managing explosive technologies: the case for nanotechnology · ¥drug discovery and delivery ¥mi...

Managing Explosive Technologies:The Case for Nanotechnology

December 5, 2006Washington, DC

ROR Leadership Team

Rich Chapas - Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Battelle)

Martha Collins - Air Products & Chemicals

Paul Mugge – CIMS

Lynda Aiman-Smith – CIMS

Ryan Kudva – ExxonMobil

Fred Renk – MeadWestvaco

Participating Representatives

Air Products & Chemicals

Rohm and Haas

PNNL/Battelle

Praxair

Eastman Chemical

Alcoa

CSIRO

Sasol

Motorola

ICI

Intel

Kraft

NASA

Honeywell

Cabot Microelectronics

Tiax

Samsung

Beakart

PPG

NSF

Microsoft

DuPont

Energizer

Sealed Air

Plug Power

Arkema

Lucent Technologies

Elementis Specialties

John Deere

NIST

Toray Industries

Shell

University of Florida

IMERSYS

ACS

Mead Westvaco

NC State

Rutgers

QinetiQ

Microsoft

Eveready Battery Co

ExxonMobil

Proctor and Gamble

Philip Morris

UOP

Xerox

BOC

Corning

Timken

Specialty Minerals

DSM

Babson

Boeing

Goodyear

Overview

Objective/Scope! Nanotechnology is a case study for a NEW PARADIGM in knowledge creation.

! Immense global funding has created a worldwide explosion of basic knowledgeand new information.

! Understand management issues created by knowledge explosion due toimmense global funding.

Value Proposition! Provide IRI companies with processes for successful innovation and value

creation in the new paradigm.

Key Deliverable's! Publications (RTM), discussions, networks, collaborations

! Management processes, understanding and tools for successful innovationduring technology explosion

Dates:! Team kicked off: 10/03.

! PFI funding: 10/04 - 10/07.

• Explosive amounts of information

• “Acorns”

• Many weak signals

DATA

• Turning data into useful

compilations of information

• Innovation indicators

• Technology forecasts

• Resource allocation

INFORMATION

• Turn information into decisions – we

can hypothesize about:

• Organizational responses

• Network needs

• Process requirements

• Filters

• How to cope? Decision speed!DECISIONS

The problem for most companies is deciding if/howto leverage nanotechnology

Basic Problem Solving Framework

developed by M.E.T. Subcommittee

I. Information Overload

II. Value Creation

III. Rapid Commercialization

The program is driven by key milestones.

Q1 Q2 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q4Q3 Q32006 2007

Research on Research Subcommittee Meetings

1. UnderstandBoundary Spanners

3. Equip NanoScientiists1

2. CharacterizeKnowledge Diffusion

5. Pilot New Method3

6. Survey PilotOrganizations

4. Design NewMethodology2

7. DisseminateResults

Major Milestones

(if required)

8. InternationalizeProject

Longitudinal Case Studies

Portugal TBD

2/26 5/21 5//0610/08 TBD

(if required)

MET Project Schedule

Phase 1 - Information Overload

Phase II – Value Creation

Phase III – Rapid Commercialization

• Nanoscale chemical structures

• Nanocomposites

• Sol-gels; quasi-crystals

• Growth methods (epitaxy – MBE,

CBE,MOCVD)

• 0D – Quantum dots

• 1D – Nano/quantum tubes, rods or fibers;

nanopolymers

• 2D – graphite layers

• 3D - fullerenes; nanocrystals

Metrology &

Nanoprocesses

Nanostructure

Chemistry &

Materials

Nanomedicine & Nano-

biotechnology

Nanodevices &

Nanoelectronics

•Nanocomputing devices

•Nanotransistors

•NEMS; PEBBLES

•Molecular electronics

•Nanoscale magnetics

•Biomolecular & biomimetic devices

•Biosensors

•Molecular motors

•Biomolecular fabrics

•Engineered enzymes & proteins

•Drug discovery and delivery

•Microscopy

- Scanning probe microscopy

- Electron microscopy

•Self assembly; directed assembly

•Nanomechanics

•Molecular simulation

•Scanning probe writing & fabrication

•Top-down processes (nano-lithography,

laser nanomachining, etc.)

Nanotechnology Research Foci & Key Concepts

Phase 1 > Information Overload

Studying publications in just carbon nanotubesand nanorods reveals some interesting trends

1,592Industry

3226,563Gov/Ind/NGO Labs

1,0944,00218,660Academic

Industry

Gov/Ind/NGO

LabsAcademic4. Most all of industry’s publications are collaborative

efforts with other types of affiliations

5. Strong collaborative bonds appear between academics

and researchers at other types of laboratories

researching CNR/T’s.

6. Collaborations between researchers at different types of

affiliations could be an indicator of knowledge

diffusion.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Publicatiion Trend of 3 Affiliation Types

Corporate Gov/Ind/NGO Labs Academic

1. Publication interest in this area of technology has doubledevery 2-3 years for 10 years.

2. In terms of relative publication counts researchers at labsare keeping pace with academic researchers.

3. Publication of research by corporations is becoming lessprevalent when compared to that of Labs and Academics,possibly to protect product ideas.

…and collaboration is strong!

Publications are soaring…


Source: Dr. Alan Porter TPAC, Georgia Tech University

Corporate

Decision

Makers

For discontinuous innovation, information flowsinward and decision making is individual and fragile

Macro-

environment

Boundary

SpannersGatekeepers

Project-level

Decision

Makers

Greatest source of discontinuous

technologies/ideas

Small Groups

of Individuals

Boundary Interface Gate-keeping Interface Project Interface

Front End of Innovation

Search for newtechnologies; intuitunaddressed markets

Determine value toorganization; reduceuncertainty


Reid and de Bretani, The Fuzzy Front End of New Product Development

for Discontinuous Innovations: A Theoretical Model. JPIM May 2004,

Corporate

Decision

Makers

The challenge: formalize and structure the front endof innovation -- while preserving the unique skillsand traits so essential to success

Macro-

environment

Boundary

Spanners

Gatekeepers/

Champions

Project-level

Decision

Makers

Unstructured Problems and

Opportunities are identified

Small Groups

of Individuals

Boundary Interface Gate-keeping InterfaceProject Interface

Front End of Innovation

Phase 2 > Value Creation

A divergence of values, capabilities, and interestscharacterize a “Valley of Death” for newtechnology ideas

Reso

urc

es

Discovery Commercialization

Innovation

Existing

Research

Resources

Existing

Commercialization

Resources

Differences:

• Value systems

• Objectives

• Rewards & recognition

• Education & skills

• Team association

• IP ownership


NC State’s Hi TEC Algorithm1 is a validated processfor navigating the Valley of Death

Reso

urc

es

Existing

Research

Resources

Existing

Commercialization

Resources

1Markham, Stephen K., D. L. Baumer, L. Aiman-Smith, A.I. Kingon & M. Zapata III,

“An Algorithm for High Technology Engineering and Management Education,”

Journal of Engineering Education, April 2000, pp. 209-218.

• Team-based process for

developing ideas

• Framework for making

decisions

• Common language and

shared goals

Algorithm

Discovery CommercializationInnovation


The Nano Workshop Process is planned togenerate informed and focused dialogue

Nano Workshop Process

Step 1:

Define Area

Of Nanoscience

To be

Analyzed

Step 2:

Learn T-P-M

Construct

Step 3:

Identify & Evaluate

Technology

Capabilities

Scientists

Step 4:

Identify Potential

Technology

Capabilities 5 Years

Into Future

Scientists & Industry Practitioners

Step 5:

Develop T -P-M

Worksheet to

Generate Set of

Product Ideas

Step 6:

Prioritize Product

Ideas List

Step 7:

Backfill List With

Resources Needed

To Develop Products

Virtual Technology Platform


A VTP provides a market-referenced target and planfor scientists to follow in developing their science

1. Include a list of key scientific or technological

concepts that need to be demonstrated to show that

the ideas are feasible i.e. the critical science path.

2. “Fill out” the science by identifying complementary

technologies needed to generate the technology

capabilities and any key partners or other

independent players – scientists, companies, National

Science Centers or NGO’s - who can assist in

achieving the technology capabilities.


VTPs force teams to be rigorous in the evaluation of a science; developing

a set of technology capabilities that connect to specific customer needs.

A VTP should:

Key Deliverables to Date

Publications, discussions,networks, collaborations

! Background data collectionfrom companies in small groups– built the case for the researchprogram and grant.

! Perspectives Article I, May2004

! Briefing to NSEC, Sept 2004

! Collaboration agreementbetween IRI and NNI, Dec 2004

! Perspectives Article II, May2005

! Workshop SIS(Nanotechnology interfaces) atIRI meeting in May 2005

! Perspectives Article III – May2006

– “Social networks key toharnessing nanoscienceknowledge explosion”

Processes, understandingand tools for successfulinnovation

! Jack Solomon, Chem Vision2020 spoke at ROR workshop

! NSF PFI Grant applied andawarded, project kick-off - Nov2004 (3 year grant)

! Mike Roco, Director NNI:speaker IRI May 2005

! Nano Workshop Pilot – PennState, July 2005

! “Early stage involvement inNSF programs” – Brig Mougdil(University of FL) – March 2006

Next Steps

Focus on MET Phase II – Value Creation

• Boundary Spanning

• Nano Workshops: Purdue (Jan 2007); Northeastern

(Feb 2007); Illinois (tbd)

• “Virtual platforming”

• Developing the TEC Algorithm© for MET

• Culture of Innovation

Thank You

[email protected]

509-375-2158

managing explosive technologies: the case for nanotechnology · ¥drug discovery and delivery ¥mi...

Documents