Technology Roadmapping in A Value Chain Context

Institut fr
Produktionsanlagen und
Konstruktionstechnik
Prof. Dr.
Holger Kohl

Global Production Engineering (GPE) Master Thesis

Information model for description of
technology for technology roadmapping
purposes in a value chain context
Submitted by: Joaquin Arocena
Matriculation Number: 351928
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the Degree of Master of Science
in Global Production Engineering
at the Technische Universitt Berlin

Supervisor: 1. Prof. Dr. -Ing. Holger Kohl
2. Sonja Pajkovska Goceva, M.Sc

Technische Universitt Berlin
Fraunhofer Institute for Production Systems and Design Technology
Berlin, 2 August 2008
Institut fr Produktionsanlagen
und Konstruktionstechnik

2012 GPE Intake Joaquin Arocena. Information model for description of technology for technology roadmapping purposes in a
value chain context
ii

Affirmation in lieu of oath
Arocena, Joaquin
Matriculation number: 351928
Title of Thesis: Information model for description of technology for technology
roadmapping purposes in a value chain context
I hereby declare in lieu of an oath that I have produced the aforementioned thesis
independently and without using any other than the aids listed. Any thoughts directly or
indirectly taken from somebody elses sources are made discernible as such.
To date the thesis has not been submitted to any other board of examiners in the same
or similar format and has not been published yet.

Global Production Engineering
International Master Program
Technische Universitt Berlin
Master Thesis Abstract
For: cand. M.Sc. Joaquin Arocena, Mat-No. 351928
Field of Study: Global Production Engineering
in Manufacturing Intake: 2012

Main - Supervisor: Prof. Dr. -Ing. Holger Kohl
Supervising Assistant: M.Sc. Sonja Pajkovska Goceva
in cooperation with industry

Module Group/Module: C/Global Production Management
Start date: Date of Supervisors Signature

Title Development of an information model for description
of complex technology for technology roadmapping
purposes in a value networks

Motivation
Increased product sophistication, novel processes and changing customer demands often require
innovative complex technologies. The complex technologies cannot be comprehended by a single expert
in detail. They are characterized as a system of systems having a large number of related and multi-
disciplinary technological parts and elements. Furthermore, the complex technologies interact with the
production environment in a dynamic way with uncertain impacts and dependencies, which challenges the
technological planning and roadmapping processes. An important step to consider such technologies is
through the creation of an information model that considers the complexity but at the same time is
comprehensible to strategic and technology planners.
Goal
The goal of this master thesis is to evaluate the present information models and standards for the
description of complex technologies, to develop an information model of complex technologies including
the relevant dependencies in the technology roadmapping properties. The model should consider
the multifaceted nature of complex technologies, technological and technical properties, as well as
interrelate to the relevant elements of technology roadmaps.
In detail the following points shall be elaborated:
State of the Art analyses of technology description and standards,
Identification of main elements, relationships and dependencies for the description of the complex
technologies.
Proposition of an information model for description of complex technology.
Validation of the information model for complex technologies using an already created roadmap.

By receiving this assignment, I accept the content and will submit two printed copies and a digital
file (word or pdf) of my thesis to the GPE student office according to the GPE exam regulations.


value chain context
iv
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the faculty and staff from the GPE Program and from the IPK-Fraunhofer
who have shared their knowledge with kindness and generosity.

value chain context
v
Contents
Affirmation in lieu of oath ................................................................................................................... ii
Master Thesis Abstract ...................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ iv
Contents ............................................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................... viii
List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................... ix
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Thesis Structure .................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Anticipated Findings .............................................................................................................. 4
2 State of the Art ............................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Four Frame Systems View Model ......................................................................................... 5
2.2 Technology Relevance Model ............................................................................................... 9
2.3 ISA-95 Model ....................................................................................................................... 10
2.4 NASA Technology Readiness Level Model ......................................................................... 14
2.5 Department of Defense Manufacturing Readiness Level Model ......................................... 17
3 Elements, Relationships and Dependencies of the Technology Model .............................. 20
3.1 Technology in the Value Chain ........................................................................................... 21
3.2 Technology Acquisition ........................................................................................................ 28
3.3 Technology Composition ..................................................................................................... 33
3.4 Technology Complexity ....................................................................................................... 38
4 Technology Model integration with the Roadmap and the Value Chain.............................. 43
4.1 Technology Roadmap ......................................................................................................... 43
4.2 Value Chain Visualization .................................................................................................... 44
4.3 Model Creation Workflow .................................................................................................... 48
5 Validation .................................................................................................................................... 53
5.1 Multi-Level Simulation (MLS) Technology ........................................................................... 53
5.2 Step 1: Create Technology Roadmap ................................................................................. 54
5.3 Step 2: Visualize Technology Shift in the Value Chain ....................................................... 55

value chain context
vi
5.4 Step 3: Prepare Technology Acquisition and Implementation ............................................ 61
5.5 Validation Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 64
6 References ................................................................................................................................. 65


value chain context
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Scope of the technology model ...................................................................... 3
Figure 2-1 A schematic view of the Four Frame Systems View [Phi-08] ...................... 7
Figure 2-2 System and purpose function diagram [Bun-13] ........................................ 10
Figure 2-3 The four information levels of ISA-95 [Gif-04] ............................................ 11
Figure 2-4 ISA-95 physical model [Eme-07] ................................................................... 12
Figure 2-5 ISA-95 categories of data exchange [Eme-07] ............................................. 13
Figure 2-6 Technology readiness levels [Man-09]......................................................... 16
Figure 2-7 Objects of analysis of technology readiness levels [Man-09] .................... 17
Figure 2-8 Manufacturing readiness levels [OSD-12] ................................................... 19
Figure 3-1 The innovating firm in a value chain context............................................... 22
Figure 3-2 Factors of a value creation module [Sel-13] ................................................ 23
Figure 3-3 Visualization of the technology impacts through the value chain ............. 27
Figure 3-4 Comparison of technologies A and B within the value chain [Afu-95] ...... 28
Figure 3-5 Technology selection framework. Modified from [She-04]. ........................ 31
Figure 3-6 Technology design matrix ............................................................................ 39
Figure 3-7 Uncoupled technology design matrix .......................................................... 39
Figure 3-8 Decoupled technology design matrix .......................................................... 40
Figure 4-1 A generic technology roadmap [Pha-03] ..................................................... 44
Figure 4-2 Point of time that value chain in Figure 4-3 has been mapped .................. 46
Figure 4-3 Value chain visualization .............................................................................. 47
Figure 4-4 Workflow for the creation of the technology model .................................... 49
Figure 4-5 Visualization of a technology change in the value chain ........................... 51
Figure 4-6 Technology change displayed in value chain visualization ....................... 52
Figure 5-1 MLS technology roadmap ............................................................................. 55
Figure 5-2 MLS technology impact in the value chain .................................................. 59
Figure 5-3 MLS technology shift visualized in the value chain .................................... 61

value chain context
viii
List of Tables
Table 3-1: Technology impacts and requirements on a value chain member ............. 25
Table 3-2: Technology requirement attributes .............................................................. 32
Table 3-3: Technology implementation attributes ........................................................ 33
Table 3-4: Technology composition attributes .............................................................. 37
Table 3-5: Technology complexity attributes ................................................................ 42
Table 5-1: MLS technology readiness attributes ........................................................... 54
Table 5-2: MLS impacts and requirements on the innovating firm .............................. 57
Table 5-3: MLS impacts and requirements on Volkswagen (customer) ...................... 57
Table 5-4: MLS impacts and requirements on Cummins Inc. (supplier) ...................... 58
Table 5-5: MLS composition attributes .......................................................................... 60
Table 5-6: MLS communication attributes ..................................................................... 62
Table 5-7: MLS complexity attributes ............................................................................ 62
Table 5-8: MLS implementation attributes ..................................................................... 63


value chain context
ix
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation Meaning
INCOSE International Council on Systems Engineering
ISA International Society for Automation
ISS International Space Station
AMT Advanced Manufacturing Technology
ERP Enterprise Resource Planning
MES Manufacturing Execution System
TRL Technology Readiness Level
DoD United States Department of Defense
MRL Manufacturing Readiness Level
GAO United States Government Accountability Office
FRs Functional Requirements (of a Technology)
DPs Design Parameters (of a Technology)
S&OP Sales and Operations Planning
MLS Multi-Level Simulation


value chain context
x

This page is intentionally left blank.

value chain context
1
1 Introduction
Increased product sophistication, novel processes
and changing customer demands often require
innovative complex technologies. Complex
technologies cannot be comprehended by a single
expert in detail. They are characterized as a system
of systems. They have a large number of related and multi-disciplinary technological
parts and elements. Furthermore, the complex technologies interact with the production
environment in a dynamic way. Impacts and dependencies are hard to determine. This
creates challenges in the technological planning processes.
New products, processes, and approaches are emerging faster than in the past. This is
making technology management more difficult. There are several other factors that have
increased the difficulty of technology management [Whi-11]:
1. Multidisciplinary Nature: The fast pace of technological change demands a cross-
discipline approach so economic development can occur in an effective and
efficient manner.
2. Shortened Product Life Cycles: The rapid pace of technological development and
the increasing sophistication of consumers have shortened product life cycles.
3. Shortened Lead Times: There is a need to cut product development times as well
as to develop more flexibility in organizations.
4. Globalized Competition: Increasing international competition demands that
organizations must maximize competitiveness by effectively using new
technologies.
5. Lack of Tools: As technology changes, the tools of management must change,
but the process of determining what those new tools should be is in its infancy.
Based on these five factors, there is a case for technology management tools that are
cross-disciplined, proactive, fast, effective and can support decision making. This thesis
proposes a technology model for complex technologies that can be used in combination
with technology roadmapping in a value chain context to achieve these goals. The model
aims to capture complexity in the technology and at the same time be comprehensible
to technology planners. Modelling the complex technology will enable technology
planners to cope with these five factors and perform effective technology management.
The technology model views technology from six different dimensions. These
dimensions are:
Why model complex
technologies?

value chain context
2
1. Technology Communication
2. Technology Composition
3. Technology in the Value Chain
4. Technology Readiness
5. Technology Acquisition
6. Technology Complexity
Each of these technology dimensions is defined by a number of attributes. These
attributes are shown in two-column tables. On one columns is the attribute, on the other
column is the guiding questions or options that help assist the technology planner
determine the attribute. Not all attributes need to be completed for an effective
technology description. Chapter 5 Validation presents an example of attribute values.
Technology roadmapping is a technology management tool. The tool supports the
development and implementation of integrated strategic business, product and
technology plans. It does this by creating a roadmap (i.e. a visual diagram) that links
technology developments with future product or process functions and expected market
demands. Roadmapping enables planners to analyse and communicate the dynamic
linkages between technological resources, organizational objectives and the changing
environment.
The value chain is the set of activities performed by a firm, its suppliers and customers
that add value to an end customer. Many of today's manufactured products are so
complex that no single company has all the required knowledge about either the product
or the required processes to completely design and manufacture them by themselves.
As a result most companies are dependent on others for crucial elements of their
production process. In consequence, technology developments at the product and
process level influence the partners in the value chain [Fin-96].
The scheme in Figure 2-1 presents a simplified diagram of how the proposed technology
model relates to the technology roadmap and the value chain. The six lowest spheres
represent the technology dimensions. These provide the attributes of the technology
model. The roadmap then integrates into the value chain visualization through the
technology model. In summary, the model serves as a simple, yet comprehensive,
decision support, scenario analysis and communication tool that supports strategic
technology management in the value chain.

value chain context
3
Technology in
the Value Chain
Technology
Acquisition
Technology
Readiness
Technology
Composition
Technology
Communication
Technology
Model
Technology
Roadmap
Attributes from each technology
dimension populate the
technology model
Products and
Processes
Market
Not in Scope
of this Thesis
In Scope of
this Thesis
Decision Support &
Communication for
Technology Management
Market
Attributes
Product and
Process
Attributes
Technology
Attributes
Tier 1
Supplier
Innovating
Entity
Tier 2
Supplier
Tier 2
Supplier
Tier 2
Supplier
Customer
Customers
Customer
Customers
Customer
Customers
Customer
Technology Change in the Value
Chain
Technology
Complexity

Figure 1-1 Scope of the technology model


value chain context
4
1.1 Thesis Structure
Chapter 2 presents a State of the Art analyses of existing technology description and
standards. Many of the dimensions and attributes of the proposed technology model
derive from this analysis. Chapter 3 identifies the dimensions, attributes and relationships
between the dimensions of the technology model. Chapter 4 proposes a three step
workflow that integrates the technology model into the technology roadmap and the value
chain. A validation of the information model is performed in Chapter 5.
1.2 Anticipated Findings
The thesis aims to establish an information model of the complex technologies that
enables technology planners to manage complex technology. It is unique in its capacity
to integrate the technology roadmap into the innovating firms value chain.


value chain context
5
2 State of the Art
This chapter presents a State of the Art analysis of technology descriptions and
standards. It is composed of five subchapters. Each of the subchapters analyses
different technology descriptions and can be read independently from each other. The
technology description are:
1. Four Frame Systems View Model
2. Technology Relevance Model
3. International Society for Automation (ISA) Standard 95
4. NASA Technology Readiness Level Model
5. Department of Defense (DoD) Manufacturing Readiness Level Model
Technology descriptions provide a framework for technology analysis. They assist in
managing technological complexity and uncertainty because they drive technology
planners to consider all relevant technology variables. In consequence, a more complete
analysis is performed. In addition, models allow planners to compare different
technologies using the same measuring scale.
Some of descriptions are established and well known, such as NASAs Technology
Relevance Level. Others are more recent, such as the Four Frames Systems View, and
are useful because they are more adept for the analysis of complex technologies.
2.1 Four Frame Systems View Model
The Four Frame Systems View (FFSV) is based on [Phi-08]. Its author recognized that
technology and engineering projects continue to increase in complexity. He looks to the
system engineering discipline to find solutions on how to manage this complexity. The
output of this effort is the FFSV. The framework is designed for use in technology
projects which require the development of new technology systems.
The FFSV builds upon fundamental systems engineering concepts. Integrated system
design and requirements engineering integrate with more recent systems engineering
methods. Together, the framework models the increasing complexity through a systems
integration and system-of-systems viewpoint. The novelty of the FFSV resides in the
route map it provides for managers of complex technology projects. This route map leads
the managers to analyse the technology from the four frames view, as well as referencing
the systems theory and enterprise levels. As stated by Philbin, this quadruple frame

value chain context
6
analysis helps the manager cover as many bases as practicably possible of the
technology.
The 2004 International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) handbook defines
systems engineering as "an interdisciplinary
approach and means to enable the realisation of
successful systems,". A system is "an integrated
set of elements that accomplish a defined objective.
These elements include products (hardware,
software and firmware), processes, people,
information, techniques, facilities, services and
other support elements."
Philbin states that systems engineering discipline is adequate for management of
complex technologies because:
- The systems engineering approach involves the breakdown of the system into
smaller subunits or subsystems and then the management of these subsystems.
- A central theme in systems engineering is the need to establish an overall
systems architecture that provides the framework for the systems engineering
activities to take place, which in turn leads to delivery of the operational capability.
- Systems engineering can be seen as both a technical and managerial discipline,
as well as being interdisciplinary across different engineering disciplines. For
example between electronics engineering and mechanical systems design.
As illustrated by Figure 2-1, the model consists of three general levels. These are (i)
Systems Theory Level, (ii) Technology Level and (iii) Enterprise Area. The Technology
Level is divided into four frames. Each of these frames has a different scopes of analysis.
The frames are (a) Integrated Systems Design, (b) Systems Architecture Development,
(c) Systems Integration and (d) System-of-Systems Management.
Why is Systems
Engineering adequate
for complex
technologies modelling?

value chain context
7
Frame 1:
Integrated
System Design
Frame 2:
Systems
Architecture
Development
Frame 3:
Systems
integration
Frame 4:
Systems-of-
Systems
Management
Enterprise Level
Systems Theory Level
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

L
e
v
e
l

Figure 2-1 A schematic view of the Four Frame Systems View [Phi-08]
Each of the four frames has its own set of tools. These tools are used to manage
technology complexity and risk. Philbin recognizes that not all complex technologies are
the same. In consequence, certain applications of FFSV may not require analysis
through all four frames. Nor must they be executed sequentially as shown. Although not
shown, it is appropriate to perform feedback loops between the frames during the
analysis of the complex technology.
The Systems Theory level is represented by the lowest shape in Figure 2-1. This level
provides the systems skills, methods and definitions which are needed to view the
technology through the systems lens. For example, system maps can be used to map
stakeholders. Ishikawa diagrams can be used to visualize linear system relationships.
Multiple cause diagrams can also be used for displaying non-linear and cyclic
relationships.
The Technology Level is represented by the four shapes, or frames, in the middle of
Figure 2-1. The first frame is Integrated System Design. This frame is based upon the
initial step of the V model of systems development. In this step the specification of system
level and item level requirements is determined. The V model can be roughly described
as a structured and sequential approach to systems development. These requirements
and specifications are inputs for the next frame, the Systems Architecture Development.
The second frame is the Systems Architecture Development. It represents the system
components and their relationships. This frame allows a comprehensive understanding
of the internal system architecture of the complex technology. Further understanding of
the system architecture can be made in this frame through the use of simulation tools.

value chain context
8
The third frame is the Systems Integration. It focuses on the relationship of the complex
technology system with its surroundings. It is relevant for technology systems that are
involved with high risk integration needs. Philbin proposes a thorough understanding of
system attributes. Also necessary is an understanding of the external context and contact
points that require integration. Philbin states that various generic tools may be used to
support the integration process. The modelling, simulation or visualization of the
integrated environment/technology system is encouraged.
The fourth frame is System-of-Systems (SoS) Management. It is for technology systems
that do not have a clear Systems Subsystem architecture. Instead, they are a loosely
federated, or non-federated, group of systems. The multiple systems may interacte with
a greater number of stakeholders. This may increase the complexity and requires
consideration. Philbin proposes a requirements matrix to manage the relationships
between the systems.
The Enterprise Level is represented by the top shape in Figure 2-1. It relates with the
firms specific organizational context. It is linked to all four technology frames. The
connections represents the resources, processes and values of the that interact with the
technology. The social dimension of the technology system is represented at this level.
The enterprise level also includes the organizations value chain.
In order to assist the technology manager in using FFSV, Philbin proposes a 10-question
guide. The questions are intended to be asked in the planning stage of the complex
technology development. The answers help determine where more or less emphasis is
required in each of the four frames:
1) Will the engineering system be open or closed, i.e., to what extent is there an
interaction with the external environment?
2) Are there any Quantitive or algorithmic-based models that have suitability and
relevance to the engineering system?
3) Does the engineering system have a social or people-oriented dimension that
needs adequate coverage?
4) Has an initial view been formed on where the main areas of the complexity will
arise within the engineering system and its subsytems?
5) To what extent is the engineering system based on a comprehensive integrated
system design process, including requirements engineering, system
development and testing?
6) How adaptive does the system architecture need to be; will the success of the
engineering system depend on the level of adaptability of the architecture?

value chain context
9
7) Will the engineering system need to be integrated with existing systems or other
newly developed systems?
8) Will the engineering system need to be managed in the context of other loosely
federated systems, thereby representing a system-of-systems?
9) Do the project team members have the required systems skills and
understanding of systems theories, tools and techniques?
10) Have the enterprise level aspects of the engineering system been properly
portrayed?
2.2 Technology Relevance Model
The Technology Relevence Model is based on [Bun-13] and [Cen-13]. The model is
designed to be used in product development associated with complex technology.
Despite its focus on product technology, general abstractions can inferred from the
model. The model proposes that a technology in a product has two parts or functions: (i)
the system function and (ii) the purpose function.
The system function represents what the product can do. Either through a product
element or combination of product elements. It represents functionalities, material,
structures and sizes. It also includes related experts and research institutions with
specific knowledge on the technology.
The purpose function describes the desired effect of the product. It represents the market
needs through the product requirements.
This viewpoint of technology is useful because any of these two aspects can change with
the other remaining the same. This provides flexibility in technology management.
The working principle of a technology is the science basis upon which the system
function is based. Figure 2-2 displays in schematic form how the working principle of a
technology relates with the system and purpose functions.

value chain context
10
Working Principle System Function Purpose Function
Solution Selection
Solution Neutral Technology Neutral Application Specific
Requirements
Functions
Material
Parameters
Working Principles
Requested product
property /
requirements
Performance
requirements
Performance
Criteria
Properties/Functions of
the technology:
-Property A
-Property B
Working Structure:
-Variant A
-Variant B
Applications:
-Option A
-Option B
Technological
Data

Figure 2-2 System and purpose function diagram [Bun-13]
The authors propose that in order for this model to be effective, common definitions and
concept structure must be in place on the working principle and on the purpose function
sides. This common understanding will enable technology planners to replace a
technology domain of the system function without having to rebuild the entire system.
This is the novelty of the Technology Relevance Model.
2.3 ISA-95 Model
ISA-95 (also known as IEC/ISO 62264) is a standard that addresses the exchange of
data between enterprise systems and production management systems. It began its
development in 1988 when Dr. Ted Williams of Purdue University began to develop a
foundation for the standardized data schemes in the manufacturing industry [Gif-04].
Communicating about a system can be difficult because different people attach different
meanings to common terms. ISA 95 proposes a standardized data schema and workflow
model. It serves as a unified framework for the integration of technology present in the
manufacturing processes with business processes. It does this by establishing a protocol
for communication between technologies at the manufacturing level and rest of the
enterprise.
ISA-95 defines 4 types of information levels. These levels are shown in Figure 2-3.
These levels are designed with a typical manufacturing company in mind. Levels 0, 1 en
2 are the levels of process control. Their objective is the control of equipment in order to

value chain context
11
execute production processes. They are modelled upon ISA-88, an earlier norm, and not
considered in detail in ISA-95. Level 3 is the level of MES activities. It consists of several
activities that must be executed to prepare, monitor and complete the production
process. These activities are detailed scheduling, quality management, maintenance
and production tracking. The highest level, Level 4, is the level of ERP systems. At this
level financial and logistic activities are executed that are not directly related to
production [ISA-13].
Business Planning & Logistics
Financial Planning, Plant Production
Scheduling, Logistics, etc.
Level 4
Manufacturing Operations & Control
Dispatching Production, Detailed
Production, Scheduling, etc.
Level 3
Batch Control Continuous Control Discrete Control
Level 2, 1, 0

Figure 2-3 The four information levels of ISA-95 [Gif-04]
From the point of view of the physical production structures, ISA-95 proposes the
structure shown in Figure 2-4. Beginning with the enterprise level and ending with the
work asset, seven physical levels are proposed. The top two levels, Enterprise and Work
Site, typically correspond to a Level 4 type of information (i.e. information usually
managed by an ERP). The remaining five levels typically correspond to a Level 3 type of
information (i.e. information usually managed by an MES).

value chain context
12
Enterprise
Work Site
Work Area
Work Center
Work Unit
Work Equipment
Work Asset
Represents a process cell,
production unit,
production line, or storage
zone
Represents a unit, work
cell, or storage unit
Defines the role of the
equipment
Defines the physical asset
Represents a physical area
inside the work site
Represent the location of
the factory
Represents the firm
ISA-95 Level 4
activities typically
deals with these
objects
ISA-95 Level 3
activities typically
deals with these
objects

Figure 2-4 ISA-95 physical model [Eme-07]
The type of data ISA 95 exchanges between information Level 3 and Level 4 is divided
into five categories. A high level view of these categories can be seen in Figure 2-5. The
information categories are:
- Resource Information, which is divided into four further categories:
o People, which states the personnel resources required for production,
o Equipment, which states the equipment required for production,
o Materials, which states the material and energy resources required for
production,
o Process Segments, which states the production processes required for
a certain type of production.
- Production capability information, which states which resources are available.
- Product definition information, which states what must be defined to make a
product. For continuous production systems this may be flow sheets, for batch

value chain context
13
production this may be site or master recipes and for discrete production
systems this may be setup or assembly instructions.
- Production schedule information, which states what to make, when to make it
and with what resources it should be made.
- Production performance, which states what was made and what resources
where actually used to make it.

Figure 2-5 ISA-95 categories of data exchange [Eme-07]
The ISA-95 taxonomy of information levels, physical locations and categories of data
exchange are useful in providing standards-based answers to technology management
questions such as:
- Which physical levels will be involved in a new technology?
- What new communication flow will takes place once a new technology is
implemented?
o With which physical levels will the technology communicate?
o What type of information categories will the technology communicate?
For example, a new and improved voltage regulator installed at the electric substation of
the factory will cause impact at the work site level, whereas a new lubrication unit
specifically for a new piece of equipment will cause impact at the work unit level.
The ISA 95 provides benefits to technology vendors and technology user by enabling:
Production
capability
information
(What resources
are available)
Product
definition
information
(What must be
defined to make a
product)
Production
schedule
information
(What to make
and use)
Production
performance
information
(What was made
and used)
Business planning &
logistics information
Plant production scheduling,
operational management, etc.
Manufacturing operations &
control information
Production operations,
maintenance operations, quality
operations, etc.

value chain context
14
- Easier Level 3 product comparison, selection, and replacement using consistent
models and language through all industries,
- Smoother flow of information from consistent messaging between business and
production systems,
- Faster implementation of integration projects by enabling industry-wide
standards using current technologies,
- Large reduction in implementation and maintenance costs for enterprise
integration through the use of single interface schema [Gif-04].
2.4 NASA Technology Readiness Level Model
The concept of technology readiness levels (TRLs) evaluates how evolved a
technological system is. Initially developed by NASA in the mid-1970s, TRLs grew in
popularity after the loss of the Challenger Space Shuttle on January 28, 1986. The
accident caused NASA to improve its technology management. One of the ways NASA
decided to do this was by encouraging the use of the TRL scale as a tool to assess and
communicate the status of technologies under development. By the early 2000s the TRL
was being evaluated for use by international space agencies and their suppliers and by
2006, the standard version of the TRL scale had been formally adopted worldwide. [Man-
09]
"Technology readiness" refers to how far a
technology has advanced on its path from basic
research towards working applications. The term
"technology maturity" has a different meaning
than technology readiness. Technology maturity
analyzes at the technology isolated from its
environment. Technology readiness analyzes the
technology applied under specific conditions. A mature technology may have a greater
or lesser degree of readiness in one system than in another. Technology readiness
considers many factors such as (i) the operational environment, (ii) the technology
architecture, and (iii) the technology users. For example, internal combustion engines
are a technology has been used under varied conditions for more than 100 years. It is
therefore considered a mature technology. However, it is not ready to be used in the
International Space Station (ISS) without significant adaptations. Therefore, the use of
internal combustion engines in the ISS has a low TRL. In many publications the terms
technology readiness and technology maturity are considered synonyms [Smi-04].
What is the difference
between technology
readiness and rechnology
maturity?

value chain context
15
The TRL model assigns a technology to a specific readiness level, ranging from 1 to 9
(e.g. Technology A is at TRL 4). The lowest level is TRL 1, which is assigned to
technology that is at the stage of observation and reporting of basic principles. For
example, the laboratory study of basic properties of a new material such as graphene
corresponds to TRL 1. The most advanced level of technology readiness is TRL 9. It is
assigned when a technology has successfully been used in an operating environment.
The nine TRLs and a short description are shown in figure 2-6.

value chain context
16
TRL 9
TRL 8
TRL 7
TRL 6
TRL 5
TRL 4
TRL 3
TRL 2
TRL 1
Actual system proven through successful
system and/or operations
Actual system completed and qualified
through test and demonstration in the
operational environment
System prototype demonstration in the
planned operational level
System/subsystem model or prototype
demonstration in a relevant
environment
Component validation in relevant
environment
Component validation in laboratory
environment
Analytical and experimental critical
function and characteristic proof of
concept
Technology concept and application
formulated
Basic principles observed and reported
Technology
Readiness Level
(TRL)

Figure 2-6 Technology readiness levels [Man-09]
A useful trait of the TRL scale is that it considers four different scopes fo analysis when
assessing technology readiness. These are:
1. System Level (evaluated at TRL 7, 8 and 9)
2. Subsystem Level (evaluated at TRL 6)
3. Component Level (evaluated at TRL 4 and 5)

value chain context
17
4. Scientific Principle Level (evaluated at TRL 1, 2 and 3)
These four objects of study enable the TRL scale to accompany the natural lifecycle of
a technology. In consequence, a same metering can be used to track the evolution of
the technology: beginning with basic research in an isolated setting, through the creation
of a component and subsystem integration and into a system that functions at an
operational level. A diagram of the four scopes of analysis is shown in Figure 2-7.
Components
System
Subsystem
System evaluated
at TRL 7, 8 and 9
Subsystem
evaluated at TRL 6
Component
evaluated at TRL 4
and 5
Scientific Principal (not
shown) evaluated at TRL
1, 2 and 3

Figure 2-7 Objects of analysis of technology readiness levels [Man-09]
The TRL scale is flexible enough to accomadate many different types of technologies.
Even though industry specific TRL scales have been developed, most resemble the
NASA original. Two examples are the American Petroleum Institute (API) TRL scale and
the European Commission Horizon 2020 Work Programme TRL scale. Such widespread
use of NASA-based TRL scales facilitates user acceptance.
2.5 Department of Defense Manufacturing Readiness Level
Model
The United States Department of Defense (DoD)
is the government entity responsible for military
technology acquisition in the United States. One
of the major challenges of DoD acquisition
program is the acquisition of technology systems
that have been proven on a prototype level but
are not yet manufactured on an industrial scale. In order for the technology acquisition
to be successful, it is not sufficient for the technology to be ready. The manufacturing
What does it mean when a
technology is manufacturing
ready?

value chain context
18
must also be performed in a timely manner, with acceptable affordability and
supportability. If the development of the product technology is assessed without taking
into account the manufacturing readiness, elevated manufacturing risks will be a
encountered.
The DoD proposed using Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs) as a model to assess
the manufacturing readiness of a developing technology. The MRL framework was
impulsed by the DoD after the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO)
cited a lack of manufacturing knowledge at key decision points as the leading cause of
cost growth and schedule slippages in major DoD acquisition programs. Together MRLs
and TRLs paint a complete picture of the manufacturing readiness of a developing
technology [OSD-12].
The MRLs are divided into 10 levels. MRL 1 indicates the initial stage of research of the
manufacturing possibilities for the production of a new technology development. MRL 10
indicates that a full rate of production has been achieved, with the incorporation of lean
manufacturing principles. Figure 2-8 shows the MRLs.
The use of MRL incorporates manufacturing readiness into the evaluation of a
technology readiness assessment. This allows technology planners to identify maturity
shortfalls and associated costs and risks in the manufacturing stage of a technology
before it is reached. The DoD states that incorporating MRL assessments provide the
following benefits:
- Enables a roadmap to address and implement a mature manufacturing process
for each corresponding technology developement. This increases the probability
of producing a product that meets program objectives of cost, schedule, and
performance.
- Identifying where manufacturing maturity is not progressing on schedule.
Visualizing the risk of the situation and the appropriate corrective actions.
- Involving manufacturing experts and other relevant stakeholders early in the
design and development process.
- Enabling effective communications between the buyer, the prime contractor and
its suppliers. [OSD-12]


value chain context
19
MRL 9
MRL 8
MRL 7
MRL 6
MRL 5
MRL 4
MRL 3
MRL 10
Full Rate Production demonstrated and lean
production practices in place
Low rate production demonstrated; Capability in
place to begin Full Rate Production
Pilot line capability demonstrated; Ready to begin
Low Rate Initial Production
Capability to produce systems, subsystems, or
components in a production representative
environment
Capability to produce a prototype system or
subsystem in a production relevant environment
Capability to produce prototype components in a
production relevant environment
Capability to produce the technology in a laboratory
environment
Manufacturing proof of concept developed at
laboratory level
MRL 2
MRL 1
Description of the manufacturing concepts
Initial research into manufacturing principles
Manufacturing
Readiness Level
(MRL)

Figure 2-8 Manufacturing readiness levels [OSD-12]

value chain context
20
3 Elements, Relationships and Dependencies of the
Technology Model
This chapter describes the technology model and its relationship with the technology
roadmap and value chain. It is composed of four subchapters that describe the first four
technology dimensions listed below. The fifth and sixth technology dimensions are based
on the ISA-95 and NASA TRL standards, respectively, and are not repeated.
1. Technology in the Value Chain: Where and how does the technology create
dependencies and impact the value chain members?
2. Technology Acquisition: What key factors should be considered when acquiring
a technology?
3. Technology Composition: What are the internal workings of the technology?
4. Technology Complexity: How complex is the technology? What type of
complexity exists?
5. Technology Communication: How can I identify and manage the information flow
of the technology in my firm and value chain?
6. Technology Readiness: How close is this technology to being available for use
in my operating context?
A definition of complex technologies is necessary to
understand why the technology model is linked to the
technology roadmap and value chain. [Kas-02] defines
complex technologies as those that cannot be
mastered by a single individual. The study of complex
technologies requires a systems view. A systems view means that (i) the technology, (ii)
the firm in which the technology is being considered and (iii) the firms value chain must
be in the scope of analysis. These three elements are interrelated and interdependent.
Communication inputs, transformations, outputs, and feedback will exists between the
three elements at different levels of aggregation, such as individuals, groups,
departments and external parties. These factors interrelate with technology
developments that change over time and create the need for an integrated roadmap-
value chain technology model.

What is a complex
technology?

value chain context
21
3.1 Technology in the Value Chain
This subchapter presents the value chain dimension if a complex technology. It begins
by defining what a value chain is and states the reasons that technology management is
shifting from a firm centered focus to a value chain centered focus. It then presents the
strategic factors that technology managers must take into account when managing
technology in a value chain. Attributes of the dimension are formed by assessing the
impact and requirements of the technology on each value chain member. A visualization
of the cumulative technology impact in the value chain is presented at the end of the
chapter. Attributes of the Technology in the Value Chain dimension are shown in Table
3-1.
Many of today's manufactured products are so
complex that no single company has all the
required knowledge about either the product
or the required processes to completely
design and manufacture them by themselves.
As a result most companies are dependent on
others for crucial elements of their production
process. In consequence, many technology developments at the product and process
level influence the partners in the value chain [Fin-96].
The term value chain originates in [Por-85]. Porter states that a firms competitive
advantage cannot be analysed by only looking at the activities performed by a firm. It is
necessary to incorporate relevant activities performed by suppliers and customers into
the scope of analysis. This systems view of the activities that create value is what Porter
defines as the firms value chain.
According to Porter, there are two types of competitive advantage in a firms value chain:
(i) cost leadership, which is to be the firm that can do things with least cost, and (ii)
differentiation, which is to be the only firm that can provide one or more attributes which
are key to the customer. Porter states that in whichever of these two competitive
advantages a firm wishes to pursue, technology will play a central role. The challenge
lies in achieving integrated technology management throughout the value chain. That is
the topic addressed in this technology dimension.
In the past, academic study was focused on how technology affected the implementing
firm. It would try to answer questions such as, 'What is the impact of this innovation on
my organizational capabilities, competence, existing products, knowledge of
components,key concepts and linkages between them? However, this question does not
The value chain dimension
describes the impacts and
requirements of the technology
on value chain members

value chain context
22
consider the effects of the innovation on the competency and assets of customers,
suppliers or complementary innovators. This creates risks because it does not analyse
the comprehensive situation. Now current research is asking itself, What will my
innovation do to the competence and products of my customers, end-user customers,
and suppliers, that is, what is the impact of the innovation throughout the value chain?
Contemporary frameworks for evaluating
technology state that innovative
accomplishments are dependent upon the
ability of firms to acquire and assimilate new
knowledge without disrupting value chain [Hal-
05].
The value chain technology dimension of the
model addresses question such as:
- In what way does a new technology in my process or product impact my value
chain partners?
- What type of technological dependencies are created by the new technology?
The generalization of the situation addressed is shown in Figure 3-1. An innovating entity
is planning or already implementing a technology implementation. The integrated nature
of the value chain means that the technology will have upstream and downstream
impacts. It also means that requirements may exists in value chain partners in order for
the technology to provide the desired benefits at the innovating entity. A technology
dependency is created.
Tier 1
Supplier
Innovating Entity
Tier 2
Supplier
Tier 2
Supplier
Tier 2
Supplier
Customer
Customers
Customer
Customers
Customer
Customers
Customer
Technology
Implementation
Impacts & Requirements
created downstream
Impacts & Requirements
created upstream

Figure 3-1 The innovating firm in a value chain context
Technology management
has shifted from a firm-
centered perspective to a
value chain perspective

value chain context
23
The first five attributes of the dimension are based on the factors of the value creation
module presented in [Sel-13] shown in Figure 3-2.
Human Who?
Product
What?
Equipment
With what?
Process
How?
Organization
When?
Where?

Figure 3-2 Factors of a value creation module [Sel-13]
The Product attribute describes the product-technology interaction. Not all technologies
are related with products, so this attribute will be left blank for technologies that are
focused on other areas, such as the manufacturing process. The technology may impact
certain product components or systems (View Modularity attribute in Technology
Composition dimension in subchapter 3.3) designed and/or manufactured by different
members of the value chain. Visibility into the the product areas affected by the
technology is necessary to manage the process of integration the technology into a
product that comprises parts added at different stage of the value chain.
The Process attribute describes the way the
technology affects the existing processes or
creates new processes. It is left blank if the
technology does not affect any process. The
processes may start and end inside a single
firm or they may involve more than one party
in the value chain. Processes inside a firm
may belong to categories such as:
manufacturing, assembly, transport,
inspection, knowledge management and other value-adding or supporting processes.
Processes that are present throughout the value chain may belong to categories such
as: Logistics, Purchasing, Joint R&D. Process parameters affected by the technology
should be identified and their impact quantified. Some examples of technology affected
process parameters are: Cost (e.g. a change in the production cost per piece),
Technologies may affect any
of the five value creation
dimensions: Product,
Process, Equipment,
Organization and Humans

value chain context
24
Performance (e.g. change in the process cycle time), Flexibility (e.g. reduced
changeover times) and Quality (e.g. less process variability). A useful tool for analysis in
this attribute are the DIN norms (e.g. DIN 8580 Classification of Manufacturing
Processes) which provide a taxonomy and definition of different processes. Using the
same definitions will assist in cross value chain technology management, especially in
an international context where language barriers exist and common vocabulary is not
already established.
The Organization attribute encapsulates the interaction of the technology with the
existing or new organizational structure. Some technologies may require that the firm re-
organize itself to leverage the functionality provided by the technology. The required
changes in the organization are analysed in the attribute. An example is the impact in
the Human Resource policy caused by the incorporation of technology that enables
workers to work from home.
The Equipment attribute refers to how the technology impacts existing equipment or
incorporates new equipment. Equipment may take the form of utilities, information and
communication, quality measurement, logistics, assembly and manufacturing
equipment. This attribute is closely related to the process attribute since many processes
are performed through equipment. A helpful concept that assists in analyzing this
attribute is the Hardware and Software technology concept described in subchapter 3.3
Technology Composition.
The Human attribute encompasses the instances of human participation with the
technology. It is a particular case of the the Integration attribute also presented in
subchapter 3.3 Technology Composition. However, since humans are the most complex
system, it requires special analysis and consideration. Technology usability, training
requirements and user learning curves are aspects of this attribute.
The Firm Competencies refers how the technology impacts the existing competencies.
Many complex technology products require that firms invest time and money in learning
how to operate and maintain the technology. A technology that destroys the knowledge
that the firm has built up has a smaller chance of being adopted than one that enhances
this knowledge and skills.


value chain context
25
Technology Impacts and Requirements on Value Chain Members [Afu-95]
Attribute Guiding Question
Products Does the technology involve new product or a change in existing
products? How does it affect their architecture, components and
complimentary product features? What partners in the value chain
are involved?
Process Does the technology involve a new process or a change in an
existing processes? How does it affect its throughput, cycle times
and other relevant indicators?
Equipment Does the technology involve new equipment or alterations in
existing equipment?
Organization Does the technology create or change a current way of organizing?
What new ways of working are need to leverage the new
functionality provided by the technology?
Human Does the technology empower or destroy current capabilities?
What type of training is required to use the technology?
Firm
Competencies
Does the technology enhance or destroy established competencies
(skills and knowledge)?
Network
Externality
Does the technology enhance or destroy the existing network
position?
Compatibility Does new technology enhance or destroy complementary
technology currently in use? Does the new technology use existing
firm assets or does it require a modification or completely new
assets?
Table 3-1: Technology impacts and requirements on a value chain member
The Positive Network Externality attribute refers to whether the technology brings the
firm closer or seperates the firm from existing networks. For example, a German firm
which purchases an existing factory in China may decided to adopt European product
norms in the purchased factory. This may isolate the factory with respect to its existing

value chain context
26
Chinese value chain if it is based on uncompatible Chinese norms. At the same time, it
will enable the factory to export to other countries that accept European norms. Any
technology that destroys positive network externality in a member of the value chain will
be resisted by that member of the value chain unless the cost can be offset by some
other factor.
The Compatibility attribute measures the extent to which the technology functions with
the existing firm and value chain environment. This attribute cover elements mentioned
in the Equipment, Product and Process attributes that require change or are incompatible
with the technology. Complementary technology that is affected by the technology must
be taken into account. For example, spreadsheet software is a complementary
technology for desktop computers. Replacing a computer may require the the user to
purchase a new license for a new version of a spreadsheet software that must be
installed in the new computer. Technology that requires a firm in the value chain to
change or buy new assets or incorporate new complementary technology due to
incompatibility will be more costly and require greater effort to implement.
The attributes in Table 3-1 must be filled for each value chain member. The attributes
will reveal the interaction zones of the technology and whether the technology will
reinforce or destroy existing competencies in each value chain member. In order to
analyse the cumulative impact across the value chain, the Sustaining and Disruptive
technology concept from [Chr-97] is used.
Technologies which reinforce existing compentency are defined as sustaining
technologies. They are intended to improve product or process performance based on
what the existing customers want. Most technology implementations in a given industry
are for sustaining technologies.
Technologies that enable a new value proposition for a product or process destroy
competency, or knowledge, built up by the firm, its value chain, its end-users or
complimentary innovators. Initially disruptive technologies underperform conventional
product or process technologies. They cannot compete against established technologies
being used to satisfy mainstream customers. However, they have other characteristics
that new customers value. Products or processes built around disruptive technologies
are typically cheaper, simpler, more compact, and frequently more convenient to use.
[Chr-97]

value chain context
27
Architectural
Innovation
Complementary
Innovator
R
e
d

Z
o
n
e
G
r
e
e
n

Z
o
n
e
New technology destroys
competency
New technology may
affect competency
New technology
reinforces competency
Technology Value
Chain
Y
e
l
l
o
w

Z
o
n
e
Architectural
Innovation
Customer
Y
e
l
l
o
w

Z
o
n
e
competency
New technology may
affect competency
New technology
R
e
d

Z
o
n
e
G
r
e
e
n

Z
o
n
e
Y
e
l
l
o
w

Z
o
n
e
Architectural
Innovation
Innovating Firm
Y
e
l
l
o
w

Z
o
n
e
competency
New technology may
affect competency
New technology
R
e
d

Z
o
n
e
G
r
e
e
n

Z
o
n
e
Y
e
l
l
o
w

Z
o
n
e
Architectural
Innovation
Supplier
Y
e
l
l
o
w

Z
o
n
e
competency
New technology partly
destroys and reinforces
competency
New technology
R
e
d

Z
o
n
e
G
r
e
e
n

Z
o
n
e

Figure 3-3 Visualization of the technology impacts through the value chain
The value of the attributes determine whether the technology impacts the value chain
member in a Red, Yellow or Green zone. This classification depends on the attributes
relative weight. The impact on each member is visualized in Figure 3-3. It provides a
visualization of the technology impact across the value chain. The zones are classified
as follows:
Green Zone: The green zone is where the technology reinforces current core concepts,
skills and knowledge. A technology that falls in this zone for the innovator, supplier,
customer or complementary innovators is attractive to the entity.
Yellow Zone: The yellow zone is where the technology both reinforces and also destroys
some attributes of Table 3-1. A technology that falls in this zone for the innovator,
supplier, customer and complementary innovators requires close analysis.
Red Zone: The red zone covers the area where previous core concepts are overturned,
and competence destroyed at the various stages of the chain. If it is the red zone, special
considerations must be made:
1. The performance enabled by the technology must offset the losses incurred at
each value chain partner, otherwise implementation will be resisted.
2. Complementary innovotions exist that make the competency destruction
transparent to the value chain,
3. Regulatory requirements leave no other choice that the value chain accept the
competency destruction.

value chain context
28
Figure 3-4 displays the same information as Figure 3-3 but it is easier to view. It displays
an example comparison of two alternative technologies, Technology A and Technology
B. The figure indicates that whereas Technology B is easier to implement in the
Innovating Firm, it is more disruptive on the Customer and Complentary Innovator Level.
R
e
d

Z
o
n
e
Y
e
l
l
o
w

Z
o
n
e
G
r
e
e
n

Z
o
n
e
Supplier Innovator Customer
Complimentary
Innovator
Technology A
Technology B
Value Chain

Figure 3-4 Comparison of technologies A and B within the value chain [Afu-95]
3.2 Technology Acquisition
This subchapter presents the Technology Acquisition dimension. It begins by introducing
the need to manage technology acquisition its difficulties. It then presents the strategic
factors that technology managers must take into account when selecting technology. A
criteria-based selection model is presented afterwards. It is composed of a double filter,
first with technical criteria and then with
implementation filter. Practical recommendations
on the use of the selection model are presented
at the end of the subchapter. The attributes and
guiding questions are presented in table form in
Table 3-2 and 3-3.
This dimension explores the aspects of technology that a firm should observe when
acquiring complex technology. The dilemma is that complex technology knowledge
resides mostly in minds of technology managers and middle managers. However, most
resource allocation, among them technology acquisitions, is made by the top level
The Technology Acquisition
dimension describes
technology selection criteria

value chain context
29
management. This technology dimension is part of the technology model that aims to
bridge this gap.
Technology based firms rely on renewal of existing technological resources and
exploitation of new technologies to remain competitive. According to [She-04] technology
acquisition is becoming more difficult due to increasing technology complexity,
convergence of technologies, richness of technological options, higher cost of
technological development, and rapid diffusion of technologies. Current approaches to
the technology selection decision have usually been focused on assessment of the
financial viability of technology options, or conventional investment justification factors.
[Far-10] and [She-06] have concluded the following regarding technology selection
processes:
- Risks associated with a technology are not typically considered in the technology
acquisition process
- Many technology acquisition processes do not provide support for the inclusion
of inter-organisational factors in the technology selection decision-making
environment
- Many technology acquisition processes fail to assess potential problems before
introducing a technology into an organisation
- Technology acquisition processes tend to ignore the wider relationship of
technology to the business and organisational context and include these issues
in the technology investment considerations
Technology acquisition can be thought of as the scanning, selection, acquisition and
implementation of technological solutions. They aim of these technologies in most cases
is to enable increased business performance. Technology acquisition is a decision
process. A technology acquisition process almost always exists. However, it is not
necessarily structured and formalised.
A traditional resource allocation model considers resource allocation as a rational, top-
down decision-making process. Senior managers weigh alternative proposals for
investment in innovation and fund projects that they find to be consistent with firm
strategy and offer the highest return on investment. Proposals that dont clear these
hurdles are not considered [Chr-97].
A criteria-based technology acquisition model is necessary to communicate between the
different levels of the firm. Based on [She-01], it forms the basis of this technology
dimension. The selection framework consists of an adaptable requirement and filter

value chain context
30
based viewpoint the allows technology planners to overcome the four typical setbacks in
a technology acquisitions identified by [Far-10] and [She-06]. These four points were
stated in the beginning of this subchapter. The framework is intended for the selection of
packaged or off-the-shelf technology, i.e. technologies that do not require extensive
R&D after acquisition.
The models considers technology acquisition as a sequential step process. It is shown
in Figure 3-5. It begins with technology scanning, then technology selection, afterwards
technology acquisition and finally technology implementation. The model focuses on the
selection and acquisition. The framework has two filters, Requirements Criteria and then
Adoption Criteria. The technology is chosen from the group that passes through both
filters. The filter-based view gives technology planners flexibility to adapt the filter criteria
so it can be adapted to their specific needs.
The first filter, formed by the Requirements Criteria, identifies technologies which do not
fulfil the obligatory requirements. The Requirements Criteria are divided into three parts:
1. The technical subfilter, which considers the quality of the products delivered by
the technology and the volume of the products that can be produced by the
technology others?.
2. The financial subfilter includes the cost of using the technology and the
additional revenue or cost savings enabled by the technology.
3. The external pressures sub-filter includes regulatory pressures that the
technology must abide by.
The second filter is formed by the Adoption Criteria. It indicates how suitable the
technology is for adoption. It is divided into five subfilters.
1. Integrability refers to whether the technology can be integrated into the
company and the value chain.
2. Usability means whether the technology can be used for its designed purpose
in the firms context.
3. Supplier suitability refers to whether the supplier is acceptable to the firm (past
experience, track record, possible relationships going forward)
4. Strategy alignment which considers whether the adoption of the technology is
aligned with the firms strategic goals.
5. Risk deals with the uncertainties associated with the technology.
Other factors are divided into internal and external agents, the impact of these agents
can be considerd by examining how the impact the filters.


value chain context
31

Figure 3-5 Technology selection framework. Modified from [She-04].

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

F
i
l
t
e
r
-

E
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

A
t
t
r
i
b
u
t
e

i
n

T
a
b
l
e

4
.
1
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

-

C
a
p
i
t
a
l
-

S
a
l
e
s
-

R
e
n
e
w
a
l
-

O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
s

-

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
-

R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
-

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

F
i
l
t
e
r
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

F
i
l
t
e
r
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
-

T
r
i
a
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
-

O
b
s
e
r
v
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r

S
u
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
-

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

-

P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c

A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
R
i
s
k
-

O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
-

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
-

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
S
e
l
e
c
t
e
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s

t
h
a
t

p
a
s
s

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

F
i
l
t
e
r
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n

F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l

F
a
c
t
o
r
s
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

F
a
c
t
o
r
s
H
u
m
a
n

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

O
p
t
i
o
n
s
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y

B
o
d
i
e
s
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
s
F
i
n
a
n
c
e

value chain context
32
Technology Requirements Filter
Aspects Guiding Questions
Technical Refer to the list of Attributes listed in Table 3-1: Technology Impact
attributes on a Value Chain Member
Financial - Capital Investment
- Sales Impact
- Renewal period
- Operational cost
External
Pressures
What are the requirements established by external parties:
- Environmental
- Regulatory
- Standards
Table 3-2: Technology requirement attributes


value chain context
33
Technology Implementation Filter
Integrability Trialability: To what extent can the technology be tried in a controlled
environment before full implementation?
Observability: To what extent can the technology be observed in other
similar contexts?
Supplier
Suitability
Service: Does the service provided by the technology supplier satisfy
requirements?
Partnership: To what extent does the technology supplier partner with
the innovating firm to achieve results?
Strategic
Alignment
To what extent does the technology support my strategic value chain
goals?
Risks What are the technology risks in the following areas:
- Operational
- Technological
- Commercial
Table 3-3: Technology implementation attributes
The use of the model in real cases by [She-04] has lead to two practical recomendations:
- During the technology selection process it is important to differentiate between
must-have and desirable features. The filters can be setup to reflect this.
- Use terms understood by everybody. Trace your steps and capture the
rationale in the decisions. This is important specially if you have to go back and
change the decision.
3.3 Technology Composition
This subchapter presents the Technology Composition dimension. The attributes list and
guiding questions are presented at the end of the chapter in table form in Table 3-4.

value chain context
34
The Technology Composition dimension
describes the internal elements and structure
of the technology. The dimension does not
relate to the technology implementation
context. This dimension is based on the
Technology Relevance and Four Frames
models viewed in the State of the Art chapter
with additional input from complementary sources.
The intitial attribute of this dimension is the Working Principle. It refers to the science
inside the technology that makes it function. For example, the internal combustion engine
is based principally on the theory of fuel combustion. It may have different configurations,
such as two-stroke and four-stroke engines, but they are based on the same scientific
principle. Identification of the working principles is important because it clarifies
establishes the scientific disciplines that the people related with the technology must
have. This is important in complex technologies that tend to have more than a single
number of Working Principles.
The two-stroke and four-stroke internal combustion engine example introduces the
second attribute. This is the Configuration of the technology. It refers to the multiple ways
the technology can function using the same Working Principle. For example, wind
turbines may have a synchronous or asynchronous generator. Both of the generators
use the working principal of electrical induction to transform movement into electrical
energy. But they offer different configurations, each with its particular benefits and
setbacks.
The third attribute provides the distinction between Modular and Integrated technology.
This attribute describes the relationship between technology (i) components and (ii)
architecture. It is based on the work of [Fin-96]. The author states that a technology has
a dual nature composed of components and architecture. The components perform
functions and are related through an architecture.
Components perform functions through the application of a working principle. As
described in the Technology Relevance model, there may be several working principles
available to perform the function. In a fan, for example, the motor is a component. It is
designed to deliver power to turn the fan. There are several working principles available
to deliver power. The component uses one of these working principles to achieve its
function. In the fan, an electric motor may be used. In that case, an electric motor is
component that uses electromechanic working principle to provide power to the fan.
The Technology Composition
dimension describes the
working principles and
structure of the technology.

value chain context
35
The architecture is the structure through which the components interact. Architectures
vary according to the number of components, there relative weight in the technology and
sophistication. This distinction leads to two types of technology modular and integrated.
A technology that has components that are replaceable is defined as having a modular
technology composition. The technology has standard interface definitions between the
components. Most computers are modular technologies since there components can be
mixed and matched.
A technology that has components which are not standard, but instead a set of
specialized components and subsystems designed to fit with each other is defined as
having an integrated technology composition. In these technologies, functions tend to be
shared by components, and components often display multiple functions. Airplanes are
an example of an integral technology composition since most elements of the airplane
cannot be extracted and replaced into other airplanes.
The fourth attribute provides the distinction between technology Hardware and Software.
It is derived from the model proposed by [Fuk-07]. The model states that complex
technologies have a dual nature. One part of the technology is Hardware and the other
is Software. They combine to work together and achieve the functional requirements.
Hardware is any part of the technology which has mass. Its form is fixed in time but it
degrades over time and use. It has a fixed function. Maintenance is important to return
the hardware to the original state and restore its original performance characteristics.
Hardware suffers from time-dependent complexity (view subchapter 3.5 Technology
Complexity).
Software is any part of the technology which is not Hardware. Software can evolve in the
technology over time. For example, the MES system related to a pulp productions line
can be updated many times over the lifespan of the pulp line. Software does not degrade
in absolute terms, but it may become obsolete if the surrounding software evolves. Its
functions may evolve over time in the form of upgrades. It is relatively more malleable
than hardware. A differentiating characteristic of software is its communication function.
Software enables the communication flow of technology described in the ISA 95
technology description.
The remaining attributes are based on the questionnaire presented in subchapter 2.1
Four Frames Systems view. They are: Integration, Predictability, Human Interaction,
Design Quality, and Adapatability.

value chain context
36
The Integration attribute refers to the flow of energy, mass and information between the
technology and its surroundings. The attribute describes the nature of the connection
points with the technology context. A technology with a high number of integration flows
with its context is deemed open. Whereas a closed technology will have a limited number
of interactions. Information flows of the technology in a manufacturing context can use
the ISA 95 model. Other types of energy and mass flows can be analysed through
corresponding theories, such as the law for conservation of mass.
The Predictability attribute refers to the predictive modelling or simulation of the
behaviour of the technology. The simulation of the technology requires that a model be
developed. The model should represent the key function and design parameters. The
model represents the technology, whereas the simulation represents the operation of the
system over time. A technology which has completed the Technology Design Matrix
(presented in subchapter 3.4 Technology Complexity), and has been simulated and
validated with reality has a greater level of predictability than a technology which has not.
The Adaptability attribute refers to the extent to which the technology can be applied
under different contexts. A technology with poor adaptability will have a narrow scope of
application and may require extensive changes in order to function in different contexts.
Electric car technology that requires an extensive network of plug-in charging stations is
less adaptable than electric car technology which supports battery swapping stations.
This is because battery swapping stations require less infrastructure to setup and is more
affordable than dedicated charging stations.
A review of the attributes and guiding questions provides technology planners an integral
vision of the technology composition. The list of aspects and guiding questions are
provided in Table 3-4.

value chain context
37
Technology Composition
Working
Principles
What are the main working principles upon which the technology
is based?
Configuration What are the different options in which the technology can be
configured? What are the differences in the configuration?
Modularity or
Integrated Nature
Does the technology have a modular or integrated nature? What
are the modular components and integrated systems?
Hardware and
Software
What are the software aspects of the technology? How are
updates of the software elements managed?
What are the hardware aspects of the technology? What are the
maintenance requirements in order to maintain built
performance?
Integration

To what extent is the technology system open or closed, i.e., to
what extent is there an interaction with the external
environment? What and where are the interface types?
Predictability Are there any quantitive models that have suitability and
relevance to the technology system?
Human
interaction
Does the engineering system have a social or people-oriented
dimension that needs adequate coverage?
Adaptability How adaptive does the system architecture need to be; will the
success of the technology system depend on the level of
adaptability of the architecture?
Table 3-4: Technology composition attributes


value chain context
38
3.4 Technology Complexity
This subchapter presents the Technology Complexity dimension. It begins with defining
Technology Complexity. Afterwards, it defines Functional Requirements and Design
Parameters and provides examples for each. The relationship between them is
established through the Design Matrix. Three types of technology systems are
presented. These are in increasing level of complexity: uncoupled, decoupled and
coupled systems. Four types of complexity are constructed upon these concepts.
Guiding questions to identify the complexity types are presented in table form. The main
concepts in this chapter are taken from [Suh-05]. Attributes list and guiding questions
are presented at the end of the chapter in table form in Table 3-5.
The Technology Complexity dimension
provides a guideline to identify the types of
technology complexity. Recognizing
complexity or potentially complex
technology areas and its origins enables
actions to be taken that increase the system
reliability, reduce the cost of development
and operation, and enhance system performance.
The Functional Requirements (FRs) of a technology are what the technology must
achieve. They are an explicit statement of the Purpose Function described in subchapter
2.2. The Design Parameters (DPs) explicitates how the technology is designed and
configured. It is related to the System Function. The relationship between the FRs and
the DPs form the base of the four types of complexity.
Technology complexity is the measure of uncertainty in satisfying the FRs of the
technology within its design range. For example, a FR of a coating station may be to coat
a metal surface with a design range of 2 mm +/- 0,5 mm. The range where the technology
performs is its system range. In the conditions where the system range overlaps with the
design range, the FRs are satisfied.
Most technology systems must satisfy more than one FR. For example, a new coating
technology in an automotive OEM may have:
- FR1: Achieve coating thickness of 3mm.
- FR2: Reduce the NOx fumes of the coating station by 35% compared to current
coating technology.
- FR3: Total technology implementation cost not to exceed 2 million per unit.
The Technology Complexity
dimension defines and
categorizes complexity in the
technology

value chain context
39
The DPs of the technology represent different configurations of the technology. Some
DPs for the example may be:
- DP1: The mass flow of coating substance.
- DP2: Number of coating units required per 100,000 coated cars per annum.
- DP3: The coating substance.
The relationship between the FRs and the DPs can be calculated or estimated and
displayed in a design matrix as shown in Figure 3-6.
1 11 12 13 1
2 21 22 23 2
3 31 32 33 3
FR a a a DP
FR a a a DP
FR a a a DP

=
` `

) )

Figure 3-6 Technology design matrix
An analysis of the design matrix provides an initial approach to gauge the level of
technological complexity.
The first type of design matrix is when there is no crossed relationships between different
FRs. The system is uncoupled. Only the diagonal entries of the matrix are different to
zero. Uncoupled technology systems tend to be the least complex since the relationships
between the FRs and DPs are one-to-one. Change in one FR will not affect the other
FRs. The only uncertainty present in the system is that each individual DP will achieve
its corresponding FR. As long as the matrix remains uncoupled, additional FRs in the
system do not add complexity. Figure 3-7 shows an uncoupled design matrix.
1 11 1
2 22 2
3 33 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
FR a DP
FR a DP
FR a DP

=
` `

) )

Figure 3-7 Uncoupled technology design matrix
The second type of design matrix occurs when there are relationships between the DPs,
but they can be expressed through a triangular design matrix. This is a decoupled
system. The system presents increased uncertainty in achieving desired FRs since there
is crossed influence between the DPs in some of the FRs. In consequence, this system
tends to be more complex than an uncoupled system. A decoupled design matrix is
shown in Figure 3-8.

value chain context
40

1 11 1
2 21 22 2
3 31 32 33 3
0 0
0
FR a DP
FR a a DP
FR a a a DP

=
` `

) )

Figure 3-8 Decoupled technology design matrix
When all FRs are affected by the DPs, the technology system presents a coupled
design. In a coupled design, each time one of the FRs or DPs is changed, some or all of
the other DPs and FRs also change. A coupled design is the most complex technology
system. Additional FRs in a coupled system add to the complexity. A design matrix for a
coupled system is represented in Figure 3-5 with non-zero values.
The design matrix concepts sets the structure to analyse the four types of technology
complexity.
Some technology systems are time-dependent
and may have hardware components that are
affected by time dependent factors such as wear
and chemical decomposition. Their design matrix
will change over time. Others may not be affected
by the pass of time. In order to account for this,
two categories of technology complexity are
considered: Time-independent complexity and Time-dependent complexity.
Time-independent complexity can be further broken down into time-independent real
complexity and time-independent imaginary complexity.
Timeindependent real complexity is a measure of the uncertainty in achieving the FRs
when the system range does not lie completely inside the design range. It is caused by
crossed effects of the coupling of FRs, the wrong selection of DPs or FRs or lack of
precision in the DPs. Coupled systems present the greatest level of real complexity,
decoupled systems present the least.
Time-independent imaginary complexity is caused by uncertainty that is not real, but
appears due to the lack of knowledge of the technology system. The system appears to
be complex because a change in DPs affects FRs in a way that is not understood by the
technology planners. It arises when the design matrix has not been properly understood
or is incorrect. An example of imaginary time-independent complexity is a combinatorial
lock. Once user knows which combination opens the lock, it is a simple thing to do. It is
Imaginary complexity is not
real. It appears due to the
lack of knowledge of the
technology system.

value chain context
41
the lack of knowledge about the relationship between the DPs and FRs (e.g. the design
matrix) that creates the complexity.
Time-dependent complexity occurs because future events affect the technology system
in ways that cannot be predicted. This causes the system range to change as a function
of time. It also has two types: time-dependent accumulative complexity and time-
dependent periodic complexity.
Time-dependent accumulative complexity occurs when the system range is moved out
of the design range due to a physical phenomenon, such as wear, which has
accumulated over time. For example, the use of a coating technology that has undergone
15.000 hours of use with no maintenance or calibration will have a higher level of
uncertainty (and thus complexity) than a comparable machine that has just been re-
calibrated.
Time-dependent periodic complexity occurs when there is an uncertainty in technology
achieving the FR only during a specified window of time. In this case, the system
increases in complexity due to periodic conditions. Once the conditions recede, the
periodic complexity disappears. For example, the scheduling system of a restaurant will
experience a high complexity level (i.e. increased uncertainty in satisfying customer
orders in the planned time) during the lunch period, but will recede once the lunch period
is over.
Identification of the technology design matrix and the four complexity types provides
visibility to the technology planner. Knowing how much complexity is inherent in the
technology system and how much is caused by ignorance is significant initial step in
complex technology management. Likewise, knowing how the complexity is affected by
dynamic factors and time-dependent factors is important in technology utilization through
different conditions in the future.
At low TRL, there may be opportunities to reduce technology complexity. This can be
made by transforming the time-dependent accumulating technology to periodical
complexity through the use of reset functions. Another complexity reduction strategy is
to transform a coupled system into a decoupled or uncoupled system that achieves the
same FRs.


value chain context
42
Technology Composition
Time Independent
Real Complexity
Have technology simulations been performed to calculate
the uncertainty of satisfying the FRs? Have the
relationships between the FRs and DPs been found? Is
the technology design matrix agreed upon and
documented?
Time Independent
Imaginary Complexity
Are the unknown areas of the technology system identified?
Is the technology behaviour, albeit not understood, situated
in a finite system range? In other words, does it present
tolerable uncertainty?
Time Dependent
Accumulative
Complexity
What are the physical phenomenons that affect the
technology hardware? What are the ways to eliminate the
accumulative nature and reset the technology system to
initial conditions (i.e. transform this complexity into Periodic
complexity)?
Time Dependent
Periodic Complexity
What is the duration of the system periodicity? What are the
factors that induce the periodicity?
Table 3-5: Technology complexity attributes


value chain context
43
4 Technology Model integration with the Roadmap and
the Value Chain
This chapter describes how the technology model presented in Chapter 3 integrates itself
onto the technology roadmap and the value chain. The first subchapter 4.1 describes the
nature of a technology roadmap and its function. The second subchapter 4.2 proposes
a value chain visualization model based on four interface types. Subchapter 4.3
proposes the workflow that integrates the technology model with the roadmap and value
chain.
4.1 Technology Roadmap
Technology roadmaps are visual diagrams that link technology development with future
product or process functions and market demands. Roadmaps display a wealth of
information in an easy to understand manner. They are simple to view, but their
development poses significant challenges. In particular the broad scope covers a number
of complex conceptual and human interactions. [Pha-03]
Three technology relevant strategic questions are triggered during the technology
roadmap creation process:
1. Where are we now? Think in terms of markets served, products offered and
technologies used.
2. Where do we want to go? Think how the future market is being shaped, what it
will look like, and where the firm wants to be active.
3. How can we get there? What are the products and the technologies that will
enable the firm to go where it wants to go? Can we use our current competencies
and assets to leverage this plan or do we need change?
There is no governing standard that determines the content and form of technology
roadmaps. The scope and granularity of the roadmap depends on the context. The
majority of roadmaps contain elements of (i) technology, (ii) relevant product or
processes and (iii) markets served. Additional elements such as standards or new legal
regulations are often included if they impact technology development. An example of a
generic technology roadmap structure is shown in Figure 4-1. Note that the Product row
can be substituted for Process depending on the scope of analysis.

value chain context
44
Time
Market
Product or
Process
Technology
P1
P2
P3
T1
T3
T2
T0
M1
M2

Figure 4-1 A generic technology roadmap [Pha-03]
The dimensions of the technology model provide the attributes of technology that should
be considered in the roadmap. The technology readiness dimension is particularly
relevant given the time-based dimension of the roadmap. The simple interpretation of
the roadmap does not mean deep analysis has been omitted during its creation process.
The three strategic questions poised should be thought in roadmap creation sessions
and reflected in the roadmap.
4.2 Value Chain Visualization
This subchapter proposes a method to visualize the value chain. The method includes
the type of relationship between the suppliers and buyers as well as the technology used
in the value chain.
Chapter 3 stated that the success of complex technology implementations depend on
establishing collaborative relationships with value chain members. In consequence, it is
necessary to identify and visualize these relevant members. In order to do this four types
of value chain interface types are considered. The type of interface affects the extent to
which a value chain partner is relevant in the technology management process.
The value chain interface types are based on [Ara-99]. The interface types differ in the
extent to which supplier and buyers share knowledge. The interface types are :

value chain context
45
1. Interactive interfaces are established
when suppliers work together with the
buying firm during the product or process
design phase. Firm and supplier share
knowledge bases and discuss the
problem and the solution in detail.
System-context knowledge is shared
freely.
2. Translation interface are established when a supplier is involved in the detailed
development phase of a component. The critical functionality specification are
defined solely by the buyer and afterwards sent to the supplier. The suppliers
develop the component on their own based on these specifications. There is not
as much knowledge sharing as in interactive interfaces and the knowledge
exchanged is less system-dependent than the knowledge in the integral design
activities. However, the knowledge is not entirely explicit and tacit information
considerations must be made between buyer and supplier.
3. Specified Interfaces are established when suppliers get involved during the
manufacturing phase. The buyer provides explicit detail of the component and
the manufacturing method. Suppliers then follow these directions and produce
the component. The shared knowledge base is explicit. Coordination between
firms can managed by loosely fixed relations.
4. Standard Interfaces are established for off-the shelf components. This type of
interface appears when suppliers provide components to be integrated into the
final product with no or little modification. Suppliers develop their own products
regardless of any specifications and the buyer chooses the parts from
catalogues or off-the-shelf. Firms do not share resources and do not require
coordination.
The first two interface types imply close face-to-face relationships and mutual access to
resources. They imply coordinated technology planning. The last two interfaces are more
distant and formalized contractual relations that require little or no coordination.
A comprehensive value chain visualization is made by mapping the value chain
members, their interface types, the technology or technologies that are being used at the
members, the product and its componentes being produced and the target market.
Figure 4-3 shows a value chain model that has been populated with the information from
the technology roadmap in shown in Figure 4-2 at the indicated point of analysis.
There are four types of
value chain interfaces:
Interactive, Translation,
Specified and Standard

value chain context
46
The standarised interface types need not be displayed since they require little or no
considerations in the value chain technology management process.

Figure 4-2 Point of time that value chain in Figure 4-3 has been mapped

Time
Market
Product
Technology
P1
P2
P3
T1
T3
T2
T0
M1
M2
Value Chain mapped at
this point in time

value chain context
47

Figure 4-3 Value chain visualization

T
i
e
r

1

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r

A
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
T
i
e
r

2

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r

A
T
i
e
r

2

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r

B
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

B
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

A
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

B
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

A
I
n
t
T
0
T
0
T
0
T
0
T
0
I
n
t
S
p
e
T
r
a
S
p
e
P
1
T
0
T
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
o
n

I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d

I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
T
r
a
T
0
T
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
o
n

I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

0
I
n
t
I
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
e

I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d

I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
S
p
e
T
1
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

1
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e

T
y
p
e
s
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
N
o
t
e
:

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
s

n
o
t

S
h
o
w
n
P
r
o
d
u
c
t

1
P
1
P
r
o
d
u
c
t

2
P
2
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
P
1

value chain context
48
4.3 Model Creation Workflow
This subchapter states how the technology model integrates into the technology
roadmap and the value chain visualization. The subchapter begins by presenting the
strategic issues that technology planners face when technology is managed in a value
chain context. Afterwards, the workflow is described. A guide to why and how the
dimensions of the technology model feed into the workflow is provided.
Technology planners working in a value chain
context are driven to expand the traditional,
inter-firm, scope of technology analysis and
develop a value chain perspective. Chapter 3
presents the main dimensions of a complex
technology. The 48 attributes of the technology
model exemplify the intricacy of complex
technologies. In order to assure the technology
planner that the model will provide benefits,
identification of the main strategic issues in value chain technology management is
important. A lack of focus on the strategic issues will create a technology models with
plenty of attributes but that will not lead to any useful conclusions. The principal strategic
issues that can be analysed with the technology model are:
1. How will a technology change affect the value chain?
2. Where are the technology dependencies established?
The first issue How will a technology change affect the value chain? refers to the impacts
described in subchapter 3-1 Technology in the Value Chain. It includes changes caused
in the innovating firm, its upstream and downstream partners, as well as complementary
innovators. It also refers to the operation conditions that must be present in order to
implement the technology. Proper analysis of this issue requires that competency
creation and destruction be identified and shared in the value chain. In addition, internal
knowledge of the technology, the Technology Composition dimension described in
subchapter 3-3 is required in order to understand the flexibility and applicability to each
of the value chain partners.
The second issue Where are the technology dependencies established? refers to the
dependencies created by the technology. It represents the situation where technologies
implementated at a value chain member perform only if the technology is aligned with
the technology used in other value chain partners. Coordination of forward and
backwards technology compatibility is necessary. The technology attributes presented
Lack of focus on the
strategic issues will lead to a
technology model that does
not provide any useful
conclusions.

value chain context
49
in Chapter 3 forms the information basis to feed this analysis. The workflow presented in
this subchapter presents a method to carry out the analysis. A scheme of the technology
model workflow is shown in Figure 4-4.
The workflow begins with the creation of a technology roadmap. This initial stage
incorporates the attributes from the technology readiness dimension.
Technology
Communication
Attributes:
- ...
- ...
- ...
Technology in the
Value Chain
Attributes:
- ...
- ...
- ...
Technology
Readiness
Attributes:
- ...
- ...
- ...
Technology
Acquisition
Attributes:
- ...
- ...
- ...
2.Visualize Technology Shift in
the Value Chain.
3. Technology Acquisition and
Implementation
1. Create Technology Roadmap
- Where are we now?
- Where do we want to go?
- How can we get there?
- How will a technology change
affect the value chain?
- Where are the technology
dependencies established?
Technology
Composition
Attributes:
- ...
- ...
- ...
Technology
Dimensions
Strategic
Considerations
Technology
Complexity
Attributes:
- ...
- ...
Workflow
Steps

Figure 4-4 Workflow for the creation of the technology model
The second stage of the workflow consists of the visualization of the technology shift in
the value chain model presented in subchapter 4-2. Current value chain structure is used
as a starting point. Relevant visualization points arise from analysing the technology
roadmap. Points in time with technology changes are the moments that should be
studied in detail.

value chain context
50
Figure 4-5 shows an example value chain with a
technology change planned at a manufacturer.
The point of analysis shown is displayed on the
roadmap on figure 4-6. The technology planners
estimate that their will be rippling effects
throughout the value chain. However, there is no
knowledge a priori of the impact. The
manufacturer follows the plan made on the
technology roadmap and decides to move forward with the technology shift and replace
T0 with T1. In order to begin to analyse the impact and dependencies, the value chain
must be visualized. The visualization criteria presented in subchapter 4-2 or other similar
standards can be used. Having identified the relevant value chain members and interface
types, the technology attributes from the value chain dimension can be found.
Collaboration with the value chain members is crucial to obtain these attributes.
Cumulative impact of the technology can be seen through the impact graph shown in
Figure 3-4. It will indicate the alignment of the technology with each of the value chain
firms. Warning signs of highly disruptive technology effects (Red and Yellow Zones) in
value chain partner will be visualized. This step assists technology planners in
anticipating and communicating problems that would otherwise appear abruptly during
implementation.
Technology attributes,
combined with value chain
visualization, show
technology impacts and
dependencies

value chain context
51

Figure 4-5 Visualization of a technology change in the value chain
T
i
e
r

1

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r

A
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
T
i
e
r

2

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r

A
T
i
e
r

2

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r

B
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

B
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

A
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

B
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

A
I
n
t
T
0
T
0
I
n
t
S
p
e
T
r
a
S
p
e
P
1
T
0
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

S
h
i
f
t

f
r
o
m

T
o

t
o

T
1
T
1
T
0
T
1
T
0
T
1
T
0
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

S
h
i
f
t

f
r
o
m

n
o
t

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

T
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
o
n

I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d

I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
T
r
a
T
0
T
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
o
n

I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

0
I
n
t
I
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
e

I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d

I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
S
p
e
T
1
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

1
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e

T
y
p
e
s
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
N
o
t
e
:

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
s

n
o
t

S
h
o
w
n
P
r
o
d
u
c
t

1
P
1
P
r
o
d
u
c
t

2
P
2
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
P
1

value chain context
52
Time
Market
Product
Technology
P1
P2
P3
T1
T3
T2
T0
M1
M2
Value Chain Depicted between
these points in time to show
technology change from T0 to T1

Figure 4-6 Technology change displayed in value chain visualization
The third and final stage is the completion of the Communication, Complexity and
Acquisition dimensions of the technology model. The attributes described in these three
dimensions serve as bases to develop the technology acquisition and implementation
plan for the innovating firm and affected value chain members. The amount of
information shared across the value chain will depend on the interface types,
disruptiveness of the technology and inter-organizational trust. The use of a single
technology model across the value chain will facilitate technology implementation.
Considering the dynamic nature of technology and value chains, the sequential steps
presented in the workflow may not always be applicable. In these cases, an iterative
process should be applied.

value chain context
53
5 Validation
This chapter presents a hypothetical application of the technology model. The level of
detail presented in this chapter is intended to prove the concept of the technology model.
Real-world applications may demand greater detail in certain strategic areas of the
model.
The validation process assumes that Multi-Level Simulation (MLS) technology will be
implemented in a German manufacturing company operating in the European
automotive sector. MLS will replace collaborative Sales and Operations Planning
(S&OP) technology. The company is a Tier 1 systems supplier to Volkswagen and will
begin to supply Volvo in mid-2015. It has two product lines: (i) gasoline systems and (ii)
diesel systems. The key suppliers for the the gasoline system are Robert Bosch GmbH
and TRW Automotive Inc. The key suppliers for the the diesel systems are Cummins Inc.
and Continental AG.
The goal of the MLS technology is to establish a web-based, real-time collaborative
production planning tool. It will be launched with Volkswagen and Cummins initially and
later with Volvo. Both product lines are included in the technology implementation scope,
with the gasoline system launching first. Cummins Inc. is the only supplier included in
the technology implementation.
Subchapter 5.1 introduces MLS technology. Subchapters 5.2 through 5.4 present the
three creation steps of the technology model. Subchapter 5.5 presents the conclusions.
5.1 Multi-Level Simulation (MLS) Technology
The technology chosen to validate the model is Multi-level simulation and analysis for
improving production quality and throughput. It is one of the 40 research priorities
identified in [Act-11].
Currently, simulation systems analyse manufacturing systems on a local level. They lack
interoperability through different technology disciplines (i.e. integration of predicted
energy consumption and resource use linked to manufacturing output) and throughout
the value chain (i.e. simulation with standard interfaces that cross firm boundaries), both
of which are important in complex technology systems. MLS incorporate different
technology disciplines and the value chain dimension into the scope of analysis. It
enables enhanced factory modelling in the both the design and production phase. It
provides the ability for different stakeholders, both inside and outside the firm, to view
relevant information through representations that are most useful to them.

value chain context
54
MLS is achieved by incorporating new information technologies into existing simulation
tools. These prerequisite technologies facilitate uninterrupted acquisition of multi-
disciplinary real-time data collection from in-house assets and from the value chain. The
prerequisite technologies are:
1. Big-data analysis and real-time decision making
2. Intelligent visualisation for big data
3. High-performance simulation and analysis in the cloud
A brief description of these prerequisite technologies can be found in [Act-11].
5.2 Step 1: Create Technology Roadmap
As indicated in Figure 4-4, the first step in the use of the technology model is to create
the technology roadmap. In this step, the Technology Readiness dimension is
incorporated. MLS technology is in the concept phase. However, the components of the
technology, like stand-alone simulation software and big data analysis, are already used.
Therefore, the technology can be classified as a TRL 5 Components Validated in
Relevant Environment.
MLS Technology Readiness
Attribute Value
Technology
Readiness Level
TRL 5 Components Validated in Relevant Environment.
Table 5-1: MLS technology readiness attributes
The technology roadmap is displayed in Figure 5-1. Shown are the three prerequisite
technologies, the technology replaced by MLS in the innovating firm, the affected
manufacturing processes, and the two markets served. 2016 is the planned availability
date of MLS estimated in [Act-11].
Crucial to the creation of the technology roadmap are the three strategic questions of
Step 1. These are: Where are we now?, Where do we want to go? and How can we get
there?. The analysis and answers to these questions are not in the scope of this
validation. It is assumed that they have been carefully considered by the innovating firms
technology planners. They are represented in the technology roadmap.


value chain context
55
Year
Market
Manufacturing
Process
Technology
Gasoline System Production
Diesel System Production
Intelligent visualisation for big data
High-performance simulation and
analysis in the cloud
Multi-Level Simulation
Big-data analysis and real-time decision making
Volkswagen
Volvo
2014 2015 2016 2017
Collaborative Sales and Operation Planning
Simulation Based Diesel System
Production
Simulation Based Gasoline System Production

Figure 5-1 MLS technology roadmap
5.3 Step 2: Visualize Technology Shift in the Value Chain
Step 2 in the Technology Model Workflow is to visualize the technology shift in the value
chain. As a guide to do this, two technology dimensions are incorporated: Technology in
the Value Chain and Technology Composition. The value chain attributes are mapped
for the relevant value chain stakeholders: the Innovating Firm, for Volkswagen (a
customer) and Cummins Inc. (a supplier) in Tables 5-2, 5-3 and 5-4, respectively.


value chain context
56
MLS Technology Impacts and Requirements on the Innovating Firm
Attribute Value
Products - Neither of the two products offered (Gasoline Systems and
Diesel Systems) are affected by MLS Technology.
Process - The technology affects the production planning of both the
Gasoline System and Diesel System manufacturing and
distribution processes. Currently, collaborative S&OP
meetings are held every 28 days with Volkswagen to plan
production. These meetings will be replaced by MLS, with the
real-time information captured enabling more responsive
production planning that can be simulated on a daily basis.
- Production with Volvo will be planned with MLS once the proof
of concept has been developed with Volkswagen.
Equipment - No new manufacturing equipment is necessary. However,
equipment sensors that gather real-time production
information must be incorporated as well as the software that
supports MLS.
Organization - The production planning team will require re-organization
based on the needs of MLS. New organizational structure to
be determined jointly with Volkswagen and Volvo.
Human - Training will be required by the MLS solution provider in the
use of simulation software. Worker level training in IT trends
such as big data and real-time mobile applications for
manfucturing will facilitate implementation.
- Competencies in spreadsheet based planning may be
destroyed.
Firm
Competencies
- MLS is a sustaining technology and will enhance firm
competency related to the production planning process.

value chain context
57
Network
Externality
- Careful consideration must be paid to the interface standards
used with suppliers and customers. Optimal situation would be
to establish a standard for the automotive sector that could
later be used with potential clients.
Compatibility - Once implementated, MLS will be incompatible with
collaborative S&OP planning process used with Volkswagen.
Existing S&OP planning competencies will be destroyed but
will be reinforced for Volvo implementation.Yellow Zone.
Table 5-2: MLS impacts and requirements on the innovating firm
MLS Technology Impacts and Requirements on Volkswagen (Customer)
Attribute Value
Products - Not affected.
Process - MLS technology will change collaborative S&OP planning.
New planning process leveraged by MLS technology must be
defined.
Equipment - Not affected.
Organization - Re-organization of collaborative S&OP planning team
required.
Human - Training in MLS required.
Firm
Competencies
- Not affected.
Network
Externality
- Not affected.
Compatibility - Integration with MLS software used for suppliers must be
analysed. Existing S&OP competincies will be destroyed. Red
Zone
Table 5-3: MLS impacts and requirements on Volkswagen (customer)

value chain context
58
MLS Technology Impacts and Requirements on Cummins Inc. (Supplier)
Attribute Value
Products - Not affected.
Process - MLS technology will change collaborative S&OP planning. New
process leveraged by MLS technology must be defined to fully
exploit technology.
- Lead-time reduction project can be considered using MLS
technology as a side-project.
Equipment - Not affected.
Organization - Not affected.
Human - Training in MLS required.
Firm
Competencies
- Not affected.
Network
Externality
- Not affected.
Compatibility - MLS software compatability with Volkswagen is an issue.
Existing S&OP competencies will be destroyed. Red Zone.
Table 5-4: MLS impacts and requirements on Cummins Inc. (supplier)
The visualization of the technologys sustaining or disruptive nature (view subchapter
3.1), described in the Compatibility attribute, is represented in Figure 5-2. Note that in
this case, the technology is more disruptive in Volkswagen (customer) and in Cummins
(supplier) than in the innovating firm. This means that the technology implementation will
fail unless special emphasis is made by the Innovating Firm on how the technology
benefits will outweigh the competencies destroyed at Volkswagen and Cummins.

value chain context
59
Y
e
l
l
o
w

Z
o
n
e
G
r
e
e
n

Z
o
n
e
Cummins Innovator Volkswagen
MLS Technology
Value Chain
R
e
d

Z
o
n
e

Figure 5-2 MLS technology impact in the value chain
The Technology Composition dimension is shown in Table 5-5. Note that many of the
attributes require information about the technology that is not available yet. Nevertheless,
it is important to identify these attributes early on in the technology planning cycle.
Updates to the attribute tables can be made later as the information becomes available.


value chain context
60
Table 5-5: MLS composition attributes

MLS Technology Composition
Attribute Value
Working
Principles
- Big-data analysis and real-time decision making
- Intelligent visualisation for big data
- High-performance simulation and analysis in the cloud
Configuration - With or without real-time data from shopfloor
- Extent of integration within value chain.
- Level of granularity in the simulation model
Modularity or
Integrated Nature
- MLS will run as an modular software that can grow in size as
the simulation model is expanded.
Hardware and
Software
- Software is the MLS system itself.
- Hardware required are the shopfloor sensors and integrated
equipment to capture real-time date.
Integration

- MLS will be integrated with the local MES and ERP systems
as well as Volkswagens and Cummins ERP system.
- Interface standards to be defined.
Predictability - The system behaviour with MLS can be predicted through
the use of a Proof of Concept stage during the
implementation.
Human
interaction
- Training is required on the use of MLS as a collaborative
planning tool.
Adaptability - MLS must be highly adaptable in order to work with both
Volkswagen and Volvo. Parameters of adaptability to be
defined.

value chain context
61
Innovating Entity
Robert Bosch
GmbH
Cummins Inc. Volvo
Volskwagen
Tra
Int
Int
Int
P1
T1 T0
Tra
T0
Translation Interface
Collaborative S&OP
Planning
Gasoline System
Int
Interactive Interface
Specified Interface
P1
Spe
T1 MLS Planning
Diesel System
P2
T1
T1 T0
P2
P1 P2
Interface Types Technologies
Products
Continental AG
TRW Automotive
Inc.
Spe
Spe
T0
T0
T0 T0
Spe
T1
Note: Standard
Interfaces not Shown

Figure 5-3 MLS technology shift visualized in the value chain
The value chain with the technology shift is visualized in Figure 5-3. This figure provides
an easy way to understand where the technology will impact in the value chain. It
combines the detailed information presented in each of the attribute tables with an easy-
to-understand guide on where the technology impacts and dependencies are created in
the value chain.
5.4 Step 3: Prepare Technology Acquisition and
Implementation
In the third and final step of the workflow, the attributes for the Technology
Communication, Complexity, Technology Acquisition are completed. These attributes
are shown in Tables 5-6 through 5-8 This step completes the use of the technology model
and prepares the technology planner for the technology acquisition and implementation.
Since MLS technology is only at TRL 5, many of the attribute fields in these three
dimensions are left empty. However, knowing what factors are relevant and should be
researched assist technology planners during the search for technology suppliers.

value chain context
62
MLS Technology Communication Attributes
Attribute Value
Communication
Levels
- Between Level 3 (MES) and Level 4 (ERP)
- Real-time shopfloor information is sent to MLS
- Enterprise information is shared with Volkswagen and Volvo
via the MLS
Type of
Information
Exchanged
- Production capability information, which states which
resources are available.
- Production schedule information, which states what to make,
when to make it and with what resources it should be made.
- Production performance, which states what was made and
what resources and energy where actually used to make it.
Table 5-6: MLS communication attributes
MLS Technology Complexity Attributes
Time Independent Real
Complexity
- Not applicable. Functional Requirements and
Design Parameters to be determined during MLS
system design.
Time Independent
Imaginary Complexity
- Integration of the three requisite technologies into
a single MLS not performed yet, this creates
unkowns and imaginary complexity.
- Implementation of a pilot MLS system on a small-
scale is necessary to reduce imaginary complexity.
Time Dependent
Accumulative Complexity
- Not applicable.
Time Dependent
Periodic Complexity
- No system periodicity suspected. To be confirmed
during MLS system design.
Table 5-7: MLS complexity attributes

value chain context
63
MLS Technology Acquisition
Attribute Value
Technical - Refer to Table 5-2
Financial - Capital Investment, Sales Impact, Renewal period and
Operational cost to be determined upon MLS system design.
External Pressures - Environmental: Not applicable.
- Regulatory: Not applicable.
- Standards: Interface standards with Volkswagen and Volvo
must be established.
Integrability - Trialability: MLS technology must be tried in a parallel pilot
environment before full-scale implementation.
- Observability: it may be possible to observe similar MLS
implementations in other industries, however secrecy will
prevail in competitors in automotive sector
Supplier Suitability - To be analysed during technology supplier search.
Strategic Alignment - Closer alignment with Volkswagen and Volvo
- Optimised production planning through simulation of
numerous scenarios
- Optmised energy and resource consumption through
visualization and detailed management.
Risks - Operational: Transition period between S&OP Planning and
MLS implementation must be well planned.
- Technological: Delay of technology readiness of prerequisite
technologies, cost of prerequisite technologies, speed of
data analysis required.
- Commercial: None found so far.
Table 5-8: MLS implementation attributes


value chain context
64
5.5 Validation Conclusion
The validation presents an application of the
the technology model in a hypothetical
manufacturing company that is undertaking
a technology implementation in a value
chain context. The technology model links
the technology roadmap with the value
chain through the use of easy-to-
understand visualizations shown in Figures
5-1, 5-2 and 5-3. The visualization provide a high level strategic view that is
complemented by detailed technology attributes from six technology dimensions:
Acquisition, Complexity, Composition, Comunication, Readiness and Value Chain.
Technology requirements and impacts at Volkswagen and Cummins Inc, which are the
relevant value chain stakeholders affected by the technology implementation, are
presented.
The 3-Step workflow approach proposed is adequate for the idealized, straight forward
example used in this validation, but requires more use in real-life situations to validate
that it can manage technology systems with greater complexity.
Areas of further research include value chain visualizations that provide more detailed
information on the technology attributes in a drop down display that can be synthesized
or viewed in detail, according to who is viewing the model. Additionally, technology
planning software that integrates the technology roadmap, value chain and technology
attributes fields into a unified, collaborative, web-based platform would be an interesting
tool to test the proposed model.

The model links the MLS
roadmap with the innovating
firms value chain through
compherensive descriptions and
easy-to-understand visualizations

value chain context
65
6 References
[Hal-05] Jeremy K. Hall, and Michael J. C. Martin. 2005. Disruptive technologies,
stakeholders and the innovation value-added chain: a framework for evaluating
radical technology development. R&D Management 3 (35).
[Fin-96] Charles H. Fine, and Daniel E. Whitney. 1996. Is the make-buy decision process a
core competence? MIT Center for Technology, Policy, and Industrial Development.
[She-04] Shehabuddeen, Noordin, David Probert, and Robert Phaal. 2006. From theory to
practice: challenges in operationalising a technology selection framework.
Technovation 26 (3): 32435. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2004.10.017.
[Eme-07] Dave Emerson, Keith Unger. 2007. Applying ISA-95 in the Oil & Gas Industry.
MESA Oil & Gas Working Group.
[ISA-13] International Society for Automation. ISA-88: the international standard for flexibility
in production. Accessed November 11, 2013. www.isa-88.com.
[Man-09] Mankins, John C. 2009. Technology readiness assessments: A retrospective. Acta
Astronautica 65 (9-10): 121623. doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.03.058.
[Por-85] Michael E. Porter, "Competitive Advantage". 1985, Ch. 1, pp 11-15. The Free Press.
New York.
[Far-10] Farooq, Sami, and Chris O'Brien. 2010. Risk calculations in the manufacturing
technology selection process. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 21
(1): 2849. doi: 10.1108/17410381011011470.
[Gif-04] Gifford, Charlie. ISA-95 Overview: A 21 Century Manufacturing Tool for Performance-
based Management and Engineering. GE Fanuc May 17, 2004 for posting on the ISA
-95 Portal.
[Smi-04] Smith, Jim. 2004. An Alternative to Technology Readiness Levels for Non-
Developmental Item (NDI) Software..
[OSD-12] OSD Manufacturing Technology Program. 2012. Manufacturing Readiness Level
(MRL) Deskbook: Version 2.0..
[Kas-02] Kash, Don E., and Robert Rycroft. 2002. Emerging patterns of complex
technological innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 69 (6): 581
606.
[Cen-13] Centindamar, Dilek. 2013. Strategic planning decisions in the high tech industry.
London, New York: Springer.
[Whi-11] White, Margaret A., and Garry D. Bruton. 2011. The management of technology and
innovation: A strategic approach. 2nd ed. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage
Learning.
[Chr-97] Christensen, Clayton M. 1997. The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies
cause great firms to fail. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.
[Phi-08] Philbin, Simon P. 2008. MANAGING COMPLEX TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS.
Research Technology Management 51 (2): 3239.

value chain context
66
[Bun-13] Bunzel, Stefanie, Joachim Warschat, Dieter Spath, and Antonino Ardilio. 2013.
Ontology- and Function-Based Technology Model for Decision Making in New
Product Development. In Strategic planning decisions in the high tech industry.
Edited by Dilek Centindamar. London, New York: Springer.
[Afu-95] Afuah, Allan N., and Nik Bahram. 1995. The hypercube of innovation. Research
Policy 24 (1): 5176. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(93)00749-J.
[Fuk-07] Fukuda, Shuichi. 2007. Hardware and Software: How Can We Establish
Concurrency between the Two? In Complex systems concurrent engineering:
Collaboration, Technology Innovation and Sustainability. Edited by Geilson Loureiro
and Richard Curran, 7584. London: Springer.
[Ara-99] Araujo, Luis, Anna Dubois, and Lars-Erik Gadde. 1999. Managing Interfaces with
Suppliers. Industrial Marketing Management 28 (5): 497506. doi: 10.1016/S0019-
8501(99)00077-2.
[Suh-05] Suh, Nam P. 2005. Complexity in Engineering. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing
Technology 54 (2): 4663. doi: 10.1016/S0007-8506(07)60019-5.
[Sel-13] Seliger, Gnther. 2013. Value Creation Module & Sustainable Manufacturing.
Manufacturing and Factory Planning. Manufacturing and Factory Planning, TU Berlin,
13 April 2013.
[Act-11] ActionPlanT. 2011. ICT for Manufacturing: The ActionPlanT Roadmap for
Manufacturing 2.0..

Technology Roadmapping in A Value Chain Context

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technology Roadmapping in A Value Chain Context

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Institut fr

You might also like