quantifying econo 00 clar

Upload: kui-mangus

Post on 10-Feb-2018

230 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    1/72

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    2/72

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    3/72

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    4/72

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    5/72

    Dl. '\t 'h'^ i

    HD28.M414

    no. 3^07-

    Quantifying the Economic Benefits ofAdvanced Materials Products and Processes

    Joel QarkJ. Neely

    August 1995 WP # 150-96

    INTERNATIONAL CENTERFOR RESEARCH ON

    THE MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    6/72

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    7/72

    The International Center for Research on theManagement of Technology

    Quantifying the Economic Benefits ofAdvanced Materials Products and ProcessesJoel QarkJ. Neely

    August 1995 WP # 150-96

    Sloan WP # 3907

    1996 Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Sloan School of ManagementMassachusetts Institute of Technology

    38 Memorial Drive, E56-390Cambridge, MA 02139

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    8/72

    ^c. 14 ' pyh

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    9/72

    Table of Contents1 Introduction Page 1

    2 Methodology Page 22. Subsututional Technology Assessments Page 2

    2.2 Technology Assessment Using the MSL Framework Page 32.2.7 Utility Analysis Inputs Page 3

    2.22 Market Data Inputs Page 52.2.3 Substitution Analysis Inputs Page 6

    2.3 Screening Versus Formal Market Analysis Page 6

    3 CFCC Radiant Burner Assessment Page 83.1 Potential End-User Survey: California and Ohio Markets Page 83.2 CFCC Base Case Assumptions Page 93.3 CFCC Analysis Results Page 103.4 CFCC Case Conclusions Page 15

    4 Nickel Aluminide Transfer Roll Assessment Page 164.1 Potential End-User Survey: Heat-treat & Tunnel Furnace Rolls Page 174.2 Ni,Al Base Case Assumptions Page 174.3 NijAl Analysis Results Page 184.4 NijAl Case Conclusions Page 21

    5 Conclusions Page 226 References '. Page 23

    AppendLx A: Telephone Survey Materials Page A-1Appendi.\ B: CFCC Boiler Burner End-User Survey Results Page B-1Appendix C: NijAI Transfer Roll End-User Survey Results PageC-1Appendix D: Heat-Treat & Tunnel Furnace Roll Market Data Page D-1

    Final Report Contract: DE-FG41-92R110447

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    10/72

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    11/72

    1 IntroductionThis report details efforts of the Materials Systems Laboratory (MSL) to demonstrate amethodology for assessing the economic benefits of developmental materials technologies. Thegoal of this work was to provide the U.S. Depanment of Energy, Office of Industrial Technology(OIT) with an approach for evaluating future technology funding opportunities. The frameworkdescribed herein is designed to be applicable to both initial assessments and detailed case studies.As a screening tool, it serves as a standard basis for evaluating multiple investment opportunitiesand yields a relevant comparison without requiring significant data collection efforts. Fordecisions which require additional reflection (e.g., later phase projects), the analysis can beenhanced through the addition of end-user preference data and more detailed market information.The models delivered in conjunction with this report were built using decision analysis theory asthe underlying assessment basis. Utility theory is applied to gauge the position of a developmentaltechnology relative to an incumbent, based on cost and performance characteristics of interest tothe end-user. This relative position in turn drives an estimate of market penetration, whichultimately yields forecasts of future sales potential and additional benefits such as energy saved orairborne emissions prevented. By conducting sensitivity analyses, evaluators can thus gauge whatmust occur, technically, for the new technology to have an appreciable chance of achievingcommercial success. Applying these findings, directed technology funding decisions can be madebased on the expected likelihood that the required technical and cost objectives can be attained.To develop an assessment, the evaluator must provide several key items to describe thetechnology and market under consideration: 1) a list of the critical attributes along whichend- users of the technology differentiate products, 2) a relative ranking of the importance of theseattributes, 3) a benchmarking of the new and incumbent technology along these dimensions, 4) adescription of the market in terms of annual sales dollars. For a screening process, estimates canbe employed. For more critical decisions, additional detailing is recommended. The Methodologysection of this report fully describes this modeling process, and the demonstration case studiesprovide examples of the information requirements described above.To demonstrate the methodology, two technologies were evaluated using the model: a continuousfiber ceramic composite (CFCC) radiant burner for industrial steam generation applications and anickel aluminide (NijAl) intermetallic transfer roll for use in the steel processing industry. Whileboth materials are potentially applicable to a wider array of markets, the results of these casestudies provide a solid ground for appreciating the relative level of technical and economicimprovement required for commercial success to be likely. The bulk of this report focuses ondemonstrating the application of the MSL approach through these cases.

    Final Report Page] Contract: DE-FG41-92R110447

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    12/72

    2 MethodologyThe major goal of this work was to provide a systematic approach to technology assessment thatcould be easily implemented by OFT for use in reaching funding decisions. During the early stagesof the program, a software package entitled, DPL (Decision Programming Language), wasconsidered as a platform for modeling; however, feedback from OIT during the six month reviewmeeting resulted in a switch to a spreadsheet environment, software with which most analystswould already be familiar.The MSL framework was developed in Lotus 123, Release 4.01 for Windows, but can beconvened to other common PC spreadsheets such as Microsoft Excel. The model is divided intothree distinct regions: user inputs, calculations and outputs. The user inputs section is generallythe only section of the model where changes should be made by a technology analyst. The othersections house decision theory and market substitution algorithms or standardized output tables.Use of the model and development of sensitivity analyses similar to those presented in this reportrequire the user have a working knowledge of spreadsheets. Customization of the outputs tablesor modification of the calculations section would require a stronger proficiency in spreadsheetprogramming and the underlying theory embedded in the models. The following section reviewsthe model structure and theory employed.2.1 SUBSTITUTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTSThe MSL modeling methodology is based on the assumption that the new materials technologyunder consideration will be commercialized as a substitute for an existing market application. Anassessment is developed by comparing an existing technology to a developmental effort whichpotentially offers some form of cost or performance benefit, and estimating what must occur forthis new technology to be commerciaUy successful. In cases where an entirely new market iscreated out of a development, this modeling approach is not an appropriate analysis tool.However, since substitutional implementations are often the focus of technology development, themodel is likely to be applicable to many OIT technology funding decisions.Utility theory provides the mechanism for drawing the comparison, by allowing the combinationof cost and performance characteristics offered by each alternative to be translated into an overallmetric of end-user preference (i.e., utility). Based on the disparity between incumbent and newtechnology, in terms of utility, the model then estimates the rate at which the new might beadopted. The substitution rate is obtained from S-curves typified by the work of Fisher and Pry.The greater the advantage, utility-wise, the new technology demonstrates, the more rapid theassumed substitution. In cases where the developmental technology demonstrates a utilitydisadvantage to the incumbent, some market penetration is still assumed, but the rate ofsubstitution is relatively slow.The end result is a prediction of market share gained by year, which is then converted to estimatedsales dollars, and other impacts of interest, such as energy savings or emissions reductions, whereapplicable. Sensitivity analysis allows the analyst to examine effects of specific technical oreconomic changes on the predicted results. Working in this fashion, a list of key technical andeconomic hurdles can be defined. To apply the modeling results to a funding decision process, an

    Final Report Page 2 Contract: DE-FG41-92R110447

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    13/72

    evaluation team must then consider the likelihood that these goals are achievable, and if theimplied market potential is sufficient to merit the investment.2.2 TECHNOLOGYASSESSMENT USING THE MSL FRAMEWORKTo develop an assessment, the evaluator must provide several key items to describe thetechnology and market under consideration: 1) a list of the critical attributes along whichend-users of the technology differentiate products, 2) a relative ranking of the importance of theseattributes, 3) a bench-marking of the new and incumbent technology along these dimensions, 4) adescription of the market in terms of annual sales dollars. This section presents an overview ofthese requirements and discusses the level of detail required for various stages of technologyevaluation.

    2.2.1 Utility Analysis InputsA review of multi-attribute utility analysis (MAUA) was provided with the first Quarterly Reportfor this project, and is not repeated in this document. Essentially, MAUA is a decision analysismethodology for comparing alternatives along multiple dimensions, which can include, but are notlimited to, price. Value functions are estimated for each attribute, and scaled according therelative importance in the decision. In this fashion, MAUA aims to assess how an individual ororganization values complex altematives and weighs multiple factors to airive at a final selection.To develop an assessment using the MSL model, a list of the key criteria end-users consider whenevaluating the technology is required. It is commonplace for an end-user to indicate that almostevery descriptive parameter that can be listed about a technology is important, but typically asmaller sub-set represent those which truly drive the decision, especially if all of the altemativesconsidered meet a specific minimum performance level along several dimensions.Care must be taken to develop the attribute list using terms that the technology consumersactually consider. While parameters such as tensile strength or Young's modulus might be used tocharacterize a material, what the user actually cares about is the performance of the product in theapplication (e.g., life). It is the potential impact of a new material or process on those parametersof interest to the customer that drives the MSL model assessment. Table 1 provides a shonexample list of attributes which might be important in many technology evaluations.

    Table L Example Utility Analysis InputsAttributes:

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    14/72

    Next, the new technology must be benchmarked against the incumbent in terms of the specificlevel of performance each offers for each attribute defined as relevant to the decision. Further,the range over which each attribute is likely to vary (best possible to worst possible occurrence)must be defined. This information is used to derive the individual utility functions in the model,and to develop a comparison of the new to incumbent technology in terms of their overall utilityto the end-user.Figure 1 presents an example utility function that is calculated from the acquisition cost data inTable 1, using the following equation for utility of an attribute, x:

    U{x) = [(x-x.)/ix'-x,)Yx' = the best possible level of x, U(x') = 1X. = the worst possible level of x, U(x,) =c = an exponent which defines the function's risk characteristic, where:

    c < 1, implies risk adversec = 1, implies risk neutralc> 1, implies risk positive

    For the MSL framework, risk aversity is assumed, and c is calculated from the relative importanceranking. Risk aversity implies diminishing marginal utility, and is typical in most cases ofadvanced technology implementation.Total utility (MAU) is calculated from the individual utility functions and relative importancerankings by the following:

    KU(X) + \=n(Kk,Uixi)+l)K = scaling factor for overall utility function, U{X)ki = scaling factor for individual utility functions, Uixi)

    The example presented in Table 1 highlights the rationale behind developing the MSL model: thenew technology is better in terms of performance (i.e., capacity and life), but costs more toacquire. It is not intuitive which alternative is better in the eyes of the end-user. While thissimplified example could be assessed using some form of cost-benefit analysis to translateincreased capacity and life to monetary effects, additional operational and capital informationwould be required. Further, many attributes, such as pollution emissions, do not translate easilyto monetary units. The MAUA methodology utilized by the MSL model avoids these difficultiesby instead using relative units to determine the value, or utility of the alternatives. The notionof risk, or decisionmaking under uncertainty, is employed to measure (or estimate) the relativeintensity of preferences and to reveal the form of the relevant value function. Once the function isdetermined, measurable properties of the alternatives are taken as inputs to calculate the overallutihty, or value.

    Final Report Page 4 Contract: DE-FG41-92R]10447

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    15/72

    1 1

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    16/72

    The discount rate and time before sales are initiated are required because the model calculatessales in terms of current dollars (i.e., NPV). Setting both of these inputs to zero yields anundiscounted sales projection.

    2.2.3 Substitution Analysis InputsThe MSL technology assessment model applies two major algorithms to estimate the marketpotential of a new technology. MAUA provides a basis for comparison of new to incumbent anda substitution model yields an estimate of the rate at which the new technology is adopted. Thesubstitution model utilized is based on the Fisher-Pry S-curve which is described by the followingequation:

    ln[/7(l-y)] = 2a(r.-ro.5)/=mark;et substitution fractiona =constant that describes the overall rate of substitutiontx =time for substitution of fraction x to occur

    S-curve models have been widely applied across industry. Cases of materials substitution oftenrequire upward of 20 years or more, but can occur much faster if the performance increment isappreciable and the economics are not prohibitive (see Foster, Fisher or Eager). Thus, the MSLmodel scales an S-curve according to the difference in utility between the incumbent and newtechnology. The scaling is based on the differential between the expected price of the newtechnology and the price of the new technology which would render it equal, in terms of utility,with the incumbent. The S-curves are described by the time required to reach a substitution levelof ten and fifty percent. Table 3 shows the base case substitution curve data as related to theprice differential. Figure 2 presents the resultant curves.

    Table 3. Base Case Substitution Curves9c Difference

    (PricCi^^-Utility Equivalent Price,^)

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    17/72

    Market Substitution Curves

    Rapid Regular Niche-^

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    18/72

    3 CFCC Radiant Burner AssessmentContinuous fiber ceramic composites represent a significant advanced materials developmenteffort sponsored by OIT. These materials are being developed for applications ranging fromindustrial heating to diesel engines. To demonstrate the MSL framework, the application of aCFCC material to industrial boiler burners was examined. The assessment is based on productsunder development at Alzeta Corporation'.Alzeta originally developed ceramic based burners for industrial steam generation as a low NO^technology. Much of Southern California's industry operates within Air Quality ManagementDistricts (AQMD's) because the area is classified as an ozone non-attainment zone. As a result,industry governed by AQMD's is faced with reducing emissions of combustion products such asNO,. Alzeta's Pyrocore^^ technology, based on discontinuous ceramic fiber, enabled radiantburner designs for retrofitting boiler operations. The Alzeta burners significantly reduced NO,emissions in these operations, but suffered from poor durability. CFCC's are currently beinginvestigated as a solution to this problem. The following assessment presents an estimate of whatmust occur for the CFCC boiler burner concept to be successful, nationwide.3.1 POTENTIAL END-USER SURVEY: CALIFORNIA AND OHIO MARKETSTo develop estimates of end-user utility for boiler burners, MSL conducted a survey of industrialsites in Southern California and Eastern Ohio. The California sites faced regulation fromAQMD's, while the Ohio participants did not reside in an ozone non-attainment zone. Given thatthe Ohio businesses were not under severe pressure to reduce NO,, it was expected that theserespondents would demonstrate less utility for advances in low NO, technologies. Since much ofthe United States does not comprise non-attainment zones, this segmentation between marketswas considered important to defining what must occur for CFCC's to enjoy wide appeal in theboiler burner application.Appendix B presents the results of the boiler burner technology survey. Eight interviews wereconducted over the telephone, three with Ohio participants and five with California participants.Contacts at these sites were provided courtesy of the Southern California Gas Company and EastOhio Gas Company.In all, twenty-two performance criteria were discussed. However, based on the abilities of therespondents to quantify the criteria and the frequency with which each was mentioned, only fivewere selected for use as utility attributes. Figure 3 depicts the response rate and relativeimportance ranking for these attributes: initial cost, energy efficiency, NO, emissions, expectedlife, and CO emissions. The data is broken down into regional segments and also presented inaggregate. The total number of responses are indicated by the bar height and the relativeimportance ranks are listed above each bar (scaled from 1 to 3, 1= most, 3= least imponant).The sample size for this survey was small, and student t-tests of the data do not suggest that theCalifornia and Ohio responses are statistically separable. Therefore, the initial sensitivity analyseswere performed using the aggregate results. However, some analyses were repeated using theregional data to investigate the potential impact on the market assessment.

    ' For a detailed discussion of CFCC radiant burner markets and Alzeta's CFCC program, see SchweizerFinal Report Page 8 Contract: DE-FG41-92R110447

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    19/72

    CFCC MAUA Criteria and Relative Ranks(Aggregate & By Market Segment)

    $ Initial NOx Emissions CO EmissionsEnergy Efficiency Life

    OH D CA n AggregateFigure 3. Key Boiler Burner Survey Criteria

    3.2 CFCC BASE CASE ASSUMPTIONSThe base case market and product assumptions are shown in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. Thereplacement burner market is the focus of the analysis, because it vastly out-numbers the marketfor new installations in the United States. Assuming a capacity utilization of 50 percent, a base of37,000 industrial boilers, annual energy consumption of 6.5 quadrillion Btu's, a 20 year life ofincumbent burners, and a potential two-thirds substitution potential for CFCC's, the annualpotential replacement market for which CFCC burners can compete is nearly $50 million^

    Table 4. CFCC Burner Market AssumptionsMarket Size (annual replacement)

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    20/72

    The incumbent technology that was benchmarked against the CFCC technology was a flue gasrecirculation system (FGR), a common approach to combustion emissions reduction. Anextension of this study could potentially compare the Alzeta CFCC product to other low NO,technologies. FGR was selected because it typically meets emission standards for all but the mostseverely regulated regions and is relatively inexpensive in comparison to other combustion controltechnologies.

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    21/72

    Annual Sales Sensitivity to CFCC Price(CFCC with 10 Year Life, Aggregate Data)

    2 3 4Sales Year

    Base Case: 1 yr, $4.00/MBtu

    Figure 4. CFCC Price Sensitivity IFigures 4 and 5 begin to assess the impact reductions in price and increases in the expected life ofthe CFCC burner could have on market penetration. Figure 4 shows sales by year for differentpricing levels of the CFCC burner, under the original assumption of a ten year product life.Figure 5 presents the same analysis using a 20 year life for the CFCC burner. Reductions in pricesand increases in life to $3.00/MBtu and 20 years, respectively, lead to sales projectionsapproaching $10 million annually.The impacts of CFCC price and life are also examined in Figures 6 and 7, as a function of the lifeof the incumbent technology. The sales results are in terms of current dollars (NPV) for the firstfive years. At the initial CFCC assumptions, incumbent technology life does not drastically affectthe market prediction (Figure 6), but at a price of $3.00/MBtu, the life requirement of the CFCCproduct is reasonably sensitive to incumbent burner life. Both figures suggest a five year saleslevel in the $50 million range is possible.A significant advantage of the Alzeta burner is its ultra-low NO, capability. Implementations ofPyrocore'^^ have achieved operational levels below nine parts per million (see Gotterba). Alzetahas successfully marketed this technology in the California market based on this capability, whichis not attainable through FGR systems. Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is another ultra-lowNO, alternative that competes for these applications, but is as much as ten times more expensivethan FGR. Thus, the Alzeta product has been acceptable in markets where the alternative is moreexpensive than the base case FGR used in this analysis. Figure 8 examines the sensitivity ofCFCC sales to incumbent price. The market value of the CFCC increases rapidly with the price ofthe incumbent

    Final Report Page 11 Contract: DE-FG41-92R110447

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    22/72

    (Aa

    o>Q.

    Annual Sales Sensitivity to CFCC Price(CFCC with 20 Year Life, Aggregate Data)

    1412108642

    2 3 4Sales Year

    Base Case: 10 yr. $4,00/MBtu

    ^

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    23/72

    CFCC Sales Based on Incumbent and CFCC Product Life(CFCC at $3.00/MBtu, Aggregate Data)

    10.0 15.0CFCC Burner Life (yrs)

    Base Case: 1 yr CFCC, 20 yr Incumbent, $4.00/MBtu

    Figure 7. Competing Product Life Sensitivity II

    Sales Sensitivity to Incumbent Price and CFCC NOx Emissionsouu

    g 250>0- pnn

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    24/72

    NOx & Energy Savings Versus Life & Market Segment(CFCC at $4.00/MBtu)

    50(ACo

    in 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0CFCC Burner Life (yrs)

    OhioD AggregateD California

    Base Case: 10 yr, $4.00/MBtu

    Figure 9, Energy and NO, Emissions Savings IIn addition to reducing NO^ emissions, CFCC radiant burners offer energy savings potential inmany applications. While most industrial steam generation systems are already reasonablyefficient (around 80%), it is estimated that a ceramic burner could lead to a two percent efficiencygain. Figures 9 and 10 use the previous sales projections (Figures 6 & 7) to estimate cumulativeNO^ and energy savings over the first five years of commercialization, with the assumption of a 20year incumbent life.Figures 9 and 10 also draw comparisons between the regional survey responses and the aggregateresults, in terms of their impact on CFCC product acceptance. As previously discussed, it washypothesized that the Southem Califomia market would place a higher value on NG^ reductionsthan areas of the country which are not considered non-attainment zones, but the survey data wasnot statistically separable by region. Regardless, the potential impacts of statistically differentregional data are interesting and therefore are considered at this stage of the analysis.The level of NO, and energy savings shown in Figures 9 and 10 is direcdy correlated to actualsales: the more CFCC units sold, the greater the reductions. Keeping this relationship in mind, itis clear that the Ohio respondents are less willing to spend additional money or to sacrificeproduct life to achieve reduced emissions, as compared to the Califomia participants. Inpanicular. Figure 10 suggests that at a selling price of $3.(X)/MBtu, a ten year burner life wouldyield appreciable energy and NO, savings (i.e. sales) in the Califomia market, but the Ohio marketwould require a life between 1 5 to 20 years.

    Final Report Page 14 Contract: DE-FG41-92R110447

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    25/72

    NOx & Energy Savings Versus Life & Market Segment(CFCC at $3.00/MBtu)

    U) 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0CFCC Burner Life (yrs)Base Case: 10 yr, $4.00/MBtu

    Figure 10. Energy and NO, Emissions Savings n3.4 CFCC CASE CONCLUSIONSThe CFCC boiler burner assessment indicated that the base case assumptions of $4.00/MBtu and10 year operating life (versus $2.00AlBtu and 20 year for incumbent) are likely to result in onlyniche acceptance of the product, despite the energy and emissions saving potential. The surveydata from the California market results in the most optimistic set of requirements for morewide-spread use. Sales projections reach the $10 million annual mark for combinations of life andprice of $4.00/Mbtu, 15 years and $3.00/Mbtu, 5 years. If the more pessimistic Ohio responsesbetter represent the market majority opinion, the projected requirements shift closer to$3.00/MBtu, 15 years and $2.00/Mbtu, 10 years.Alzeta estimates an introductory price near $4.50/MBtu for the CFCC product, with a long-termgoal of $3.00/Mbtu. Currendy, Pyrocore^^ lasts about 25,000 hours in the field (5 to 10 years).A major goal of the Alzeta CFCC effort is to significantly increase the life in service. Based onthis analysis, it seems likely that the CFCC radiant burner will remain a niche product, unless themost aggressive technical and economic goals are achieved and the overall market attitude iscloser to the California and aggregate survey results than the Ohio opinions.These findings are not inconsistent with opinions expressed by Alzeta. They expect the CFCCboiler burner to be a product which is adopted only in markets where regulations push industrialsites to adopt cleaner burning technology. However, Alzeta expects that their CFCC productswill find more extensive use in other applications, such as medical waste incineration. The MSLmodeling approach could similarly be applied to evaluate the market potential for these segmentsas well.

    Final Report Page 15 Contract: DE-FG41-92R110447

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    26/72

    4 Nickel Aluminide Transfer Roll AssessmentDOE has actively funded the development of tri-nickel aluminide (NijAl) intermetallics throughthe Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). NijAl is panicularly resistant to thermal fatigue,oxidation, and chemical attack, and maintains its strength up to temperatiu^es approaching 1900Fahrenheit. Potential industrial applications include forging dies, glass casting molds, and furnacetooling or components.This assessment examines the opportunity for NijAl in transfer roll applications for steelprocessing. Currently, one U.S. integrated steel manufacturer is testing prototype Ni3Al rolls in aheat-treat environment for processing plate. Existing steel alloy rolls suffer from poor durability(pitting and wear) and are susceptible to scale formation (pick-up of silicon, carbon and otherelements from the plate). Scaled rolls tend to impart damage to the surface of the steel productbeing transferred through the furnace and must be refurbished or replaced on a relatively frequentbasis (roll maintenance related furnace shutdowns occur every one to two months at the prototypesite). NijAl potentially could alleviate the scaling problem and extend the wear life of the furnacerolls, leading to less furnace downtime, product scrap and roll maintenance.Transfer rolls are used widely in steel processing operations; however, wear and scale formationappear to be appreciable problems only in high temperature areas such as heat treating. Even inthe roller hearth where the prototype rolls are installed, the line engineers believe that only thirtypercent of the rolls exhibit significant wear and scaling problems (i.e., those exposed to the peakheat-treat temperatures and friction loads). While some rolls require multiple annualrefurbishments and might only last a few years, others in the same furnace may survive for severaldecades, virtually unblemished.Since nickel aluminide is likely to remain a more expensive material than many steel alloys, it isunlikely it would be considered outside of problem areas. Thus, this assessment focuses only onthose transfer roll applications which currently suffer from short roll life. Deformation rolls arenot considered because the mechanical requirements are appreciably different from those faced bytransfer rolls, and it is unclear that NijAl would perform satisfactorily in this application.For the assessment, two promising application areas were identified: heat-treat and tunnelfurnaces. Heat-treat furnaces with rollers are mainly utilized by the integrated steel producers toanneal, harden or quench plate or specialty products. Tunnel furnaces are an integral part of thenew thin strip casting (TSC) technologies being implemented by mini-mills such as Nucor andsome integrated producers such as ACME. In both cases, roll wear and scaling are consideredsignificant problems.Another application area that was suggested by the integrated manufacturer involved inprototyping NijAl rolls was re-heat furnaces. However, rolls are not typically used in theseenvironments. Instead, the steel usually slides along coated skids or refractory blocks, or ismoved though the furnace using a walking beam. NijAl rolls might potentially be used to upgradea pusher furnace (skid or block type) without incurring the expense of investing in walking beamtechnology, but current users of pusher technology were highly skeptical of the concept. For thisreason, re-heat furnaces were not considered in this market assessment.

    Final Report Page 16 Coniract: DE-FG41-92R110447

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    27/72

    Nickel Aluminide MAUA Criteria and Relative RanksAggregate Data

    6

    [xpected Roll Life Maintenances Furnace DowntimeInitial $ Refurbishment Freque

    Figure 11. Key Transfer Roll Survey Criteria4.1 POTENTIAL END-USER SURVEY: HEAT-TREAT & TUNNEL FURNACE ROLLSA survey of potential end users of NijAl rolls for both heat-treat and tunnel furnaces wasconducted in the same fashion as the CFCC radiant burner case. Appendix A presents thequestionnaire, Appendix C provides the aggregate results of the furnace roll survey. Five usableresponses were obtained and eight potential criteria for evaluating the roll product utility wereidentified. Based on response frequency and end-user ability to reasonably quantify standards,five of these criteria were used for the assessment: initial and maintenance cost, life, refurbishmentfrequency and furnace downtime attributable to rolls. Figure 1 1 shows the respective responserates and relative rankings (scaled from 1 to 3, 1= most, 3= least important). No segmentation ofthe responses by furnace type was attempted for this case, given the small set of data and thesimilarities in application areas. Nor was geographic location considered an important part of theNijAl implementation decision, in contrast to the CFCC boiler burner case.4.2 NI^L BASE CASE ASSUMPTIONSAppendix D contains a detailed list of all of the heat-treat furnaces utilized in the United Statessteel industry, and separates batch from continuous units'. Rolls are only used in continuousfurnaces. Assuming that one-third of the rolls in the heat-treat units could be replaced by NijAl,and scaling the number of rolls (based on furnace capacity) to the actual number at the prototypesite, the annual roll replacement market for heat-treat furnaces in the steel industry exceeds $2.5million (see Appendix D for calculations).' Data extracted from the Directory oflron and Steel Plants. 1993Final Report Page 1 Contract: DE-FG41-92R110447

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    28/72

    Appendix D also provides a list of the major U.S. sites where thin-strip casting technology isbeing implemented. Currently this amounts to five plants, but each of the associated tunnelfurnaces requires nearly 200 rolls. The annual tunnel furnace roll market is similarly estimated tobe worth $2.5 million. Both the heat-treat and tunnel furnace market estimates assume a two yearlife for incumbent rolls.

    Table 7. NijAl Roll Market AssumptionsMarket Size (annual replacement)

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    29/72

    Table 9. Base Case Ni,AI Roll ResultsSales Year

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    30/72

    CO

    NiSAI Roll Sales Based on Alloy & Intermetallic Life(Ni3AI at 1 50% Cost of Steel Rolls)

    10

    8oDC < cCD< .2CO =z i>in

    4 -

    2 -Jiiii

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    31/72

    (A

    Oa

    Maintenance Cost & Frequency Impacts on Sales(Ni3AI at 150% Cost of Steel Rolls)

    10

    co

    86 -

    4 -

    JIIIIM0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

    Ni3AI Roll Refurbishment Frequency (/yr)Base Case: 20%, 2Jyr Alloy, 10%, 0.5/yr Ni3AI

    Figure 15. Maintenance Effects on Intermetallic Roll SalesFigure 15 examines the sensitivity of intermetallic roll sales to maintenance requirements, bothcost and frequency. At a price of 150 percent, nickel aluminide rolls remain attractive untilrefurbishment requirements approach those of alloy rolls (about twice per year). Maintenancecost is expressed as a function of roll cost, and has less of an overall impact for the rangeconsidered (10 to 30 percent), except for incidences of frequent refurbishments.4.4 NIjAL CASE CONCLUSIONSThe NijAl furnace roll assessment suggests that intermetallics could be readily adopted in bothheat-treat and tunnel furnace applications in the steel industry if the performance and costprojections of Metallamics and ORNL are achieved. In the worst environments, steel alloy rollscurrently last as little as two years. This market segment is estimated to be worth over $5 millionannually. Using the MSL framework, sales estimates in excess of $1 million (current dollars)annually within five years are projected for NijAl rolls. While the absolute dollar sales level is notexceptionally large, it represents a significant portion of the furnace markets considered, and onlyone potential application. Assessments of other potential NijAl markets could also be developedusing the MSL framework, and combined to estimate the total global market for the intermetallicmaterial.

    Final Report Page 21 Contract: DE-FG41-92R110447

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    32/72

    5 ConclusionDecisionmaking under uncertainty is always difficult, especially where advanced technologyfunding is concerned. Consequences often lie years, if not decades, in the future. Over the lastdecade, the Materials Systems Laboratory has applied quantitative cost and market analysis to awide variety of advanced materials technology assessments. For this project, a new frameworkwas developed which draws upon past MSL modeling concepts, decision analysis, and technologyforecasting theory to provide a generalized approach to advanced technology project assessment.The goal of the work was to create an analysis tool which OFT could use to screen futuretechnology investment options.The model developed can be applied to both technology screening and detailed marketassessments. As a screening tool, it serves as a standard basis for comparing potential projects.Data requirements for this level of analysis are minimal, and estimates can be employed.Sensitivity analyses provide an understanding of the impacts uncertainties, related to thetechnology or market, might have on the overall assessment For more detailed analyses,modeling data can be gathered in a formal fashion. For example, the case studies used todemonstrate the MSL framework employed an end-user survey technique to elicit informationabout consumer preferences.The case studies demonstrated both the type of data (collected or estimated) required to run ananalysis and typical model outputs that could be applied to assist with technology fundingdecisions. The major evaluation metric in the MSL framework is product sales in current (NPV)dollars. However, for cases such as the CFCC boiler burner, additional metrics such as energy orNOjj emissions savings were considered.The CFCC boiler burner assessment suggested that this application of advanced ceramics is likelyto remain niche for the foreseeable future, even if aggressive developmental and economic goalsare attained. This opinion concurs with that of the company which is developing the technology,but the boiler burner represents only one of the CFCC applications Alzeta hopes tocommercialize. Others are expected to demonstrate more appreciable market potential.In contrast, the assessment of NijAI transfer rolls for steel processing predicted that theintermetallic product stands a reasonable chance of commercialization, assuming several relativelyshon-term development goals are reached. While the annual total of this market segment isprobably less than $5 million in the United States, transfer rolls represent only one potentialapplication of NijALOverall, the MSL modeling framework should be applicable to a significant portion of theadvanced technology evaluations OIT must face in the course of a year. Like any model, it is nota panacea for predicting the future, but provides a medium for considering what might occur ifcenain technical advances are achieved. By understanding what probably must transpire to enablewide-spread commercialization, an evaluation team is better prepared to judge the implicit riskassociated with a funding opportunity.

    Final Report Page 22 Contract: DE-FG41 -92R1 10447

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    33/72

    6 ReferencesAir Quality Compliance, Boiler, Southern California Gas Company.Annual Statistical Report, American Iron and Sted Institute (Ed), Washington, D.C., 1993.Boiler Emissions Reference Guide, Cleaver Brodcs, 1994.

    Eager, T.W., Bringing New Materials to Maricet, Technology Review, February/March, 43-49, 1995.Introduction to NO,: Handbook Su^^lement , Ncth American Manufacturing Company, 1993.Natural Gas Technologies: Energy Security, Environmentand Economic Development, lEA Conference, Kyoto, Japan, 1993.The Steel Market in 1993 and the OutlocA for 1994 and 1995 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development,

    Paris, France, 1994.

    Bameti, DP., and R.W. Crandall, Up from the Ashes: The Rise of the Steel Minimill in the United States . The BrookingsInstitution, Washington, D.C., 1986.

    Continuous Fiber Ceramic Composite Program. CFCCs for Low Cost Ener^ and a Qeaner Environment. ResearchManagement Consultants, Inc., (Ed), U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Industrial Technologies, May, 1993.

    Directory' of Iron and Steel Plants. 1993 . pxiblished by the Association of Iron and Steel Engineers, Pittsburgh, PA, 1993.Fisher, J.C. and RJl Pry, A Simple Model of Technological Change, Technological Faecasting and Social Changes, 75-88,

    1971.

    Foster, R.N., Timing Technotogical Transitions, Technobgy in Society, VoL7, 127-141, 1985.Gotierba, J., Status Repot Alzeta's Sub-9 ppm NO. Radiant Cell Boiler Technology Opoaiional, Presented at PowCT-Gen

    93, Dallas, TX, November, 1993.Muello , R, What will Next act in Mini-mill Drama Bring?, Amoican Metal Market, December 6, 1994.Read, B3., Integrated Mills Dig in as Minis Sound AtlacL, American Metal Market, April 10, 1995.Schweizer, S., M. Carswell, and J. Sullivan, CFCC Buma Assessment, prepared for DOE Contract No.DE-FC02-92CE41003, May, 1993.U.S. Industrial Outlook 1993, U.S. Department of Commerce, Intanational Trade Administration, Washington, D.C.,January, 1993.

    Final Report Page 23 Contract: DE-FG41-92R110447

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    34/72

    Appendix A: Telephone Survey Materials

    Final Report Contract: DE-FG41-92R110447

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    35/72

    ]VKLMaterials Systems Laboratory

    INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY C A M B R I D G E . M A S SA C H U S ETTS 02n9(617)253-6^67 Fax: (617) 258-7471

    Oiiesfions for Intermetallic Transfer Roll & CFCC Boiler Burner StudyThis fax includes two questionnaires. One is an example of a new car purchase decision. Theother is a copy of the furnace roll survey. This investigation simply aims to collect end-userperceptions; there are no right or wrong answers to the questions. On both forms, the majorsections are shaded and numbered from 1 to 5. The accompanying questions are as follows.

    l.Are the listed characteristics pertinent to technology selection? For the characteristicsUsted, check-off those you consider relevant for evaluating product alternatives. Theseshould be characteristics for which you would be willing to pay for increasing levels ofperformance or to obtain a certain required level of capability.

    2. For the criteria selected in Question 1, how important are specific parameters? Whileseveral characteristics might be pertinent to a decision, some often carry more weight. In thecar example, price and expected life are the most significant criteria. Air conditioning,sunroof and cup-holder follow in decreasing levels of importance. Use the table in Question2 to indicate the relative imponance of each item selected in Question 1.

    3. What is the range over which you might expect each parameter to vary? This is agauge of what end-users expect is technically or economically feasible. For each parameter,estimate what the best and worst case might be in the foreseeable future. Considering the carexample, the respondent believes that prices for the class of car evaluated might rangebetween $1 1,000 to $17,000, and these cars might last between 70,000 and 150,000 miles.

    4.1s there a minimum or maximum acceptable value for any parameter? Some productrequirements are less flexible than others. For example, government regulations may dictatecenain performance requirements for emissions related equipment. Indicate the presence ofrequirement limits, if they exist. In the automobile example, the customer has indicated thatno car with an expected life of less than 100,000 miles is acceptable.

    5. For limits cited in Question 4, are additional improvements in performance valued? Iffaced with two otherwise equal and acceptable products, would you pay more for one if itwere bener than the limit while the other simply met is limit? In the car example, thecustomer will pay for incremental life improvements above 100,000 miles.

    Final Report A-1 Contract: DE-FG41-92R1 10447

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    36/72

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    37/72

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    38/72

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    39/72

    Appendix B: CFCC Boiler Burner End-User Survey Results

    Final Report Contract: DE-FG41-92R]10447

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    40/72

    oCM

    P

    O

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    41/72

    Boiler Burner Questionnaire

    California Data5 Surveys

    Product Characteristics

    Performance/OperationDurability Qife)

    On-Off Cycling SpeedNoise

    Tempcranire UniformityAlternative Fuel Capacity

    Heat Flux CapacityEnergy EfficiencyTurndown Ratio

    CostInitial

    Maintenance

    EmissionsEmissions (NOx)Emissions (CO)

    Emissions (VOC)Emissions (particulate)

    Othermanufacturer reputation

    downtimeaccessibility/ease of repair

    training of personnelcontractor opinion

    oil burning capabilityutility company rebates

    control complexity

    1PertinentDecisionCriteria?(x if yes)

    2

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    42/72

    Boiler Burner Questionnaire

    Ohio Data3 Surveys

    Product Characteristics

    Performance/OperationDurability Qife)

    On-Off Cycling SpeedNoise

    Temperature UniformityAlternative Fuel Capacity

    Heat Hux CapacityEnergy EfficiencyTurndown Ratio

    CostInitial

    Maintenance

    EmissionsEmissions (NOx)Emissions (CO)

    Emissions (VOQEmissions (particulate)

    Othermanufactiu'er reputationdowntime

    accessibility/ease of repairtraining of personnel

    contractor opinionoil burning capability

    utility company rebatescontrol complexity

    PertinentDecisionCriteria?(x if yes)

    2

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    43/72

    M

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    44/72

    M

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    45/72

    M

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    46/72

    og

    CM n ir> i/^ I/)ct- O

    2Ulo

    o- '- r> t^ mi

    2CM N m

    o

    U

    cooE

    s

    *- CO Ift I/) u>

    5COc\jCD

    ou

    g- - CM P>

    es

    s

    Ul>.

    lij

    aSia

    - - CM CO PI

    g

    s ^ CM CM

    s

    ^ - CM CM CMI 2

    38CMd

    s

    a

    a

    to

    18(/) u.

    O

    3 Ooc

    - CM BN1

    e

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    47/72

    Appendix C: Ni^Al Transfer Roll End-User Survey Results

    Final Report Contract: DE-FG4I-92R110447

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    48/72

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    49/72

    {-^

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    50/72

    Appendix D: Heat Treat & Tunnel Furnace Roll Market Data

    Final Report Contract: DE-FG41-92R110447

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    51/72

    1

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    52/72

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    53/72

    si

    w

    co

    s

    m

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    54/72

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    55/72

    The International Center for Research on the Management of TechnologySloan School of Management Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Working Paper and Reprint List

    NumberDate

    1-8911/89

    2-908/89

    3-901/90

    4-90R1989

    Title Author(s)

    Netgraphs: A Graphic Representation of Adjacency Matrices as a Tool Georgefor Network Analysis AllenStrategic Transformation and the Success of High Technology RobertsCompaniesManaging CAD Systems in Mechanical Design Engineering Robertson(Rev. 3/91) AllenThe Personality and Motivations of Technological Entrepreneurs Roberts

    5-90R1989

    6-90R8/92

    7-907/90

    8-908/90

    9-908/90

    10-908/90

    11-90R1992

    Current Status and Future of Structural Panels in the Wood ProductsIndustry

    Do Nominated Boundary Sparmers Become Effective TechnologicalGatekeepers?The Treble Ladder Revisited: Why Do Engineers Lose Interest in theDual Ladder as They Grow Older?Technological Discontinuities: The Emergence of Fiber Optics

    Work Environment, Orgariizational Relationships cmd Advancementof Technical Professioruils: A Ten Year Longitudinal Study in OneOrganizationPeople and Technology Transfer

    Exploring the Dynamics of Ihial Ladders: A Longitudinal Study

    MontreyUtterback

    AllenNochurAllenKatz

    McCormackUtterback

    BasaAllenKatzAllen

    KatzTushman

    Allen12-90R Mar\aging the Introduction of New Process Technology: International

    1991 Differences in a Multi-Plant NetworkTyre

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    56/72

    NumberDate

    13-908/90

    14-908/90

    15-905/9016-90R3/92

    17-90R8/92

    18-90RSept/91

    19-90R1992

    20-906/90

    21-90R1991

    22-90

    23-908/90

    24-909/90

    25-90RJan/91

    26-9010/90

    27-90R1990

    28-90R1991

    29-90R1993

    Title

    Task Characteristics and Organizational Problem Solving in TechnologicalProcess ChangeThe Impact of Sticky Data on Innovation and Problem-Solving

    Underinvestment and Incompetence as Responses to Radical Innovation:Evidence from the Photolithographic Alignment Equipment IndustryPatterns of Communication Among Marketing, Engineering andManufacturing A Comparison Between Two New Product TeamsAge, Education and the Technical Ladder

    A Model of Cooperative R&D Among Competitors

    Strategy, Structure, and Performance in Product Development:Observations from the Auto IndustryA Model-Based Method for Organizing Tasks in Product Development(Rev. 5/93)

    The Emergence of a New Supercomputer Architecture

    Superseded by 39-91

    Software Complexity and Software Maintenance Costs(Rev. 1/92)

    Leadership Style and Incentives

    Factory Concepts and Practices in Software Development

    Going Public: Sell the Sizzle or the Steak

    Evolving Toward Product and Market-Orientation: The Early Years ofTechnology-Based FirmsThe Technological Base of the New Enterprise

    Innovation, Competition, and Industry Structiire

    Author(s)Tyre

    von Hippel

    Henderson

    GriffinHauserAllenKatzSinha

    CusumanoCusumanoNobeokaEppingerWhitney

    SmithGebalaAfuah

    Utterback

    BankerDatarKemererZweig

    RotembergSaioner

    Cusumaiw

    Roberts

    Roberts

    Roberts

    UtterbackSu^rez

    11

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    57/72

    NumberDate

    30-91RSpr/91

    31-91R9/91

    32-911/91

    33-916/91

    34-91

    35-912/91

    36-91R8/9237-912/91

    38-913/91

    39-91R1991

    40-91RSpr/91

    41-913/91

    42-914/91

    43-916/91

    44-917/91

    45-91R7-8/92

    Title

    Product Strategy and Corporate Success

    CAD and Cognitive Complexity: Beyond the Drafting Board Metaphor

    CAD System Use and Engineering Performance in Mechanical Design

    Investigating the Effectiveness of Technology-Based Alliances: Patternsand Consequences of Inter-Firm CooperationNo Paper IssuedImpacts of Supervisory Promotion and Social Location on SubordinatePromotion in an RD&E Setting: An Investigation of Dual Ladders(Rev. 11/91)

    Demography and Desigri; Predictors of New Product Team Performance

    The Changing Role of Teams in Organizations: Strategies for Survival

    Informal Alliances: Information Trading Between Firms

    Supplier Relations and MaT\agement: A Survey of Japanese,Japanese-Transplant, and U.S. Auto Plants

    Strategic Maneuvering and Mass-Market Dynamics: The Triumph ofVHS Over Beta

    The Software Factory: An Entry for the Encyclopedia of SoftwareEngineering

    Dominant Designs and the Survival of Firms(Rev. 7/92)

    An Environment for Entrepreneurs

    Technology Transfer from Corporate Research to Of>erations: Effectsof Perceptions on Technology AdoptionWhen Speeding Concepts to Market Can Be a Mistake

    Author(s)RobertsMeyer

    RobertsonUlrich

    FilermanRobertson

    AllenGeorge

    KatzTushman

    Allen

    AnconaCaldwellAncor^

    Schrader

    CusumanoTakeishi

    Cusumaix)MylonadisRoser^bloom

    Cusumano

    SuirezUtterback

    Roberts

    NochurAllen

    UtterbackMeyer

    TuffRichardson

    46-91 Paradigm Shift: From Mass Production to Mass Customization6/91 (Rev. 10/93)

    Pine

    111

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    58/72

    NumberDate

    47-918/91

    Title

    Computer Aided Engineering and Project Performance: Managinga Doubie-Edged Sword

    Author(s)Murotake

    Allen48-91 The Marketing and R&D Interface

    10/91 (Rev. 2/92)GriffinHauser

    49-9110/91

    Systematic' Versus 'Accidental' Reuse in Japanese Software Factories Cusumano

    50-91 Flexibility and Performance: A Literature Critique and Strategic11/91 Framework

    SuirezCusumano

    Fine51-91R Shifting Economies: From Craft Production to Flexible Systems1992 and Software Factories

    Cusumano

    52-91 An Analysis of Entry and Persistence among Scientists in an Emerging Field Rappa12/91 (Rev, 9/92) Debackere

    53-91R199354-9IRSpr/93

    55-91R7/92

    Institutional Variations in Problem Choice and Persistence amongScientists in an Emerging FieldYouth and Scientific Innovation: The Role of Young Scientists in theDevelopment of a New FieldTechnological Communities and the Diffusion of Knowledge

    DebackereRappaRappa

    DebackereRappa

    Debackere56-9 IRWin/93

    The Voice of the Customer GriffinHauser

    57-92 The Influence of Inter-Project Strategy on Market Performance in the Nobeoka1/92 Auto Industry Cusumano58-92R Linking International Technology Transfer with Strategy and Management: Cusumano1993 A Literature Conunentary Elenkov

    59-92R Modeling Contribution-spans of Scientists in a Field: The Case of Rappa1992 Cochlear Implants Garud

    60-92R Technological Progress and the Duration of Contribution Spans Rappa1992 Debackere

    Garud61-92 A Sodo-Cogrutive Model of Technology Evolution; The Case of Cochlear9/91 Implants

    (Rev. 2/93)

    62-92R8/92

    63-921/92

    On the Persistence of Researchers in Technological Development

    Life on the Frontier: An International Comparison of Scientists inan Emerging Field

    GcUTidRappa

    GarudRappa

    DebackereRappa

    IV

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    59/72

    NumberDate

    64-921/92

    65-92

    66-923/92

    Title Author(s)The Social Construction of Technological Reality: The Case of Cochlear GarudImplants RappaSuperseded by 77-92Windows Of Opportunity: Temporal Patterns of Technological TyreAdaptation In Orgaiiizations Orlikowski(Rev. 9/92)

    67-92RSpr/93

    68-922/92

    69-927/92

    How Puritan-Bennett Used the House of Quality

    How Consumers Allocate Their Time When Searching for Information(Rev. 5/93)

    Moving Ideas to Market and Corporate Renewal

    Hauser

    HauserUrban

    WeinbergMeyer

    Utterback70-925/92

    Project Management in Technology Innovation, Application and Transfer Frankel

    71-929/92

    Investments of Uncertain Cost Pindyck

    72-929/92

    73-9210/92

    Identifying Controlling Features of Engineering Design Iteration

    Objectives and Context of Software Measurement, Analysis and Control

    SmithEppingerCusumano

    74-92 An Empirical Study of Manufacturing Flexibility in Printed-Circuit11/92 Board Assembly

    Su^rezCusumano

    Fine75-92 Japanese Technology Management: Innovations, Transferability, and the11/92 Limitations of Lean Production

    Cusumano

    76-92R Customer Satisfaction Incentives11/92 (FaU 1994)

    HauserSimester

    Wernerfelt77-92RSpr/93

    78-9211/92

    79-9212/92

    80-9211/92

    81-921/92

    The Product Family and the Dynamics of Core Capability

    Multi-Project Strategy and Organizational Coordination inAutomobile Product DevelopmentPatterns of Industrial Evolution, Dominant Designs, and Firms' Survival(Rev. 7/93)

    Innovation from Differentiation: Pollution Control Departments andInnovation in the Printed Circuit Industry

    Answer Garden and the Organization of Expertise

    MeyerUtterbackNobeokaCusumanoUtterback

    Su^rezKing

    Ackerman

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    60/72

    Nun\berDate Title

    82-92 Skip and Scan: Cleaning Up Telephone Interfaces2/92

    83-92R How to Succeed in Business by Really Trying: Listening to the Customer'sFall/92 Voice

    Author(s)Resnick

    Virzi

    Roberts

    84-923/92

    A Comparative Analysis of Design Rationale Representations LeeLai

    85-93 Relational Data in Organizational Settings: An Introductory Note for1/93 Using AGNI and Netgraphs to Analyze Nodes, Relationships, Partitions

    and BoundariesGeorgeAllen

    86-93 A Knowledge Asset-Based View of Technology Transfer in International2/93 Joint Ventures

    (Rev. 9/93)

    87-93 Managing High Performance R&D Teams4/93 (Rev. 6/93; 5/94)

    RebentischFerretti

    Katz

    88-93 Tools for Inventing Orgar\izations: Toward a Handbook of Organizational5/93 Processes

    MaloneCrowston

    LeePentland

    89-935/93

    90-935/93

    91-93RFaIl/93

    92-933/93

    93-937/93

    94-937/93

    95-938/93

    96-939/93

    97-939/93

    98-939/93

    The Impact of Knowledge and Technology Complexity on Decision MeyerMaking Software Development CurleyLocating Adaptive Learning: The Situated Natiire of Adaptive Learning Tyrein Organizatior^s von HippelExploiting Opportimities for Technological Improvement in TyreOrganizations OrlikowskiScientific and Commercial Importance and the Source of Scientific RiggsInstrument Innovations von HippelInductive System Diagrams: An Empirically Based Theory Generation BurchiliTechiuque KimThe Hypercube of Innovation Afuah

    BahramManaging the Integration Problem in Concurrent Engineering McCord

    EppingerBeyond the Software Factory: A Comparison of Classic and PC SmithSoftware Developers CusumanoObstacles to Systemic Innovation; An Illustration from Semiconductor RappaManufacturing TechnologyRadical Innovation Utterback

    VI

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    61/72

    NumberDate

    99-9311/93

    Title

    Finding Out What Goes On in a Software Development OrganizationAuthor(s)

    PerryStaudenmayer

    Votta100-93 Network Externalities in Microcomputer Software: An Econometric11/93 Analysis of the Spreadsheet Market

    101-94 Superseded by 115-94 and 119-95102-94 Technological Intensity and Interfirm Cooperation: An Industry Level3/94 Study of Alliance Networks of US Public Firms, 1985-1990

    103-94 Globalization through Interfirm Cooperation: Technological Anchors and3/94 Temporal Nature of Alliances across Geographical Boundaries

    104-94 Premarket Forecasting of Really New Products5/94

    BrynjolfssonKemerer

    George

    George

    UrbanWeinbergHauser

    105-94 Multi-Project Strategy and Market-Share Growth: The Benefits of5/94 Rapid Design Transfer in New Product Development

    106-94 Multi-Project Strategy, Design Transfer, and Project Performance:5/94 A Survey of Automobile Development Projects in the U.S. and Japan

    107-94 Time versus Market Orientation in Product Concept Development:5/94 Empirically-based Theory Generation

    108-94 Business Transformation: The Key to Long Term Survival and Success5/94

    NobeokaCusumanoNobeokaCusumanoBurchill

    Fine

    WeilWhite

    109-946/94

    110-947/94

    Social Comparisons and Cooperative R&D Ventures: The Double-EdgedSword of CommunicationBenefits and Pitfalls of International Strategic Technology Alliances

    TucdLojo

    TuccdCusumano

    111-94 Identifying the Sources of Market Value for Science-Based Products: Frenkel7/94 The Case of Industrial Sensors Harel

    Koschatzky, Grupp, Maital112-94R Integrating R&D and Marketing: A Review and Analysis Griffin10/94 of the Literature Hauser

    (Rev. 8/95)113-94 Multi-Project Management: Inter-Project Interdependency and Nobeoka10/94 Organizatiorul Coordir\ation in New Product Development Cusumano

    114-94 Global Benchmarking Study on the Management of Technology: Roberts9/94 The Case of Singapore

    115-94 Benchmarking the Strategic Management of Technology - - I Roberts11/94

    116-95 Managerial Determinants of Industrial R&D Performance: An Analysis12/94 of the Global Chemicals /Materials Industry

    RobertsBellotti

    vu

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    62/72

    NumberDate

    117-9512/94

    Title

    CH'ercoming Collusion: Using a Supervisor to Costlessly ResolveMoral Hazard

    Author(s)Simester

    WernerfeltHauser

    118-95 Internal Customers and Internal Suppliers1/95 (Rev. 6/95)

    HauserSimester

    Wernerfelt119-95 Benchmarking the Strategic Management of Technology - - H:1/95 R&D Performance Roberts

    120-95 Predicting Technical Communication in Product Development2/95 Organizations

    (Rev. 5/95)

    MorelliEppinger

    Gulati121-952/95

    122-954/95

    Integration Analysis of Product Decompositions

    Peace, Trade and Technology in the New Mideast

    PinunlerEppingerMaital

    123-954/95

    124-954/95

    Technology Strategy in a Software Products Company

    Metrics for Managing Research and Development

    MeyerLopezMeyer

    TertzakianUtterback

    125-953/95

    Metrics to Evaluate R&D Groups - Phase I: Qualitative Interviews ZettelmeyerHauser

    126-95 What We Have Learned and Have Yet to Learn from Manufacturer-8/95 Supplier Relations in the Auto Industry127-95 Making Large Teams Work Like Small Teams: Microsoft's Synch &8/95 Stabilize Process for Software Product Development

    TakeishiCusumanoCusumano

    Selby

    128-958/95

    Beyond the Waterfall: Software Development at Microsoft CusumanoSmith

    129-95 Microsofts Competitive Principles: Pioneer and Orchestrate Evolving Cusumano8/95 Mass Markets Selby

    130-95 New-and-Improved High-Tech Products: Speeding Producer, Meet Dhebar8/95 the Balking Consumer

    131-95 A Study of Technology Transfer in a Multinational Coof)erative Katz, Allen8/95 Joint Venture Rebentisch

    132-95 A German View of Executive Support Systems Rechkemmer9/95

    133-959/95

    Ii\formabon Technology and Product Policy (A): Smart Products Dhebar

    Vlll

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    63/72

    NumberDate Title

    134-959/95

    135-952/95

    136-9511/95

    137-954/95

    138-9511/95

    139-9511/95

    140-961/%

    141-961/%

    142-963/%

    143-963/%

    144-963/%

    145-964/96

    146-963/96

    147-963/%

    148-964/%149-965/%

    150-968/95

    Information Technology and Product Policy (B): Information Products

    The Death Knells of Mature Technologies

    Multi-Mode Interaction Among Technologies

    Dynamic Competitive Strategies: A Technological Evolution Perspective

    The Dynamic Diamond : A Technological Irmovation Perspective

    Author(s)Dhebar

    PistoriusUtterback

    PistoriusUtterbackAfuah

    UtterbackUtterback

    AfuahAchieving Strategic Advantages in Long-Term, Buyer-Supplier Relationships: JapA Longitudinal InvestigationIs the Make-Buy Decision Process A Core Competence?

    Validation and Lessons From the Field ~ Applications of InformationAcceleration

    FineWhitney

    Gainsharing Issues in Marketing

    UrbanQuails

    BohlmarmHauser, Weiriberg, Chicos

    Hauser

    Metrics to Value R&D: An Annotated Bibliography Hauser(Rev. 3/96)

    Commoditization of Technology-Based Products and Services: A Generic WeilModel of Market DynamicsEvaluating and Mariaging the Tiers of R&D Hauser

    ZettelmeyerUnderstanding Barriers to Iiuiovation and Intrapreneurship in an R&D MangOrganization RobertsIndiistry Clockspeed and Competency Chain Design: An Introductory Essay Fine

    The Role of Mathematical Models in the Study of Product Development Hauser

    The Trade-Off Between Efficiency and Learning in Inter-Organizational SobreroRelationships RobertsQuantifying the Economic Benefits of Advanced Materials Products and ClarkProcesses Neelv

    IX

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    64/72

    NumberDate Title Author(s)

    151-96 The Coupling of Product Architecture and Organizational Structure Decisions Gulati^'^ Eppinger

    Look for our latest Working Paper information on the World Wide Web: http://web.mit.edu/icnnot/www/

    Paper numbers with the suffix R are reprints

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    65/72

    The International Center for Researchon the Management of TechnologyWorking Paper Order Form

    Name:Title:Company:Address:

    Phone:

    Individual Working PapersII I would like to order working papers individually. Please send me the

    following papers:# # ## # ## # #

    Working papers ordered individually are US $14.00 per paper.Total number papers ordered @ US $14.00 / paper $_Postage Charges for all orders outside the U.S.:

    For orders to Canada, add US $.15 per paper for air delivery.For orders to all other countries, add US $.25 per paper forsurface delivery, or US $2.00 per paper for air delivery.

    (Note: All orders within the U.S. will be mailed first class.)Add appropriate postage charges as figured above + $

    Total Due: $

    Turn to next page for additional payment information.

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    66/72

    SubscriprionsII I would like to become a working paper subscriber and receive all papers

    published during the current year. (US $150 for U.S., Canada, and Mexico;US $175 for all other countries)

    Addirional Payment Informarion

    Payment in U.S. funds MUST accompany this order.> For payment by International Money Order OR checks drawn on a U.S. Bank:

    Use amounts listed for subscriptions, or amounts figured for orderingindividual working papers.

    4- For checks drawn on Canadian banks ONLY:Payment must be in U.S. fundsYou must add a processing fee of US $3.50 to your total amount due.

    ^ For checks drawn on NON-U.S. BANKS:Order (cost of papers plus postage) MUST EXCEED US $100.You must add a US $35 check processing fee to the total amount due.The total of the check must, therefore, be AT LEAST US $135.

    Send this form and payment to:ICRMOT Working PapersSloan School of ManagementMassachusetts Institute of Technology38 Memorial Drive, E56-390Cambridge, MA 02139-4307tel: 617-253-7991fax: 617-253-3033

    This list is current through May 1996.Look for our latest Working Paper information on the World Wide Web

    http://web.mit.edu/icnnot/www/h\ \2 L 7 o

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    67/72

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    68/72

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    69/72

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    70/72

    Date Due

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    71/72

    MIT LIBRARIES

    3 9080 01428 0058

  • 7/22/2019 Quantifying Econo 00 Clar

    72/72