Roadmapping: New TA-tool required for assessing Nanotechnology

Roadmapping: New TA-tool required for assessing Nanotechnology

Technology assessment (TA) is the study and evaluation of technologies. Since its conception it has been employed to assess both existing as well as new technologies. Assessment of emerging enabling technologies like nanotechnology (NT) is rather challenging and demands new approaches on part of TA in addition to the already existing tools. First of all, the focus is therefore on emerging enabling technologies in general. It is then followed by discussion about specific characteristics of NT that pose challenges for TA.

Pre-requisite to perform TA of a new technology is to know its context of use. For NT, since most of the techniques are in an early stage of development the information about possible applications is not available. However, due to a strong need for decision support from the decision- and policy-makers, TA is required to somehow overcome this information gap. Roadmapping (RM) process used in industry to portray the structural relationships between technology and applications has been proposed by investigators in this field to overcome the above mentioned information gap. Against this background, the paper discusses RM methodology in general and the concept of using it as a TA-tool in assessment of NT.

At end, the paper touches upon the framework required for implementing such a concept and its allied aspects.

Keywords: Technology assessment; Nanotechnology; Roadmapping; Roadmaps

Table of Content

1.  Introduction  01

2.  Technology assessment of emerging enabling technologies  02

3.  Nanotechnology  04

3.1  Introduction  04

3.2  Applications and concerns  05

3.3  Nanotechnology as a challenge for technology assessment  05

4.  Roadmapping methodology  

08  NA  

4.1  Introduction  Introduction……………………………………………………………

08  NA  

4.2  Types of roadmapping  

09  NA  

4.3  Roadmapping process  

11  NA  

4.3.1  Technology roadmapping process  

11  NA  

4.3.2  Roadmapping construction approaches  

12  NA  

4.3.3  Retrospective prospective analyses  

13  NA  

4.4  Uses and benefits of roadmapping  

14  NA  

4.5  Impediments to effective roadmapping  15

5.  Using roadmapping in nanotechnology assessment  17

5.1  Concept  17

5.2  Examining suitability of the concept  19

5.3  Benefits of using the concept  20

6.  Conclusion  21

  Figures  22

Appendix I:  Exemplification of Mobile phones technology roadmap  23

  References  24

1. Introduction

Rapid growth in science and technology catalyzed by globalization has resulted in stellar economic growth worldwide. Technology has penetrated in every walk of human life, and the society today being heralded as a technological society. But the reminiscence of industrial revolution aftermath tainted with the two world wars has made the populace more anxious about what the new technologies has in store for them.

Concept of Technology Assessment (TA) was therefore conceived to deal with the study and evaluation of technologies as well as their impacts on society, politics, economy and environment. Since its conception, TA has been employed to assess both existing as well as new technologies. More recently, advent of emerging enabling technologies has posed new challenges for TA. One such technology is Nanotechnology (NT), believed to be the key technology for 21 st century. Attributed

to its inherent characteristics, it demands new approaches on part of TA in addition to the classical TA-tools already in use.

This paper, therefore, focuses on TA of NT and intends to discuss the concept of using roadmapping (RM) as a new TA-tool in assessment of NT. The main questions that are to be explored in this paper are:

1. Why TA of NT is challenging and not within the full reach of existing TA-tools?

2. How the RM concept can be employed for the use for TA of NT?

For this purpose, the paper provides primary information on complexity involved in TA of emerging enabling technologies. The focus then becomes specific over NT and discusses the underlying challenges from a TA-perspective. Further, the roadmapping methodology and its related aspects are explained. Finally, the paper discusses the concept of using RM in assessment of NT and its allied aspects.

2. Technology assessment of emerging enabling technologies

Different definitions of TA are found in present-day literature. Some definitions are specific, emphasizing certain aspects of TA and scantly touching upon others. On the other hand, some definitions are general and attempt to encompass multifarious aspects of TA. For the purpose of this paper, one such general definition of TA from VDI Guidelines 3780 (2000) is referred to:

Technology assessment means the methodical, systematic, organised process of

• analysing a technology and its development possibilities,

• assessing the direct and indirect technical, economic, health, ecological, human, social and other impacts of this technology and possible alternatives,

• judging these impacts according to defined goals and values, or also demanding further desirable developments,

• deriving possibilities for action and design from this and elaborating these, so that well-founded decisions are possible and can be made and implemented by suitable institutions if need be. (P. 4).

An important feature of TA is the comprehensiveness of its analysis of the impacts of a technology and its possible alternatives. This comprehensiveness demands activities to be carried out in a wide spectrum of fields ranging from practical philosophy to sociological field work. Therefore, TA characterises an interdisciplinary context and requires close interaction between experts of different disciplines. (Braun 1987)

Another feature of TA is its input to policy making. Government institutions and business organisations require information on potential consequences of introduction of new technologies before they are widely implemented. This information helps them to influence the development process of the new technology in a desired manner. However, conducting TA study to gather above information for a new or an ‘emerging technology’, where the technology is in its early stage of development, poses considerable challenges. In early stages of development, the implications of a technology are hardly foreseen and this is what makes the TA study of emerging technologies difficult. On the other hand, TA study conducted in later stages of

page 2

technology development to assess the outcomes or impacts of a technology is relatively easier, since the implications can be easily identified and determined. (Braun 1987; Fleischer, Decker and Fiedeler 2005)

A further dimension of complexity is added to the TA study, when the emerging technology to be assessed also qualifies as an ‘enabling technology’. As stated by Fleischer et al. (2005), enabling technologies are that:

They are often crucial technological prerequisites for other technologies, products and processes which are expected to impact existing technologies by expanding their usefulness, to enable new technological approaches and to trigger wider applications in a number of industries. (P. 1113).

Information Technology (IT), Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) and NT are examples of enabling technologies. These technologies find applications in a wide range of products and services, and often have no direct easily-recognisable connection with the applications. While assessing these technologies, this makes it difficult even to determine the relevant impact categories for the technology. (Fleischer et al. 2005)

NT is also characterized as an emerging technology since most of the nanotechniques are in an early stage of development. It is expected that NT will have a deep influence on almost all fields of social life in the coming years. And this expectation has put pressure on policy-makers as well as decision-makers in industry to come up with decisions concerning regulations and research investments. The decision support therefore required for policy-making, requires TA to be done for NT. With the considerable complexity involved in TA of this emerging enabling technology, TA- practitioners have realized that established tools for TA are not sufficient and that new approaches are required. (Fiedeler, Fleischer and Decker 2004)

page 3

3. Nanotechnology

3.1 Introduction

In 1959, Nobel Laureate Richard P. Feynman presented the technological vision of extreme miniaturization using the ultimate toolbox of nature, building nanoobjects atom by atom or molecule by molecule. Nearly 50 years down the road, his technological vision transforms into a key technology for the 21 st century – The

Nanotechnology. (Bhushan 2004)

Literally speaking, NT means any technology performed on a nanoscale that has applications in the real world. According to Fleischer et al. (2005), until now the scientific community does not have a generally accepted definition of NT. A common definition that approximates the scope of NT in terms of size is sufficient for the purpose of this paper. According to Fiedeler et al. (2004:21), such a definition is: “Nanotechnology is made up of areas of technology where dimensions and tolerances in the range of 0.1 nm to 100 nm play a critical role.”

The impact of NT on our economy in the early 21 st century is comparable to the

impact made by semiconductor technology, information technology, or cellular and molecular biology. Science and technology research in NT promises breakthroughs in many areas. (Bhushan 2004). According to Bhushan (2004:Chapter 1, p. 2), “it is widely felt that nanotechnology will be the next industrial revolution.”

According to a July 2004 report by The Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE), the estimated total global investment in NT is currently around €5 billion, with the number of published patents having increased fourfold from 1995 (531 patents) to 2001 (1976 patents) and having the potential to be worth a global market value of US$1trillion by 2011. (Friesen 2004)

page 4

3.2 Applications and concerns

Applications of NT are possible in a wide range of fields – from chemistry, physics and biology, to medicine, engineering and electronics. However, so far only few simple applications like use of nanomaterials have been realized on a commercial scale. Otherwise, most of the applications are in their early stage of development and some are just pure science fiction. Most of the applications conceived so far can be considered in four broad categories: nanomaterials; nanometrology; electronics, optoelectronics and information and communication technology; and bio- nanotechnology and nanomedicine. (RAE 2004)

Along with promising benefits, risks involved in NT have brought worries and concerns for the society. It has been the subject of an extensive public debate in Europe and the United States. Dangers for human health from the suspected asbestos- like properties of some nanoscopic materials have caught public attention. Furthermore, the ethical use of NT is questioned since the researchers and scientists working on this technology have no ethical obligations per se. (Fleischer et al. 2005)

3.3 Nanotechnology as a challenge for technology assessment

With the claims of NT having a deep influence on almost all fields of social life, it is required to verify or weaken this estimate and to find out which changes in which social and environmental fields are the most effective and the most realistic ones (Fiedeler et al. 2004). Furthermore, it is required to assess the risks related to the human health and environment by use of NT. All this qualifies NT as a sure candidate for TA.

However, due to below mentioned characteristics, NT pose special challenges for classical TA and therefore demand new approaches:

page 5

Diversity of NT A general definition of NT was presented in section 3.1. According to Fiedeler et al (2004:21), “this leads to the fact that a huge variety of different techniques, research topics, methods of structuring material, and manipulated surfaces are summarized under the term of NT.” Such heterogeneity in techniques makes it difficult to analyze the techniques as a whole. It is therefore required on the part of TA-practitioner to make a choice as to which techniques are representative (Fiedeler et al. 2004) and this may not be that easy.

Nanotechnology as enabling technology

As highlighted earlier, NT is an enabling technology. This means that NT is just one component of a bigger system, which may provide a product with a specific functionality. It is also likely that the same NT in question is used for the specific desired functionality in another product serving entirely different purpose. Since the context of use for the technology is different for the products, for each case the NT in question has to be assessed separately 1 . This significantly increases the TA’s scope of

work. (Fiedeler et al. 2004)

Early stage of development

Along with the diversity found in the techniques within NT, diversity is also found in the stages of development of these techniques. Some simple applications like mixing of nanoparticles with the rubber have been used for many years. On the other hand, concepts of products like medical implants are still in the laboratories, others like nanorobots are just pure science fiction. (Fiedeler et al. 2004)

For techniques in their early stage of development, there is very little information about the techniques themselves as well as their possible interaction with environment, society and the human body. So any normative statements about impact of the techniques are not substantiated with adequate evidence and may hinder with the development progress. On the other hand, if there is no vigilance on how a technique unfolds itself with its impact on the society, it may be too late to take any 1 An interesting example can be referred to in Fiedeler et al. 2004, p.21

page 6

counteraction. TA has therefore the challenge to maintain a balance between being vigilant and being restrictive while assessing techniques in their early stage of development. (Fiedeler et al. 2004)

Debate about NT

As with other technologies like genetic engineering or nuclear energy, NT has also been the subject of debate even though not many products exist in market and the impact on the public is marginal. (Fiedeler et al. 2004)

Debate about a technique/technology can significantly influence its development and therefore requires TA to closely follow the debate in order to map the implications on other techniques within NT. It is also required on part of TA to follow the debate for providing neutral arguments to the involved parties to overcome any stalemate. (Fiedeler et al. 2004)

page 7

4. Roadmapping methodology

4.1 Introduction

In a literal sense, a “roadmap” is a map showing network of roads in a particular geographical location. It provides the traveler with information as to which route he should take to reach the desired destination. Without a roadmap, the traveler would either get lost, or at least would take more time to reach the destination. The importance of map is evident in a situation where 50 teams of 50 people are required to meet up at a destination and that none of them had been there before. Likewise, roadmaps used currently in context of engineering management are important to guide the teams to desired organisational objectives. (Peter 2007)

In the mid 1980s, Bob Galvin, the then CEO of Motorola felt the need to know what everyone was working on. His need was to have the information at a higher level and not in a detail sense, so that he can identify overlaps and potential problems. He initiated the idea that every function in the company should have a roadmap and that they should share their roadmap with others. This is how the roadmap concept came into existence in the field of engineering management. (Peter 2007)

Motorola has since then been using this concept for planning its technologies and products. With its success within Motorola, other corporations and organizations also started embedding the concept in their long-term planning process. Around mid-90’s, the academic world started investigating the claims of improvement through roadmapping process, and made it available to other organisations in a generalised sense for learning. (Peter 2007)

According to Robert Galvin (2001:803), “A roadmap is an extended look at the future of a chosen field of inquiry composed from the collective knowledge and imagination of the brightest drivers of change in that field (…). Roadmaps communicate visions, attract resources from business and government, stimulate investigations, and monitor progress. They become the inventory of possibilities for a particular field (…). In

page 8

engineering, the roadmapping process has so positively influenced public and industry officials that their questioning of support for fundamental technology support is muted.”

“RM describes the process of roadmap development. Lately, the term RM has become more common than the term roadmap because the first one focuses on the processing character of the roadmap development rather than on the result.” (Fiedeler et al. 2004:23). According to Kostoff and Schaller (2001:132), “the RM process provides a way to identify, evaluate and select strategic alternatives that can be used to achieve a desired science and technology objective.”

Compared to other well-developed planning and management processes like Portfolio Management, Stage Gate, Balanced Scorecard and so on, RM fills a niche that’s really not otherwise covered today. It looks at a company’s plans, the markets in which the company wants to be, and which products the company will sell in those markets, down to which technologies the company will be building/buying in order to offer those products – expressed on a time line. It provides a firm basis on which a company can start defining the future, today. (Peter 2007)

4.2 Types of roadmapping

Depending upon the subject under consideration, like product, technology, science and so on, several different types of roadmaps exist. Difference in roadmaps also exists depending upon the participating institutions like companies, consortia of enterprises, government departments, research laboratories and so on. (Fiedeler et al. 2004)

page 9

According to Kostoff and Schaller (2001:134), the variety of RM concepts can be classified as:

1. Product roadmaps (e.g., Motorola, Intel, and others);

2. Technology roadmaps 2 (e.g., aerospace, aluminum, etc.);

3. Industry roadmaps (e.g., SIA’s International Technology Roadmap for

semiconductors);

4. Cross-industry roadmaps (e.g., Industry Canada initiative);

5. Science/research roadmaps (e.g., science mapping);

6. Project/issue roadmaps (e.g., for project administration).

The first four types of roadmaps mentioned above are generally known as ‘technology roadmaps’, the only difference being the extent of the involved institutions from one company to whole industry of a country (Fiedeler et al. 2004). According to Fiedeler et al. (2004:23), technology RM is a “technology planning process to help identifying, selecting, and developing technology alternatives to satisfy a set of product needs in order to make the appropriate technology investment decisions.”

Science/research roadmaps are different from the first four types of roadmaps, in the sense that the institution involved in developing the roadmap is governmental research institute and not a commercial organization. Therefore, they face relatively less stringent economical constraints (Fiedeler et al. 2004). A science/research roadmap helps to obtain a well planned research agenda with a right mix of research activities.

The sixth type of roadmap, that is project/issue roadmap, is used to address issues like waste management or energy and water supply (Fiedeler et al. 2004). It identifies the issues and their consequences for project planning and budgeting. The outcome of the RM process serves as an input for the strategic plan, budgeting and detailed human resource planning. (Garcia and Bray 1997) 2 An exemplification of ‘Mobile phones technology roadmap’ can be seen in Appendix I.

page 10

Furthermore, according to Kostoff and Schaller (2001:134), based on taxonomical classification in applications–objectives space the above roadmap applications can be broadly classified as follows:

1. Science and technology (S&T) maps or roadmaps;

2. Industry technology roadmaps;

3. Corporate or product-technology roadmaps;

4. Product/portfolio management roadmaps.

4.3 Roadmapping process

4.3.1 Technology roadmapping process

According to Garcia and Bray (1997), a technology RM process consists of three phases. These three phases along with the steps involved in them are summarized as:

Phase I. Preliminary Activity

1. Satisfy essential conditions

2. Provide leadership/sponsorship

3. Define the scope and boundaries for the technology roadmap

Phase II. Development of the Technology Roadmap

1. Identify the “product” that will be the focus of the roadmap

2. Identify the critical system requirements and their targets

3. Specify the major technology areas

4. Specify the technology drivers and their targets

5. Identify technology alternatives and their time lines

6. Recommend the technology alternatives that should be pursued

7. Create the technology roadmap report

Phase III. Follow-up Activity

1. Critique and validate the roadmap

2. Develop an implementation plan

3. Review and update

page 11

The outcome of a technology RM process is a technology roadmap. With a subjective analysis of the process described above, it can be understood that by customization the same process can also be extended for generating science/research or project/issue roadmaps.

4.3.2 Roadmap construction approaches

According to Kostoff and Schaller (2001), two fundamental RM approaches can be employed to construct a roadmap – expert-based and computer-based. There also exists Hybrid approach, which stems from the idea of synergy between expert-based and computer-based approaches. These two approaches can be adopted in Phase II of the RM process described by Garcia and Bray (1997). Limited to the purpose of this paper, expert-based approach is briefly described as below:

Expert-based approach

In this approach, a team or teams of experts work to develop the roadmap. The appropriateness of expertise for the given roadmap can be verified only after a complete roadmap is constructed. This makes the roadmap development process essentially iterative. (Kostoff and Schaller 2001)

For large focused organization like government or corporate laboratory, the expertise mostly comes from within the organisation. On the other hand, for organisations lacking expertise in the overall roadmap theme per se, need to rely on external expertise. (Kostoff and Schaller 2001)

According to Kostoff and Schaller (2001:136), “the main focus of the expert-based approach is to draw on the knowledge and experience of the participants to subjectively identify the structural relationships within the network and specify the quantitative and qualitative attributes of the links and nodes.”

The development of Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA)’s roadmap demonstrates an expert-based approach. It involves participation by 12 different technology working groups (TWGs) in core disciplines including design, assembly

page 12

and packaging, lithography, etc. as well as cross-cut technology fields such as environment, safety, and health, etc. Further, these TWGs are staffed by a mixture of multinational personnel from industry, government, and academia to ensure a balance of expertise and views. (Kostoff and Schaller 2001)

Relating to the temporal aspects of the expert-based approach, it can be involved in either retrospective or prospective analyses. This means that the analysis can start at one point in time and then either evolve backward or forward on the time scale respectively. (Kostoff and Schaller 2001)

4.3.3 Retrospective & prospective analyses

Retrospective & prospective analyses were referred to in the expert-based approach earlier. From a temporal perspective, they are the two major variants of analyses that examine the science-technology-application evolution process. Furthermore, there exist combination retrospective-prospective roadmaps, which combine some historical development of a technology with a vision of where the technology is headed (Kostoff and Schaller 2001).

Retrospective analysis

The time frame in retrospective analysis is from past to present. There are two types of retrospective analysis depending upon the direction of analysis, that is analyzing from present to past or past to present. In the first type, analysis starts with a successful technology or system and traces backward to identify the critical R&D events, management decisions or other factors that led to the success. On the other hand, in second type the analysis starts with initial R&D funding and traces forward to identify the impacts of funding. (Kostoff and Schaller 2001)

Tracing backward is favored over tracing forward, since for the former data are easy to obtain. Also, the sponsors may not be interested in tracing forward an R&D funding which would have generated nothing concrete. (Kostoff and Schaller 2001)

page 13

Prospective analysis The time frame in prospective analysis is from present to future. There are again two main types of prospective analysis depending upon the direction of analysis, that is from future to present (requirements-pull prospective roadmaps) or from present to future (technology-push prospective roadmaps). In the first type, analysis starts with a desired product or technology in the future and works backward to fill the roadmap with intermediate objectives that need to be met in order to fulfill the end requirements. On the other hand, in second type the analysis starts with existing research projects and works forward to fill the roadmap with diversity of capabilities to which the research could lead. (Kostoff and Schaller 2001)

There are also intermediate technology-push/requirements-pull prospective roadmaps, that start with existing science or technology development programs which may be technology-driven or requirements-driven, and then identify both the research gaps which obstruct forward progress and the diversity of end products to which successful development could lead. (Kostoff and Schaller 2001)

4.4 Uses and Benefits of Roadmapping

In general, RM helps science and/or technology oriented organisations to structure complex interdependent processes and provides decision support for strategy building and planning. (Fleischer et al. 2005)

According to Fiedeler et al. (2004), the graphical representation in form of a roadmap serves as a communication tool for the whole company. It helps to:

• structure the investigation,

• foster informed discussion,

• express extensive and complex information into small space, and

• aiding the process of checking for consistency of the data.

page 14

According to Garcia and Bray (1997), technology roadmapping has following three major uses:

1. It helps to develop a consensus about a set of needs and the technologies

required to satisfy those needs.

2. It provides a mechanism to help experts forecast technology development in

targeted areas.

3. It provides a framework to help plan and coordinate technology within a

company.

Also, the benefit of technology roadmapping is that it provides information to help make better technology investment decisions. That is, decisions about R&D of which technologies need to be funded in order to achieve the desired product performance targets in future. An additional benefit is that a roadmap serves as a marketing tool to gain confidence of both sponsors as well as customers by portraying sustainable growth and innovative products in the future. (Garcia and Bray 1997)

Industry technology RM helps companies to collaboratively develop common technologies. And therefore, makes it possible for companies within an industry to reap the benefits of new technologies which otherwise are too expensive or take too long to be developed indigenously. It also helps to improve the overall competitiveness of the concerned industry. (Garcia and Bray 1997)

4.5 Impediments to effective roadmapping

According to Kostoff and Schaller (2001), “one of the most interesting research question that has arisen deals with determining and assessing quality and effectiveness of roadmapping processes and end products (roadmaps).” This means that the metrics of roadmap quality are currently unclear, and therefore it is not possible to assess as whether the roadmap developers are conservative or ambitious in their effort to develop the field as effectively as the current technological development can allow. (Kostoff and Schaller 2001)

page 15

In case of industry technology RM, the companies hope to benefit from the process of exchanging and sharing information about the upcoming problems and their possible solutions. However, this co-operation is only limited to information at a pre- competitive level preventing other participants to gain unfair competitive advantage. The fear of disseminating information which can be more worth than information that is going to be received from other participants, prevents a company from participating adequately in industry technology RM process. (Fiedeler et al. 2004)

page 16

5. Using Roadmapping in Nanotechnology assessment

5.1 Concept

The need for assessing NT and the underlying challenges were discussed earlier. It was also highlighted that the established tools of TA are not sufficient to handle the complexity involved in assessing NT and new approaches need to be sought out. The subject of interest is therefore, to discuss an approach which makes TA of NT possible.

Nanomaterials have considerable economic potential and nanomaterials-based products and processes are already in use for quite some time now. TA of nanomaterials needs to be done in two layers. The first one is assessment of the impacts of production of nanomaterials themselves and the second one is assessment of their use in context of existing or new products and processes. Existing TA- methods like ‘Life Cycle Analysis’ or ‘Material Flow Analysis’ used broadly in assessment of conventional materials technologies can be used for assessing the ecological and economic impacts of production of nanomaterials. However, assessment of the use of nanomaterials in existing or new contexts is rather complex and requires new approaches. The same is true for many other NT-related developments which are in their early phase of development. (Fleischer et al. 2005)

According to Fiedeler et al. (2004:23), “the pre-requisite to start with the assessment of a new technology is to know the context of use.” This implies that in order to perform TA of NT, it is required to connect research activities with possible applications. And this is what exactly RM is designed for. More specifically, harnessing industry RM concept to generate science/research roadmaps is the approach to connect basic or applied research activities in NT with possible applications.

In contrast to corporate RM where the participants are committed to the overall goal of company, in industry RM the participants are independent actors and have a

page 17

different source of commitment. They contribute to the RM process with the idea of benefiting from the outcome as a whole. Similarly, for industry RM concept when applied in the field of science and research, the benefit of the participants (that is, research institutes) is derived from sharing of interdisciplinary knowledge. (Fiedeler et al. 2004)

There is a difference in topic between use of RM in industry and the use within scientific field. In industry RM the focus is on connection between technology and demand in future. On the other hand, since most of the research activities in NT are in an early stage of development, the primary focus is on connection between research activities and their application knowledge. Only when the application knowledge of research activities is available, can RM focus on connection between application knowledge and future demand. This can be visualized in Fig. 1 (Fiedeler et al. 2004)

Like in industry RM, both requirements-pull- and technology-push- prospective analyses can be performed to connect ongoing research activities with application possibilities. The application possibilities here refer to the basic knowledge of how a given NT can be harnessed for some useful function and not to the end applications themselves, that is commercial products or processes.

Experience and knowledge accumulated so far in conducting industrial RM can readily be transferred to conduct RM for NT. For example, the institution entrusted for conducting RM in field of NT can make a study of SIA’s RM convention and map the learning about how to conduct such a convention to their own purpose. Also, learning obtained about organisational and team dynamics in such settings can help to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the mapped RM process.

In addition to the right procedure, it is important to have a right composition for the team performing RM for NT. The team should include not only developers and proponents of NT, but also implementers, users and potential customers of NT. This ensures that the information about connection of research activities with application possibilities and further with new products is specific and reliable. Also, in order to

page 18

take consideration of non-technical implications of NT-based future innovations, the team should also have experts from politics, sociology and other non-technical fields. (Fleischer et al. 2005)

Impediments to effective roadmapping also exist in scientific field. The fear of one’s concepts and ideas being taken up by other research institute, and thereby losing the leadership in that field daunts most of the researchers. Furthermore, being skeptic about the fruitfulness of discussion, the researchers see the process as a time wasting activity. Also, the difference in disciplinary languages used in different scientific communities could reduce the efficiency of the communication process. (Fiedeler et al 2004)

At the end, it has to be emphasized that RM is just a pre-requisite for conducting TA of NT, and that the outcome of RM process serves as input for subsequent steps involved in TA of a new technology.

5.2 Examining suitability of the concept

Having put forward the concept of using RM as a tool for the use for TA of NT, it is appropriate to examine the suitability of concept in context of challenges posed by NT:

Diversity of NT

According to Fiedeler et al. (2004:23), “the only way to deal with the diversity is to monitor all the developments in order to become alert for a sudden acceleration of the development and for concentration of activities in a special field of NT”. This means that the first task for TA will be to provide an overview of R&D activities taking place in NT, to structure them and finally monitor their progress. With sudden acceleration in development of a certain technique, the task then will be to concentrate more on that R&D field. RM process is then required to connect the research activities with possible applications in order to obtain the context of use.

page 19

Nanotechnology as enabling technology RM by itself cannot do much about the increased scope of work on part of TA due to NT being an enabling technology. However, attributed to its representational aspects it can provide the researchers with a good overview, and thereby avoiding confusion and fuzz.

Early stage of development

RM connects the research activities with application possibilities, and further with future products/processes. The pre-requisite for TA of NT is to know the context of use, and this justifies the usefulness of RM in NT assessment. It provides support for more informed decisions, thereby achieving balance between being restrictive and being vigilant.

Debate about NT

By including experts from politics and other non-technical fields into the team for RM at the very beginning of TA for NT, ensures that the persisting debates are channelized in shaping the technology rather than bringing a stalemate. Involvement of the representatives prevents public distrust and rejection at a later stage.

5.3 Benefits of using the concept

Fiedeler et al. (2004), summarizes the benefits of the RM concept for the use for TA of NT as follows:

1. The RM concept allows the combination of research activities with possible

applications which is a pre-requisite for TA. Especially within NT, there are a lot of research activities where possible applications are not clear or seem not to be realistic.

2. The inherent interdisciplinary character of NT fits very well to the design of the

RM process, which tend to include all perspectives a certain topic generates.

3. The aim of RM to foster informed discussion and to come up with a shared vision

of the future challenges is suitable to the communicative and meditative aspect of TA.

In addition to this, the rich discussions and exchanges of interdisciplinary knowledge that occurs during the RM process between the researchers widens the prospects of NT itself.

page 20

6. Conclusion

Heralded as a key technology for the 21 st century, it is believed that NT will have a

deep influence on the human life. There are great hopes among the researchers, industry representatives and policy makers with regards to the economic prosperity and well-being NT will contribute through the potential innovations. However, the prejudicial speculations about how NT may unfold itself have received broad media coverage and public awareness.

Decision- and policy-makers responsible intrinsically for shaping the technology have entrusted the task of providing decision-support to TA. Further, the pre-requisite for performing TA of a technology is to know the context of use. Most of the research activities falling under NT are in their early stage of development and therefore the context of use is not evident.

This paper was an attempt to discuss the use of RM in context of TA to connect the research activities in NT with possible applications. The framework required to put this concept into practice was also highlighted. It is important to understand that RM is a must-to-have tool for doing TA of NT, however, needs to be accompanied by other established tools of TA. Furthermore, RM is a kind of meta-method which means that it can include other detailed planning techniques within its framework. Also, it is interesting to know that application of RM in TA of NT can bring interdisciplinary learning and thereby increase the prospects of NT itself.

So far, the literature that exists on this topic is superficial and does not addresses the nitty-gritty involved in using RM as a tool in assessment of NT. The practical use of this concept is currently limited to only few areas of NT. It will be interesting to make a study of how SIA roadmap convention is conducted and map the learning to this concept. At the end, it is worth mentioning that RM is a general methodology and once established as TA-tool it can be used to assess similar emerging enabling technologies in future.

page 21

Figures

Appendix I: Exemplification of ‘Mobile phones technology roadmap’

References

• RAE. 2004. Science and applications [WWW document]. The Royal Academy of Engineering.

URL: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/report/chapter3.pdf [Accessed 27 Aug 2007].

• VDI Guidelines 3780. 2000. Technology Assessment Concepts and Foundations. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI) Guidelines 3780, September 2000, p.4.

• Bhushan, Bharat. 2004. Springer Handbook of Nanotechnology. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer Verlag.

• Braun, Ernest. 1987. Technology assessment in industry. International Journal of Technology Management, vol. 2, No. 3/4, p. 517.

• Fiedeler, Ulrich; Torsten Fleischer and Michael Decker. 2004. Roadmapping as TA-Tool: Pre-requisites and potential benefits for assessing Nanotechnology. EU- US Seminar: New Technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods- Seville 13-14 May 2004, p. 20-30.

• Fleischer, Torsten; Michael Decker and Ulrich Fiedeler. 2005. Assessing emerging technologies – Methodical challenges and the case of nanotechnologies. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 72, p. 1112-1121.

• Friesen, Esme. 2004. Big Future for a Small Technology [WWW document]. URL: http://www.galtglobalreview.com/newtech/big_future.html [Accessed 27 Aug 2007].

• Garcia, Marie L. and Olin H. Bray. 1997. Fundamentals of Technology Roadmapping. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM. SAND97-0665.

page 24

• Kostoff, Ronald N. and Robert R. Schaller. 2001. Science and Technology

Roadmaps. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 48, No.2, May 2001, p. 132-143.

• Peter. 2007. What is Roadmapping [WWW document].

URL: http://roadmapupdate.wordpress.com/tag/product-management/ [Accessed

28 August 2007].

• Robert Galvin. 1998. Science Roadmaps. Science, vol. 280, p.803.

page 25