Institute of Technology and Society

http://www.tu-harburg.de/tbg/

A SEMINAR PAPER ON

ROADMAPPING: NEW TA-TOOL REQUIRED

FOR ASSESSING NANOTECHNOLOGY

SUBMITTED BY

As part of requirements of the course on

MAHIPAT RANAWAT

METHODS OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

M.Sc. in International Prod. Mgmt.

Summer Semester 2007

No. of Pages / Words: 21 / 5665

Hamburg, 31 August 2007

---

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

4.1 Introduction 08

4.2 Types of roadmapping 09

4.3 Roadmapping process 11

4.3.1 Technology roadmapping process 11

4.3.2 Roadmapping construction approaches 12

4.3.3 Retrospective & prospective analyses 13

4.4 Uses and benefits of roadmapping 14

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 21st 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 21st 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 21st 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 separately1. 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 roadmaps2 (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 applications­objectives 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 21st 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

Fig. 1: In addition to connection between technology and future demand like in industry RM, at first

RM in scientific field requires connection between research activities and application knowledge.

(Image source: Fiedeler et al. 2004)

page 22

---

Appendix I: Exemplification of `Mobile phones technology roadmap′

(Courtesy: Dr. Cornelius Herstatt; http://www.tuhh.de/tim)

page 23

---

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

---