Emerging Technology Road Maps: The Battelle Approach

Marylynn Placet, John F. Clarke

Abstract: Emerging Technology Roadmaps furnish a framework for managing and reviewing the complex, dynamic R&D process needed to achieve important future goals of both business and government. They show graphically how specific R&D activities address strategic technical goals that specifically support market (business) or policy (government) objectives for the future. This report defines the basic concepts and outlines a systematic process through which an R&D organization can develop a strategic technology portfolio. The process enables an R&D organization to explore the path from science to system application in order to bridge the gap between developing the basic technical capabilities required for successful R&D and satisfying the strategic business goals of the R&D customer. Based on a technological hierarchy, the process identifies tools and approaches that allow an R&D organization to identify the development requirements at each level of technology integration and map the relationships between them. An example of the application of this process to the analysis of long-term technology needs associated with global climate change is presented. Results are presented in terms of the technology development requirements to enable capture and sequestration of carbon from fossil fuel combustion.

June 30, 1999

2

Emerging Technology Road Maps: The Battelle Approach

Marylynn Placet, John F. Clarke

What are Emerging Technology Roadmaps? Why develop them? Road-mapping techniques are being used in a number of industrial firms, industry collaborative groups, and government agencies in their planning processes. The term “road-mapping” has been broadly applied to many kinds of activities. There are many types of roadmaps. These include product or product line roadmaps, sales roadmaps, industry roadmaps, and emerging technology roadmaps. This paper describes the latter process: creating an emerging technology roadmap. The purpose of emerging technology road mapping is to provide . . . and encourage the use of . . . a structured R&D planning process. Emerging Technology Roadmaps furnish a framework for managing and reviewing the complex, dynamic R&D process needed to achieve important future goals. They can be used to support business or government goals. They graphically show how specific R&D activities address strategic technical goals that specifically support market (business) or policy (government) objectives for the future. An emerging technology road map leads to the creation of an integrated technological capability from which specific products or processes can be developed for a business. Road mapping involves visual depiction of research and technology-development paths that potentially lead to achievement of goals set out in strategic business plans or policy documents. In both a business and government context, strategic plans, are based upon estimates, or scenarios, of future market conditions. Emerging technology road maps consider the results of technical trends and the consequences of alternative R&D programs that could be vital to the firm’s success in a variety of future markets. They are useful tools for industries in which basic research and technology development is important elements in helping the firm succeed. Emerging technology road mapping is a means of choosing a research and development strategy that best supports the business success of the entire firm. In this context, it requires inputs from all of the important functions of the firm (e.g., marketing and production, as well as R&D). It also requires the input of outside experts who understand trends affecting the industry and the technologies and bodies of research that could help address technical issues affecting the firm’s particular products and processes. Emerging technology roadmaps supporting government policies require an even wider range of inputs. This paper outlines some basic principles of emerging technology road-mapping and explains Battelle’s three-step approach. In the last section, the paper also illustrates the approach by showing its application to research and development planning for an oil company and the public policy issue of managing anthropogenic carbon emissions.

3

Basic Principles There are several key principles for conducting an Emerging Technology Road Map process. Battelle considers the following to be particularly important: 1. The process of reaching a consensus is as important as the product. To be truly effective, the

roadmap should be a vision of the future reached by consensus among all parties who have responsibility for the R&D -- the funders, developers/deliverers and implementers/users of technology. Thus, the process of road-mapping is as important as the final product of the process – the roadmap itself. Frequent communication with upper management along the way and involvement of all layers and functions of the organization are keys to success. Different views and priorities must be considered and synthesized into a coherent plan. This will help prevent passive resistance as the firm attempts to implement the Emerging Technology Road Map.

2. The primary purpose of the Emerging Technology Road Map is to influence future events,

not to predict them. The objectives set for the future should be based on realistic expectations about market, policy and technical trends. No one can predict the future. However, the future can be shaped by new technological developments. This is often called “technology push.” The emerging technology road-mapping process involves making best guesses about key factors affecting the future and proactively choosing a technology path to a desired future that takes those factors into account. It also identifies success factors associated with the desired paths.

3. Effective long-term R&D Road-mapping must involve “out of the box” creative thinking.

The emerging technology road map process is not pert-charting or planning a well-defined path to a well-defined future objective. The linear thinking, so essential in project planning, can stifle the process. The elements of risk and uncertainty should be identified and mitigating actions identified but their essential presence must ultimately be accepted as part of the road-mapping process. Exploration of multiple new pathways to a goal should be encouraged. The inclusion of gaps or chasms in the development pathway is as essential as identifying sequential steps in the apparent R&D process. Consideration of developments outside the firm’s immediate field of endeavor or a governments particular policy focus is essential in long term technology planning. The people constructing road-maps must be able to think beyond the current state-of-the-art as well as the state-of-the-business.

4. The roadmap must be relevant. Roadmaps must provide useful guidance, so as not be

ignored. For each manager in the company, the roadmap should answer the questions, “What does this mean for me?” and “What does this mean for the organization?” Although it cannot be a precise, pert-chart type plan (because it attempts to look at a long time horizon), it should help managers set priorities, identify duplication and synergies, assign resources and identify the salient features of important R&D projects as science and technology develop. For instance, today’s hiring decisions, budgeting for internal investments, and other such practical matters should be strongly influenced by the roadmap’s vision of what R&D capabilities must be developed to meet the business challenges of the long-term future. It also allows managers to see how various activities work together to meet key goals.

4

5. Roadmaps should communicate visually. The visual, graphical nature of a roadmap adds to

its value as a communication and planning tool. Graphical representation leads to ease of understanding very complex information. It can facilitate the conduct of basic consistency checks. As roadmaps for various areas of research are developed, the overlaps between these can be investigated, because of the visual nature of the roadmaps. The visual nature makes the story told by the roadmap compelling.

6. Roadmaps should integrate planning and implementation. The roadmap should consider all

the plans of the organization – mission and visioning, market analysis, competitor analysis, product line planning, portfolio analysis, etc. But it goes beyond mere vision to develop a general plan for developing capabilities. Actionable items should naturally flow from the roadmap.

7. Roadmaps are living documents. A roadmap is not a plan for the future that is “set in

concrete” when it is completed. As events unfold and new research results emerge, the plan must be changed to address the most current state of knowledge . . . and to build beyond the new frontier. The roadmap should provide a mechanism for accommodating serendipity – external events and new research results that should be incorporated into the technology development plans. Many organizations update roadmaps every year.

Developing an Emerging Technology Roadmap: The Basic Steps The process of creating an emerging technology roadmap is somewhat different from that of a product roadmap. The goal of a product roadmap might be the launch of a new product in a few years. Because many new products have some commonality with existing products, there are usually some clues about the market for the new product, given historical product lifecycles for similar or related products. In this context, the road-mapping process is analogous to starting a trip to a new city with some sort of map in hand. The map may be tattered and outdated; old roads may have been closed and new ones added. But, at least there is a structured set of initial routes to consider. The product road-mapping process, then, is analogous to updating the old map. The emerging technology roadmap process is more analogous to the situation faced by an explorer. Consider . . . as President Jefferson did . . . the prospect of charting an over-land trade route from the Atlantic to the Pacific in a previously unexplored region. His explorers . . . Lewis and Clark . . . knew that they were beginning at St. Lewis and that the Pacific lay to the West. They also knew that there are mountains inhibiting their path, and that rivers flowing westward might make certain pathways easier than others. The main tasks that had to be accomplished were: (1) The president deciding to go to the Pacific, (2) Lewis and Clark identifying how to break some trails and survey alternate potential routes, and then (3) selecting and mapping a good course for others to follow. These three steps . . . aside from many years of heroic effort exploring the various routes . . . constituted their road-mapping process. These are also the three basic steps in the Battelle Emerging Technology Road-mapping Process:

♦ Choosing the Destinations,

5

♦ Surveying Potential Paths, and ♦ Mapping the Course.

The degree of effort . . . heroic or otherwise . . . involved in actually creating … and implementing …an Emerging Technology Roadmap depends on the particular organization, the future business or policy challenges that they face and management’s determination to meet them. Step 1. Choosing the Destinations: Setting Long-term Technical Goals Choosing the destinations seems to be an obvious first step, but actually doing it can be very difficult. An explorer’s sponsor would have some long-term objectives in mind when sending the explorer on his expedition. Establishing a trade route might make the sponsor rich . . . clearly a worthy strategic objective. But how would that long-term objective be translated into the necessary near-term preparations … into the explorer’s R&D? Many organizations tend to concentrate mostly on identifying short-term objectives for very good reasons. Short-term challenges are very obvious, and the firm’s business objectives can be well characterized. By contrast, their long-term challenges are soft and shadowy. Long-term strategic objectives are consequently usually stated in general terms. It can be very difficult to identify the specific technologies or technical capabilities that will be needed to achieve these vague objectives and, even more difficult to connect these capabilities with near-term preparations. Nevertheless the task can not be avoided. It takes a considerable length of time to develop new, perhaps break-through, technologies that can shape the future of an industry, achieve a policy objective or help an organization to remain competitive under changing market conditions. It can take even longer to conduct the basic research or to build the technical capability needed to allow a firm to profit from advancing technology. Setting long-term technical goals, therefore, requires focused attention to both business strategy and the rate of scientific and technological advance. It requires involvement of creative thinkers who understand the industry (or industries) the firm belongs to and who can project and assess the importance of various business and technological factors that are likely to affect the future. Trends in the firm’s market and the evolution of science/technology must both be considered. An industry analysis would help discern the forces influencing the market and the firm’s competitive position in it. The industry analysis would typically consider the five-forces competitiveness model1: the firm’s relationship with its main customers, its relationship with its suppliers, the level of competition with its current competitors, potential new entrants to the industry, and the threat of substitute products.

1 See Michael Porter, On Competition, HBS Press Book, Cambridge Mass., 1998 or Michael Porter . How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy, Harvard Business Review Article, 3/1/79

6

Price and cost projections into the future would also be analyzed. Technical trends that must be considered include both product and process changes, e.g., the nature of the process inputs (feedstocks and other raw materials), changes in product nature or product mix, technology developments in related industries, and . . . perhaps most important . . . opportunities flowing from new science. Implementing government policies successfully requires consideration of these variables within an even more complex dynamic of public/private action/reaction.

Given these many variables, there are many technical goals that could potentially be espoused by the firm. A structured goal setting process must choose the most critical strategic technology needs of the firm. Much of the strategic thinking has most likely been done and documented in a strategic plan or a series of business plans. But, since the focus of the emerging technologies road-mapping exercise is on science and technology . . . not on policy generation or general business planning . . . additional work is necessary to link the organization’s business strategy to particular technological goals. The onus here is usually on the technologist to describe the benefits of particular science or technology opportunities in business terms. Once this context has been established the various technological approaches can be prioritized within the context of the overall policy or business strategy. Figure 1 uses the example of the dynamic . . . but otherwise hypothetical . . .Juan Francisco Xavier Oil Corporation (JFXC) to illustrate the flow-down from the firm’s vision and business strategy to the definition of its strategic technology needs. Clear definition of these needs is essential in choosing the most important destinations for an emerging technology road-mapping activity. The process involves noting the key business2 and technological success factors (KSFs). The Business Success Factors measure the quantitative and temporal dimensions of the activities needed to achieve the business goals or, particularly in a public policy context, which limit the permissible ways of achieving those goals. The Technology Success Factors define the business . . . or policy . . . benefits that technology provides in achieving strategic objectives. These generally fall within five business themes. The first four strengthen the current strategy: focusing investments, improving operational competitiveness, developing products, and protecting environment, safety and health (ES&H). In addition, new technology can frequently create new strategic options with significant business value. Strategic technology needs then should provide an answer to one or more of the following questions. Focusing investments: How can capital investments (new assets) help the firm? Improving the competitiveness of operations: How can we better utilize the current assets? Developing products: How can we improve existing products and what new products will

the market call for in the future? Protecting health, safety and the environment: What steps must we take to ensure safe

operations that do no adversely impact the environment? Expanding the scope of the firm’s strategy: If we had this new technology, what other

business strategy would we undertake?

2 Concept is derived from: Derek Barker and David Smith, “Technology Foresight Using Roadmaps,” Long-Range Planning, Vol. 28., No. 2, pp. 21-28, 1995.

7

The KSFs are important because they provide the highest-level guide to the identification of the value and performance that would satisfy the strategic technology needs. In the example in Figure 1, the definition of “world competitive” contains a host of benchmarks to focus Xavier Oil’s strategic technical needs. Associating strategic technical needs with these understandable business themes helps to focus the technologist’s attention on the business value of alternative technologies. It also allows top management to clearly recognize the relative importance of different technologies to their overall strategy. In addition to business strategy, the choice of possible long-term technology goals must consider the current core science and technology competencies of the firm and/or the ease with which the firm could build and utilize unique and distinctive competencies in new areas. Where are the current areas of strength? Must the firm catch up just to meet industry norms in some technology areas? In what areas does the firm already have world-class capability? How difficult would it be for us to meet one technical goal compared to another? This process must, by nature, be subjective and it should be developed through a consensus-building process.

Figure 1. Deriving technological destinations from business strategy.

Vision In 2010 Juan Francisco Xavier Oil Corp. will be amajor global competitor.

BusinessStrategy

Export high value products

Use domesticresources

Increase mkt. agility

StrategicTechnicalNeeds

Multi-use,high efficiencyprocesses

Upgradeheavycrude

Meet world env. standards

Enhance productquality

8

The end product of Step 1 is the identification of those business goals3, which require strategic technology development. A key test of whether the strategic technical needs have been identified properly is their relationship to business themes recognized by top managers. Step 2. Breaking Some Paths: Surveying Potential Routes to the Goals This next step in the road-mapping process assesses the alternative technological pathways that might lead to achieving each of the critical business goals: e.g., mechanical, chemical or thermal means might lead to the same technical functionality. All of the pathways might not be obvious to the firm. The firm’s current technical experts may tend to only consider current approaches, or alternatives already known in their own fields of expertise. For this reason, it is important to include some external parties and a wide range of viewpoints and technical expertise in the process of developing a vision of the alternative pathways. The Battelle approach to emerging technology road mapping considers the technological hierarchy that is involved in supporting strategic business or policy goals. There are various ways of defining such a hierarchy. We have chosen to start with the integrated technology system that produces the firm’s output and to end with the capabilities that are needed to develop those critical technologies, which make the system competitive. Analyzing the Productive Technology System in terms of its component functions and the desired performance to meet the Strategic Technical Needs connects these extremes. First, we identify the critical Technology Platforms that provide competitive advantage to a business . . . or an equivalent high value to government in achieving a policy. The technological components, which make up the Technology Platforms, can also be identified within the Productive Technological System. However, the performance or development requirements of these components must be determined from the needs of the Technology Platforms, which are aimed at increasing the competitive advantage of the whole system. The technological hierarchy is defined in Figure 2. As applied to emerging technologies, the hierarchy includes technology in different stages of development. In fact, not all of the science or technology in an emerging technology roadmap is well defined. Some elements may well be represented by little more than functional requirements and a technical-intelligence gathering plan to identify scientific or technological approaches. Thus, after assembling the framework of the roadmap by working downward through the hierarchy from business strategy to capabilities to identify possible pathways, one must also work upward from the capability level to map a course of development. Working from the bottom to the top of Figure 2, to support the business strategy, the firm must assemble the capabilities, develop critical components, create new technology platforms and integrate them with old technology to form productive new systems. From the capability to the systems level, technology becomes increasingly integrated as it moves from the research 3 Note – if time and resources allow, several scenarios of the future should be investigated and alternative business needs under each should be set. Then, the process described here would be applied to a robust set of a Top-Few business technical needs and the road-mapping would focus on those science and technology capabilities that are needed under all or many scenarios.

9

laboratory to commercial application. In the past, these stages of development were often sequential. Today, they are more often overlapping in time and involve extensive interaction through the development and commercialization process. Exploring the path from science to system application consists of identifying the expected needs at each level of integration and mapping the relationships between them. It also involves evaluating alternatives and making key develop/buy decisions based on business criteria at each level. This will be discussed in Step 3: Map The Course below.

Figure 2: The basic technological hierarchy and process used in a Battelle Emerging Technology Roadmap (BETR).

Figures 3 and 4 provide illustrations of how the various sections of the roadmap for Xavier Oil might look during the analysis process. The path-breaking stage of emerging technology road-mapping involves exploring several routes to reaching Xavier Oil’s chosen destination. First, potentially productive technological systems are specified at a general, functional level and documented visually as nodes (rectangles) on the roadmap. These highest level nodes can be linked directly to the firm’s strategic business goals. In our hypothetical case, we found that Xavier Oil’s strategic technical needs identified in Step 1 could be satisfied by three specific productive technology systems. Achieving functional

Productive Technology System: Integrated technologythat produces a saleable product or service and/or acondition that satisfies a business goal. E. g. Power Plantproducing saleable, green electricity.

Technology Platforms: Combination of intellectualproperty and market, business, and technical know howwhich, if well developed, can provide a competitiveadvantage for a Productive Technology System. E. g. Fuel& exhaust cleanup systems

Component Technologies: Technology that performs aunit function supporting one or multiple platforms. E. g.Separations, Catalyst or Control Technology

Technology Capabilities: Science, engineering andmanagement skills enabling the development ofComponents, Platforms and Productive SystemTechnologies E. g. Chemical Engineering, System orComponent Simulation and Electronics

BE

TR

Ste

p 2:

Surv

ey P

oten

tial P

aths

BE

TR

Ste

p 3:

Map

the

Cou

rse

A Complex Technological Hierarchy Satisfies The TechnologyNeeds Generated By A Government Policy or Business Strategy

10

performance targets in three different types of processing will satisfy Xavier Oil’s four strategic technical needs. This illustrative example is over-simplified, because there could potentially be several alternative Productive Technology Systems, each with a variety of Technology Platforms, satisfying each of the technical needs. In developing an actual Roadmap, one would analyze the conventional (or current) technology as well as emerging technology and new technology alternatives for key functions. Conceivably, with sufficient new technology the Productive Technology System itself would be replaced with an alternative. All of these possibilities need to be considered in preparing the initial Roadmap.

Figure 3. Linking technology development to business goals

The performance of the productive technology systems is determined by the technology platforms, which form the next level of nodes. A technology platform is a combination of intellectual property and market, business, and technical know how which, if well developed, can provide a competitive advantage for a Productive Technology System4.

4 A consistent definition is “Technology Platform: A cluster of technologies that provide a strategic focus for a company. Strong capabilities in these technology platforms directly support business objectives and can provide a competitive advantage.” ADL, Pemex Refinacion Technology Management Presentation, 1998

StrategicTechnical

Needs

Multi-use,high efficiency

processes

Upgradeheavycrude

Meet world env. standards

Enhance productquality

Xavier Oil Roadmap Structure

ProductiveTechnology

System

Advanced CrudeUpgrading & Processing

AdvancedTransportationFuel Processing

IntegratedEnvironmental

Processing

Technology Platforms

CrudeSeparations

CrudeDecontamination

SelectiveSeparations

CleanDiesel

SyntheticCrude

DME/DEEProduction

HydrogenProduction

11

For Xavier Oil seven key platforms require development to performance requirements specified by these three technology systems. Then, component technology nodes that make up the technology platforms are added to the Roadmap. Next, the scientific/technical research capabilities that would be needed to develop the system and component technologies would be added in the form of R&D Capability nodes. This is illustrated in Figure 4. The links between individual nodes and the nature of the relationships also have to be identified and characterized. These are also indicated graphically in Figures 3 and 4. The lines shown in the figures represent descriptions and characterizations of each node and link relationship. As indicated, several component technologies may contribute to several different technology platforms. Clearly, success, delay or failure in component technology development can have an impact on platforms and their associated technology system . . . and, frequently, on more than one. Consequently, several questions need to be examined with regard to these linkages: Just what impact does each lower level technology have on the next level? What is the risk to the higher level by failure . . . or delay . . . of the lower level development? Moreover, these questions need to be answered separately by individuals concerned with developing both the higher and lower level nodes: e.g. research, component and system development. Frequently the perceptions of the relationships from these two perspectives differ considerably and these different evaluations are very important factors in choosing R&D paths. Based on evaluations of each node and linkage, judgements must be made on the likelihood that alternative pathways to a productive technological system might meet the specified strategic technical needs at lower cost or risk. This will affect the relative importance of each individual node to the overall success of the pathway and the allocation of R&D resources. Finally, the current and potential R&D activities of the firm need to be shown on the roadmap so that the gaps can be identified easily. Using different colors or shapes for the nodes on the roadmap diagram can do this. For instance, the ovals in Figure 4 represent components or R&D activities that Xavier Oil has determined can be obtained at lower cost from outside sources. In sum, the potential costs and other risks (see Step 3 below) associated with the nodes and links should be assessed and indicated graphically on the Roadmap (e.g., using “high” “medium” and “low” ratings for costs and risks). The result should be a comprehensive picture, given current state of knowledge, of what kind of technologies and capabilities would be required to progress along each of a number of alternative paths to each of the strategic technical goals of the firm. The general risk characteristics of each alternative pathway can be reflected graphically by the colors or other characteristics of the links. Activities that are currently funded and capabilities that already exist within the firm (or that are planned within the firm or known to exist outside the firm) should also be designated, so that R&D gaps can be identified.

12

Of course, any desired degree of quantitative analysis could also be performed on the data represented by the graphical road map5. Such analysis is justified in some circumstances and its results can in turn be represented graphically on the roadmap. Road-mapping using computer based tools has the advantage that such analysis can be associated with the graphical representation. Any desired degree of detail can be examined. However, the graphical presentation of summary data . . . e. g. the flow of knowledge from basic research to productive technology . . . has the virtue of being more transparent to upper management than reams of analysis.

5 For example, more rigorously, a Monte Carlo type of probabilistic risk assessment could be performed. It would require estimating the best, most likely, and pessimistic duration and cost for each of the roadmap nodes. Then one could calculate probabilistic graphs.

13

Figure 4. Linking of R&D Capabilities to Technology and Platform Development Step 3. Mapping the Course: Choosing the Desired Alternatives The last step of the process is the analysis of the implications for the firm of the alternatives represented in the roadmap. This step leads to the setting of priorities. This is done by visually exploring the alternatives, understanding the perceived risks -- technical, economic and other, considering organizational S&T strengths and weaknesses and activities already ongoing in the firm, and understanding what technologies/capabilities could be better delivered from parties outside firm. Overlaps between the paths on the roadmaps . . . aimed at meeting the multiple goals identified in Step 1 . . . would be examined during Step 3. Overlaps between paths to a strategic technical need could identify duplication of effort or highlight critical activities and opportunities for synergy in R&D resource allocation. The Advanced Fuel pathway in Figure 4 shares nodes with the Advanced Crude Processing pathway and the Integrated Environmental Processing pathway. Questions to be examined here include whether the multiple impacts of the individual R&D activities have been given sufficient

Technology Platforms

Xavier Oil Roadmap Structure (Cont.)

ComponentTechnologies

R&DCapabilities

ProcessDesign Sensor/Control

Technology

MaterialsDesign

Bio/geneticTechnology Catalysis

MicrowaveEngineering

DesignerCatalysts Designer

Membranes

OxygenSeparation

PrecisionReactionControl

CrudeSeparations

CrudeDecontamination

SelectiveSeparations

CleanDiesel

SyntheticCrude

DME/DEEProduction

HydrogenProduction

IntegratedHydro-Treatment

Bio-enzymaticReactors

MolecularModeling

SelectiveBond

Activation

14

weight and whether the deliverables will be timely for achieving the independent goals of the individual Strategic Technical Needs. Gaps in capabilities (between what is needed and what exists today) must also be identified in the road-mapping process and alternative sources of the missing technology identified. For example, the oval nodes in Figure 4 represent capabilities judged not to be required within the Xavier Oil Corporation. The most promising pathways to meeting the Strategic Technical Needs would be decided through analysis aided by filtering the graphical representations in various ways. In this analysis, an assessment of the overall desirability of various technology and R&D options will be developed. Merging alternative roadmaps, one can develop a final, master roadmap, which shows the preferred pathway to each goal. Pathways that appear too risky can be avoided for the present. However, the rejected alternatives must not be discarded. The will be revisited the next time road mapping is undertaken. As market conditions change or science and technology advance, they may begin to look more viable in the future. They might also serve as a source of ideas leading to adoption of an alternate business strategy based on the development of some new capability. Applying the Process Each road-mapping problem is as unique as the firm or government agency undertaking it. Applying the Battelle road-mapping approach requires tailoring the basic three-step process described above to unique circumstances. The customer’s Business Strategy and perspective on its future product and process technology needs will be the fundamental inputs to the process. However, these need to be integrated with a global view of technology opportunities and industry needs. A combination of workshops and Delphi investigations is suggested, in order to facilitate meeting two goals:

(1) Reaching consensus within the customer’s organization on the highest priority R&D thrusts, and

(2) Taking advantage of outside expertise that can provide new ideas and expand the horizons of the “out of the box” thinking needed for the Road-mapping process to be most useful.

Step 1. Choosing the Destinations Step 1 is accomplished by interviewing upper management and forming a core BMI, customer working-group to organize the rest of the process. The process of choosing technology destinations will be implemented through workshops and off-line work of the core group. The workshops will bring together strategic thinkers from the customer; the key managers involved in funding decisions, and selected strategic consultants knowledgeable about the particular industry. Presentations will be made on the future factors affecting the international

15

industry, market factors and industry analysis, business scenarios and technical trends, the customer’s strategic goals, customer’s current core technical capabilities, and other relevant topics affecting customer’s technical goals. Materials developed in earlier technology analyses will be used as sources, along with customer strategic planning documents. A global technology perspective will be introduced through use of industry surveys6. Based on this information, workshop participants will identify customer Strategic Business Needs and the Strategic Technical Needs supporting the customer business strategy. (Figure 1). The Functional Performance Requirements required to satisfy these Strategic Technical needs will then be specified and used to validate the Key Technology Platforms that constitute the destinations of the technical roadmaps. Step 2. Surveying the Paths A combination of customer and outside experts will then begin to sketch out the top level roadmap. This will be done using a modified Delphi method,7 supplemented with internal workshops, as needed. Participants will be asked to consider all possible paths to achieving the strategic technical goals, based on their understanding of science and technology developments. These will be represented as alternative Technology Systems. For each system, the Technology Platform Development Needs will be defined based on the performance criteria needed to satisfy the Productive Technology System requirements. Component Research and Development Needs following from the nodes above will then be estimated. Starting from information on current customer and industry R&D activities and technical competencies, the group will identify an initial straw-man list of R&D Capabilities relevant to the current and emerging Productive Technology Systems. Information about possible technological solutions, underlying science/technological capabilities needed, as well as potential cost, technological risk and other factors will be included. This survey will be conducted through interviews with a selected set of (between 6 and 10) experts who have knowledge of the subject area but a wide range of technological perspectives and fields of expertise. Customer views of the technological solutions will also be included. Once the individual survey results are available, they will be compiled and recycled through the whole set of experts. The individual experts can adjust their views based on the information supplied by the entire set. Upon completion of this iteration, the core team will interpret the results. Alternative pathways and their characteristics will be constructed and entered into a computerized road-mapping system -- the Graphical Modeling System (GMS)8 (or a modified version of the model). If opinions differ on risk factors or other aspects, the range of opinions will be captured in the specifications. 6 This includes the work done by Battelle in its own technology analysis programs. 7 The Delphi approach involves using targeted surveys, which are completed by selected experts. When the results are compiled, the collective set of survey results is returned to the participants so they can see what other experts have said and adjust their opinions. 8 Developed by SPA under contract to the U.S. Government. Generously provided for Battelle use by Robert Zurcher, Associate Director, Office of Naval Research (ONR), U.S. Department of Defense.

16

The survey will also gather information on potential competitors to customer who would also be sources of technology and S&T capabilities in the areas. This information will be used in Step 3 below. Current capabilities and activities of customer will be designated after the alternatives are outlined. The R&D and capability gaps will be then be identified along with opportunities to fill these gaps. Step 3. Mapping the Course The final step will be accomplished in a workshop setting and in meetings with key stakeholders. A group of customer mangers from various functions within customer will comprise the workshop group. Each workshop participants will interpret the roadmap using information on customer’s current strengths and weaknesses, the strengths and weaknesses of external sources of S&T capabilities, and the judgements about risks of the potential alternatives developed by the Delphi participants. By examining the roadmaps from various different perspectives, the core group of customer managers will choose the best alternatives from among those presented in the roadmap. This will require considerable iteration and consensus building to establish confidence in the parameters used in the analysis9. These findings will then be presented to customer managers using GMS visualization to explain and explore the results. Feedback from these meetings may alter the decisions. The core group will construct the final roadmap that shows the current vision of how the Customer Strategic Technical needs could be met. A final report will document the results of the process10. Figure 5 shows a schematic representation of a pathway selected to reach a Strategic Technology Need. Developing a new set of new capabilities could allow the business to improve old components and develop new components, which might enable an emerging platform to be perfected. The new platform, in turn, could enable the development of a new productive system, which allows the adoption of an attractive new business strategy. This may well be the optimum path based on current knowledge. However, following any R&D based path is not without risk. Having an awareness of the full range of possible development paths allows the business to hedge its bets on the success of the technologies along this path. Road mapping is not a crystal ball but it does provide a systematic assessment of the future opportunities, as well as the risks and benefits, associated with research and technology development. Hopefully, systematically analyzing and visualizing the alternative pathways to a desired strategic goal should improve the allocation of scarce R&D resources.

9 Paul Sharpe And Tom Keelin, “How Smithkline Beecham Makes Better Resource-Allocation Decisions”, Harvard Business Review, March-April 1998 10 See Sample in Appendix

17

Figure 5: A technology pathway to a desired business strategy (Shaded Nodes). An Application Of The Process: Developing An Emerging Technology Road Map For Carbon Capture And Sequestration INTRODUCTION Emerging technology road maps provide—and encourage the use of—a structured scientific R&D planning process. They show graphically how specific R&D activities can create the integrated technical capabilities needed to achieve strategic objectives. This section describes the creation of an emerging technology road map for the capture and sequestration of CO2. The emerging technology road map methodology was applied at the request of the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy to an effort involving experts from all of the DOE National Laboratories, universities and industry. The experts were assigned to teams focusing on the key technology areas related to carbon capture and sequestration. The road mapping process was adapted to the needs of each working group to produce a reasonably uniform set of technology goals for the DOE R&D program11. A CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION SYSTEM An emerging technology road

11 Carbon Sequestration: State Of The Science, U.S. Department Of Energy, Office Of Science Report, (February 1999), This section is taken from Chapter 8, which was authored by J.F. Clarke.

AlternateStrategic Plan 2

Strategic Plans

AlternateStrategic Plan 1

CurrentStrategic

Plan

Strategic Tech. Needs

Prod. Tech.Systems

Technologyplatforms

ComponentTechnology

R&DCapabilities

CurrentPlatforms

CurrentProd. Syst

CurrentComponents

CurrentCapabilities

CurrentStrategic

Needs

AlternateStrategic Needs 1

AlternateStrategicNeeds 2

NuevoPlatforms.

NuevoComponents.

NuevoProd. Syst.

NuevoCapabilities.

EmergingPlatforms.

EmergingProd. Syst.

EmergingComponents.

EmergingCapabilities.

Market and S&T DevelopmentTe

chno

logy

Dev

elop

men

t Hie

rarc

hy

18

map seeks to identify the scientific and technological developments needed to achieve a specific strategic goal. Developing a concept of the technological system that would enable achievement of that goal must focus the process of identifying the needed science and technology. This is particularly difficult in the case of carbon capture and sequestration for two reasons: 1) the strategic goal is still emerging from the policy process and 2) there is no paradigm for such a system. Carbon is emitted to the atmosphere from energy technologies that were not designed to capture, let alone sequester, these emissions. There are many ideas for, and even demonstrations of, technology to capture and sequester carbon from fossil fuel combustion. However, we must consider that the current energy system could be modified significantly to make an economical capture and sequestration system possible. Thus the emerging technology road map for carbon capture and sequestration cannot be constructed apart from consideration of current and emerging energy technologies. It will involve an iterative process to connect this road map with others being developed by government and industry for various other parts of the energy technology system. Figure 6 gives a top-level picture of a carbon capture and sequestration system and its linkages to the energy system. Within the current fossil energy system, carbon is processed in several forms by different fossil fuel technologies in many different parts of the energy system. To keep it from being emitted to the atmosphere, this carbon must be captured, processed in some way to separate or purify it, and changed to a solid, liquid, or gaseous form that is convenient for

transport. It can then be transported in an engineered system to a site for sequestration or for transformation into a long-lived end product. Alternatively, the carbon could be emitted as CO2 and transmitted through the atmosphere if sequestration by bio-absorption can be assured in

Fig. 6. The top-level diagram of a carbon capture and sequestration technology system showing the relationship to the fossil energy system.

19

some part of the natural carbon cycle. Analysis to date has concentrated principally on the new scientific understanding and technology (shown in white in Fig. 6) that are needed for specific capture and sequestration functions. Transportation technologies (shown in gray) have received little attention. Reference has also made to specific changes in components of the existing energy system (shown in black) that would simplify and/or lower the cost of capture and sequestration. The close relationship between fuel transformation—from natural hydrocarbons to refined fuels for transportation and/or dispersed energy technology—is of particular importance in this regard. Changes in the carbon content of refined fuels can alter the flow of carbon through the capture and sequestration system. Lowering the carbon contents of transportation fuels can change the balance between carbon transported through the atmosphere and carbon that must be handled in potentially more expensive engineered systems. The form of fossil-fueled electricity generating technology also plays an important role in determining the form and cost of capture and sequestration technology. The cost and applicability of the individual capture and sequestration technologies shown depends fundamentally on the particular fossil-fueled electricity generation technology employed. These are two areas for particular emphasis in coordinating this road map with other transportation and fossil energy technology road-mapping efforts. The major capture and sequestration technologies, listed in Fig. 6, can be developed and improved individually. However, the economic cost and effectiveness of the overall carbon capture and sequestration system depend on the effective combination of many technologies. The relative importance of each must finally be judged in the context of the integrated technology system. The system shown in Fig. 6 is adequate for taking the first steps in developing a carbon capture and sequestration emerging technology road map, but a more detailed system engineering effort will be required to add economic and engineering substance to this sketch before the requirements needed to plan an R&D program can be generated. BUILDING AN EMERGING TECHNOLOGY ROAD MAP After identifying the technology goals and the integrated technology system needed to satisfy those goals, the next step in developing an emerging technology road map is to assess the alternative technological pathways that might lead to achieving the integrated technology system. The approach is to construct these pathways within a technological hierarchy. The highest level of the hierarchy is the integrated technology system—in this case, the carbon capture and sequestration system. The hierarchy ends with the science and technology capabilities that are needed to develop the technologies that make the system economical and effective. Analyzing the integrated technology system in terms of its component functions and the performance required to meet the strategic goal connects these extremes. First, we identify the critical technology platforms that might provide high value in the operation of the integrated technology system. The technological components that make up the technology platforms can also frequently be identified within the integrated technology system. However, the performance or development requirements of these components must be determined from the needs of the technology platforms, which are aimed at increasing the economic performance of the whole system.

20

As applied to emerging technologies, the hierarchy includes technology in different stages of development. In fact, not all of the science or technology in an emerging technology road map is well defined. Some elements may well be represented by little more than functional requirements and a technical intelligence–gathering plan to identify scientific or technological approaches. Thus after assembling the framework of the road map by working downward through the hierarchy from policy goals to capabilities, one must also work upward from the capability level to identify possible pathways and to map a course of development. BUILDING THE CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION ROAD MAP Assembling the expertise needed to assess each of the science and technology areas of the carbon capture and sequestration system shown in Fig. 6 is the next step. In this instance, working groups composed of experts from relevant industries and DOE National Laboratories composed the working groups and their opinions provided by the expert groups formed the foundation for developing the carbon capture and sequestration road map. Structured workshops developed the outline of an emerging technology road map by breaking down the carbon capture and sequestration system into its functional components. Using the Graphical Modeling System (GMS), an integration group asked each of the expert working groups to identify technology platforms that they believed would be critical for the efficient performance of these system functions and that were particularly dependent on the group’s science and technology. Within these technology platforms, the groups were asked to identify specific components, again within their science and technology areas, that they believed could be important to the development of these technology platforms. Finally, each group was asked to identify the science and technology capabilities that would be essential for the successful development of the technology that they had identified. They also specified the relationships between the science and technology at each level within this science and technology hierarchy. This exercise enabled each of the working groups to better perceive the relationship of its particular technical area to the overall carbon capture and sequestration system. Each of the working groups also adapted this general approach to better illuminate the technical discussion in its chapter. The integration group assembled all of this expert input into a system-level outline of an emerging technology road map (Fig. 7). The outline illustrates the complex interdependence of the science and technology supporting a fully functional carbon capture and sequestration system. Development is required at each level of this hierarchy to achieve the capability to capture and sequester a significant fraction of anthropogenic carbon by 2025. Even at this stage in the development of a road map, the need for a coordinated science and

Definitions of the Technology Hierarchy Technology platform: A combination of components; intellectual property; and market, business, and technical know-how that can be applied to a family of process needs. Component: A technology or specific knowledge that performs, or allows the performance of, a unit function supporting one or more technology platforms. S&T Capability: General science, engineering, and management knowledge and skills that enable development of components and technology platforms

21

technology development program is evident from the many science and technology relationships shown in Fig. 7. The science and technology underlying the nodes at each level of the hierarchy in Fig. 7 was discussed and documented in the workshops. Each of these items is shown in summary fashion in Tables 6–8.3.

The process of developing the needed carbon capture and sequestration RD&D program proceeds from the bottom to the top of Fig. 7. The RD&D program must assemble the capabilities, develop critical components, create new technology platforms, and integrate them with old technology to form a new carbon capture and sequestration system. Moving from the capability to the systems level, technology becomes increasingly integrated as it moves from the research laboratory to commercial application. In the past, these stages of development were often sequential. Today, they are more often overlapping in time and involve extensive interaction through the development and commercialization process. This increases the premium on maping the developing path from science to system application. Developing a efficient, goal oriented development program requires identifying the expected technology needs and performance requirements at each level of integration and mapping the relationships between them. BUILDING THE R&D CAPACITY The road mapping presented in this section leads to a

Fig. 7. The structure of an an emerging technology road map for carbon capture and sequestration. The boxes (nodes) contain the science and technology needs developed by expert working groups. The lines represent the relationships and performance requirements among technologies.

22

three-pronged approach to R&D:

• Specific fundamental scientific breakthroughs in chemistry, geology, and biology that are necessary to achieve the capability to capture and sequester carbon. • Large-scale field experiments to help scientists understand the efficacy, stability, and impact of stored carbon, as well as its consequences on humans and the environment. These might be accomplished by piggy-backing on projects being conducted for other purposes in collaboration with industry, other federal agencies, and/or international programs. • A coordinated program to take advantage of advances in basic research and findings from field studies. These data and conclusions should be coordinated, communicated, and integrated to better target additional scientific research and the design of future field experiments.

Advanced Sensors and Monitoring Systems This three-pronged approach is supported by three system technology platforms and one system component technology that cuts across all focus areas. The crosscutting systems component technology is advanced sensors and monitoring systems. There is a continuing need to build more robust and sensitive sensors for measuring various biological and chemical species. These sensors need to be developed for making precise and accurate measurements in remote and/or hostile environments. Continuous improvements must also be made in monitoring systems to ensure that data are available in real time and the overall measurement systems will operate under a variety of conditions. The need for advanced sensors and monitoring systems is important for four reasons:

(1) The nature of separation, capture, storage, and removal of CO2 from the atmosphere needs to be quantified in order to measure the efficacy of the technology. Without such characterization, it will be difficult to understand the underlying processes.

(2) The stability of the sequestration methods must be validated. We need to know how long the carbon will stay. This will be particularly necessary for oceanic, terrestrial, and geological sequestration. New sensors will need to be developed to measure carbon speciation in soils and CO2 chemical and physical behavior in geological formations.

(3) We must have measurement systems to evaluate impacts due to carbon sequestration. These impacts will need to be shared with the public. This will require development of sensors and monitoring systems for measurement of possible impacts in ocean, geologic, and terrestrial reservoirs.

(4) Carbon sequestration will need to be monitored and verifiable if it is to play a role in international agreements.

Carbon Processing Platforms: The first technology platform is carbon processing. The focus of this platform is the development of advanced chemical technologies, which are in turn platforms for capture and separation and the development of technologies with collateral benefits. The effectiveness of capture and separation technologies in isolating relatively pure CO2 for transport and sequestration will also determine the potential efficacy of geological and ocean sequestration options. The technology platforms that will be required include:

(1) Chemical/physical absorption, such as the synthesis of novel absorbents (2) Chemical/physical adsorption (3) Advances in membrane technologies, such as the development of polymeric membranes

for increasing dissolution/diffusion rates

23

(4) Mineralization/bio-mineralization, such as developing better reaction paths for formation of carbonates and bicarbonates for geologic and ocean dissolution and sequestration

(5) Low-temperature distillation systems (6) Novel concepts, such as better methods for producing CO2 clathrates and use of algal

bio-scrubbers on emissions streams Capture and separation technologies can also be developed based on engineering and/or chemistry advances of existing technologies already being used in industries such as oil and gas refineries. An important side benefit can be the capture and separation of hydrogen to be used as a clean fuel. Advances in chemistry research can specifically support oceans and geological sequestration. Geological sequestration will require a better understanding of corrosion, as well as of silicate/carbonate complex interactions. Research will be needed in chemistry and materials sciences to support these geological options. Chemical research in bio-mimetic processing and the production of clathrates can enhance the effectiveness of engineered solutions for the sequestration of CO2 in the oceans. In particular, the ability to sequester carbon as bicarbonates or carbonates cost-, resource-, and energy-efficiently will markedly increase the time for which carbon is effectively sequestered. Chemistry research also has the best potential for developing collateral benefits. Carbon species can be manufactured into commercial commodities, thus giving sequestration an additional economic driver for commercialization. Two problems exist with this approach. First, removing carbon prior to combustion may increase its economic potential but will reduce its energy content. Second, the current market cannot properly use the potentially large amounts of carbon-containing materials produced as part of these processes. New markets and uses will need to be created. Some of these may be in the development of durable materials that could be used for construction materials or soil amendments. Other enabling technologies that would be developed as part of this research would include new catalysts, chemical sensors, and manufacturing process chemicals. It is important to note that, while there is a huge amount of information on the inorganic and organic chemistry of carbon dioxide, sequestration needs will require new breakthroughs. Biological Absorption Platforms: Biological absorption is the second system technology platform. Scientific research in this area will be necessary to enhance the ability of terrestrial and soil sinks to sequester CO2, which will be based on advanced biological research. Plant sciences must develop new rapid-growing species and new, commercially viable woody species. Genetic engineering and molecular biology advances must be used to create new plant species and enhance microbial rhizospheres to increase plant productivity. Research must be done to increase understanding of soil biogeochemistry to enhance carbon uptake and sequestration in soils. As is the case with ocean sequestration, ecosystem dynamics must be better understood to evaluate potential impacts of new farming methods, introduction of new species, control of pests, and increased carbon content in soils. Finally, a potential way of enhancing ocean sequestration may be coupled with advanced biological research. Bio-engineered solutions for increasing the primary productivity of oceans will allow for improved biological mechanisms of increased CO2 uptake. Additionally, the development of algal scrubbers for CO2 separation and capture may enhance technologies in this area.

24

Engineered Injection Platforms: The third key system technology platform is engineered systems. The emphasis for sequestration in oceans and geological sinks is similar: although progress has been made in the geological arena, improved injection systems must be developed to enhance the delivery of CO2 to these sinks. In addition, many research advances in chemistry will require innovative engineered-systems to effectively implement new technologies. All of these findings are interrelated. For example, ocean and geological sequestration will not be effective unless efficient capture, separation, storage, and transportation technologies are developed to deliver CO2 to sink locations. Capture and separation technologies in turn must rely on advances in chemistry and concomitant engineered solutions to make these technologies efficient and cost-effective. Not all the technology platforms that were identified were equally developed. For example, one of ththee platforms, short-term storage, had not been examined at all because the carbon capture and sequestration system had not yet been sufficiently specified. It was included simply because the current natural gas transmission system, although small by comparison to an eventual CO2 transmission system in terms of gas volume, requires large short-term storage capacity to operate. Other platforms, such as integrated carbon generation and recovery, are bridges to other road-mapping efforts. For instance, the road map supporting Vision 21 (a proposed description of the future evolution of fossil fuel technology) is considering modifications to fossil power systems that could significantly simplify the capture of CO2. The descriptions of some platforms, such as CO2 transportation or engineered injection, are brief because of an assumption that a great deal of experience has already been accumulated in these areas. This assumption will require further examination after a more detailed system-engineering picture of a carbon capture and sequestration system is developed. The most elaborated platforms are carbon processing and biological absorption. This is natural for the carbon-processing platform because of the wealth of known chemical engineering techniques that might be adapted to this problem. This platform will become more focused as the conditions under which carbon must be captured and processed become clearer from system analysis and other energy and fossil fuel transformation road maps. On the other hand, one might expect the elements within the biological absorption platform to expand even further as the wealth of possibilities presented by progress in the biological sciences is further explored. This richness is also reflected in the technology components supporting this platform. The inclusion of the biological absorption platform is a genuine departure from traditional lines of energy technology development. It brings with it ties to agricultural and ecological research that have been tenuous at best in the history of energy development. Once carbon capture and sequestration become a feature of energy planning, scientific and technological progress in these fields assumes a key role in future energy development. Recognizing linkages between disparate fields of knowledge such as these is a key feature of the road mapping process. Developing and exploiting these linkages requires further effort. NEXT STEPS This section has described the first stage in developing an emerging technology road map for carbon capture and sequestration. Starting from a potential DOE policy goal, the

25

technology system to achieve that goal has been sketched out. The areas of scientific and technological development needed to support this general technology system have been identified, including new areas foreign to traditional energy technology development. Although mutual relationships and dependencies of scientific and technological development in all of these fields have been identified and are indicated by the links in Fig. 7, the corresponding performance requirements have not yet been developed. Nor has the phasing of potential R&D schedules been considered. Overlaps have been eliminated to some extent, but priorities and gaps in the technology needs have not been examined. More work needs to be done on specifying the economic constraints and technology needs of the integrated carbon capture and sequestration system illustrated in Fig. 6. This work can be done in parallel with the steps outlined in the following paragraphs, but it must be done to provide substance to the final road map. The road map outline described is a valuable product. It should be used as a framework for developing Phase II of the Carbon Sequestration Road Map in developing a quantitative evaluation of the science and technology requirements for a carbon sequestration system. This is an essential aspect of building a usable road map with all of the requisite characteristics. Road maps should integrate planning and implementation. The road map should consider all the plans of the organization, such as mission and visioning, market analysis, and portfolio analysis. But it goes beyond mere vision to develop a general plan for developing capabilities. Actionable items should naturally flow from the road map. The primary purpose of the emerging technology road map is to influence future events, not to predict them. Program objectives set for the future should, of course, be based on realistic expectations about market, policy, and technical trends. However, no one can predict the future. The value of emerging technology road maps derives from the fact that the future can be shaped by new technological developments. Road maps are intended for revision. A road map is not a plan for the future that is unchangeable when it is completed. As events unfold and new research results emerge, the plan must be changed to address the most current state of knowledge—and to build beyond the new frontier. The road map should provide a mechanism for accommodating serendipity—external events and new research results that should be incorporated into the technology development plans. The process of reaching a consensus is as important as the product. To be truly effective, the road map should be a vision of the future reached by consensus among all parties who have responsibility for the R&D—the funders, developers/deliverers, and implementers/users of technology. Thus, the process of road mapping is as important as the final product of the process—the road map itself. Frequent communication with upper management along the way, involvement of all layers and functions of the DOE organization, and stakeholder participation are keys to success. Based on the results obtained so far, the stakeholders include other government agencies and the agricultural industry in addition to the energy industry. Many different views and priorities must be considered and synthesized into a coherent plan to carry out R&D on carbon capture and sequestration. This will develop the support needed as DOE attempts to implement the emerging technology road map.

26

27

Appendix: Sample Roadmap Outline Xavier Oil Corporation Emerging Technology Road-Map for Advanced Processing Table of Contents 1: Overview 1 Challenges On the Horizon 1 Industries Response 1 Role of R&D 2 2: Technology Pathways 5 Hydrogen Production 5 Separating Crude 6 Advanced Sulfur Separation 6 Synthetic Crude 7 3: Current Situation 8 4: S&T Trends and Drivers 11 5: Performance Targets 11 6: S&T Barriers 14 7: Summary Roadmaps 17 8: Xavier Oil’s Role and Technical Agenda 22 9: Setting Out 26 Institutional Enhancement 27 Alliances 29 10: References 30