools into the TRM context. We also found that high-quality TRM could be formulated under the following principles. First, many people provided good ideas in developing TRM, and several workshops were held during which participants exchanged views on relevant technical issues. The senior manager’s commitment and the TRM manager’s motivation in constructing a technically credible and visually superior TRM are one of the most important factors for increasing TRM quality, because building TRM is demanding in time and cost terms. The role of the experts is exceedingly important, since, while objective information such as market data or patent data will enrich their views, TRMs are largely based on expert judgments. Therefore, organizing the expert committee is a critical process in roadmapping. Secondly, it is necessary to integrate TRM with existing management tools that are already in use for technology and/or product planning, so that TRM is not seen as another burden for planning departments, demanding entirely new planning processes. Increased TRM effectiveness can only be achieved when TRM is not isolated from other management tools, and so it is crucial that an integrated roadmapping process is designed before roadmapping activity commences. Finally, finding ways to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of roadmapping processes is crucial. The major contributor to cost is the time of the many individuals involved in developing TRM. If better TRM can only be achieved by people spending more time on the roadmapping process, the danger is that total development

costs could increase beyond the firm’s capacity. However, this increase can be offset by increased effectiveness and efficiencies in the process. To increase roadmapping ‘efficiency’, TRM systems should help facilitate communication among participants to ensure easy updating and dissemination of TRM. Further research needs to be conducted on ways of standardizing TRM to develop TRM systems in general. Increasing roadmapping ‘effectiveness’, requires that scattered information from various sources be collected and transformed into forms which are appropriate to support quick and accurate decisionmakings. Studies on how to collect, analyze and interpret the information required for the roadmapping process are now in progress, while advances in information technology also promise to make it possible to increase both the efficiency and effectiveness of the TRM process. 5. Conclusions This research suggests TechStrategy as a systematic framework for building TRM for R&D purposes. This framework is intended to help integrate R&D planning with operational needs derived from the proposals by business divisions. In TechStrategy, roadmapping is completed through a serious of six phases, and detailed inputs and outputs at each phase are suggested to give practical guidelines for TRM construction. In addition, various analysis techniques in common use for strategic management are integrated into the framework. TechStrategy was applied to an R&D planning process in a Korean government program managed by the KOTEF, and its applicability and feasibility were verified. It is expected to shed light on the process of establishing R&D strategy, coordinating R&D programs and setting priorities among R&D projects, which will be especially helpful for large enterprises, research institutes and organization consortia. Furthermore, the suggested framework acts as a prerequisite to a TRM system, because a system can be only developed after a roadmapping process has been clearly defined and systematically structured. Despite these meaningful contributions, more work is needed to elaborate the framework. First, the suggested framework does not consider the marketability or profitability of the results of R&D. Since the benefit of TRM arises from market-driven approach, more effort should be put into market analysis throughout the entire roadmapping process. Second, the suggested framework does not consider relationships between technologies. In TechStrategy, the items of interest are selected, decomposed into components, and a development strategy established for each critical component; relationships between components are not taken into consideration. Moreover, there is a lack of strategic management of similar technologies in various components or items, since roadmapping activity for particular items is conducted independently of other items. However, some components may share similarities with those in other items, and thus need not to be

ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Lee et al. / Technovation 27 (2007) 433–445

developed again. In addition, particular technologies may be easily developed by referring to previously developed technologies that share common features, even if they do not belong to the same category. In such cases, integrated planning could increase R&D efficiency dramatically, and an advanced framework should stress the integrated management of various technologies in different areas. Third, employing TechStrategy with inputs from wide communities and with extensive analytic outputs requires considerable efforts and may involve high development costs. This may be able to be resolved by eliminating some of the standard TechStrategy activities from the process, but this begs the questions of which ones can safely be omitted. Further studies are required to design a more costeffective roadmapping process, and to provide simplified versions of TechStrategy according to various firm conditions, such as its roadmapping purpose, capacity and environment. References Arden, W.M., 2002. The international technology roadmap for semiconductors—perspectives and challenges for the next 15 years. Current Opinion in Solid State and Materials Science 6 (5), 371–377. Barker, D., Smith, D., 1995. Technology foresight using roadmaps. Long Range Planning 28 (2), 21–28. Brown, R., O’Hare, S., 2001. The use of technology roadmapping as an enabler of knowledge management. Institution of Electrical Engineers 7, 1–6. Bray, O.H., Garcia, M.L., 1997. Technology roadmapping: the integration of strategic and technology planning for competitiveness. In: Proceedings of the PICMET’97, Portland. DeGregrio, G., 2000. Technology management via a set of dynamically linked roadmaps. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Engineering Management Conference, Albuquerque. Edenfeld, D., Kahng, A.B., Rodgers, M., Zorian, Y., 2004. 2003 technology roadmap for semiconductors. Computer 37 (1), 47–56. Ernst, H., 2003. Patent information for strategic technology management. World Patent Information 25 (3), 233–242. Fabry, B., Ernst, H., Langholz, J., Ko¨sters, M., 2006. Patent portfolio analysis as a useful tool for identifying R&D and business opportunities – an empirical application in the nutrition and health industry. World Patent Information 28, 215–225. Farrukh, C.J., Phaal, R., Probert, D.R., 2001. Industrial practice in technology planning-implications for a useful tool catalogue for technology management. In: Proceedings of the PICMET’01, Portland. Galvin, R., 2004. Roadmapping—a practitioner’s update. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 71 (1–2), 101–103. Garcia, M., Bray, O., 1997. Fundamentals of Technology Roadmapping. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque. Available at: /http:// www.sandia.gov/Roadmap/home.htm#what02S. Grandstrand, O., 1999. The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property: Toward Intellectual Capitalism. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Groenveld, P., 1997. Roadmapping integrates business and technology. Research Technology Management 40 (5), 48–55. Hassan, S., Chishti, A., Elamvazuthi, C., 2006. Web-based documentation system for dynamic roadmaps. AACE Journal 14 (3), 257–268. Hipple, J., 2005. The integration and strategic use of TRIZ with the basic CPS (creative problem solving) process. The TRIZ Journal, 1–23.

445

Holmes, C., Ferrill, M., 2005. The application of operation and technology roadmapping to aid Singaporean SMEs identify and select emerging technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 72 (3), 349–357. Kostoff, R.N., Schaller, R.R., 2001. Science and technology roadmaps. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 8 (2), 132–143. Learned, E., Christiansen, C., Andrews, K., Guth, W., 1969. Business Policy, Text and Cases. Irwin, IL. Lee, S., Park, Y., 2005. Customization of technology roadmaps according to roadmapping purposes: overall process and detailed modules. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 72 (5), 567–583. McCarthy, R.C., 2003. Linking technological change to business needs. Research Technology Management 46 (2), 47–52. McCarthy, J.J., Haley, D.J., Dixon, B.W., 2001. Science and technology roadmapping to support project planning. In: Proceedings of the PICMET’01, Portland. Mizuno, S., Akao, Y., 1978. Quality Function Deployment: A Company Wide Quality Approach. JUSE Press, Tokyo. Nakamura, K., Aoki, T., Hosoya, M., Fukuzawa, Y., Kameoka, A., 2006. A roadmapping practice for enhancing the Japanese engineering service towards advanced IT network age. In: Proceedings of the IAMOT’06, Shenyang. Petrick, I.J., Echols, A.E., 2004. Technology roadmapping in review: a tool for making sustainable new product development decisions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 71 (1), 81–100. Petrov, B., 1982. The advent of the technology portfolio. Journal of Business Strategy 3 (Fall), 70–75. Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J., Probert, D.R., 2001a. Technology Roadmapping: Linking Technology Resources to Business Objectives. Center of Technology Management, University of Cambridge, Cambridge. Available at: /http://www-mmd.eng.cam.ac.uk/ctm/S. Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J., Probert, D.R., 2001b. T-plan: The Fast-start to Technology Roadmapping-planning your Route to Success. Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge, Cambridge. Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J.P., Mitchell, R., Probert, D.R., 2002. Starting up technology roadmapping fast. Research Technology Management 46 (2), 52–58. Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J., Mills, J.F., Probert, D.R., 2003. Customizing the technology roadmapping approach. In: Proceedings of the PICMET’03, Portland. Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J., Probert, D.R., 2004. Technology roadmapping—a planning framework for evolution and revolution. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 71 (1–2), 5–26. Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J., Probert, D.R., 2005. Developing a technology roadmapping system. In: Proceedings of the PICMET’05, Portland. Rinne, M., 2004. Technology roadmaps: infrastructure for innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 71 (1), 67–80. Shillito, M.L., 1994. Advanced QFD: Linking Technology to Market and Company Needs. Wiley, New York. Slocum, M.S., 1999. Technology maturity using S-curve descriptors. TRIZ Journal. January. Available at: /http://www.triz-journal.com/ archives/1999/04/c/index.htmS. Strauss, J., Rndnor, M., Peterson, J., 1998. Plotting and navigating a nonlinear roadmap: knowledge-based roadmapping for emerging and dynamic environments. In: Proceedings of the East Asian Conference on Knowledge Creation Management, Singapore. Vojak, B.A., Chambers, F.A., 2004. Roadmapping disruptive technical threats and opportunities in complex, technology-based subsystems: the SAILS methodology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 71 (1), 121–139. Walsh, S.T., 2004. Roadmapping a disruptive technology: a case study the emerging microsystems and top–down nanosystems industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 71 (1–2), 161–185. Willyard, C.H., McClees, C., 1987. Motorola’s technology roadmap process. Research Management 30 (5), 13–19.