application of technology roadmaps to governmental innovation policy for promoting technology...

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 61–79

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

Application of technology roadmaps to governmental innovation policy for promoting technology convergenceYuko Yasunaga a, Masayoshi Watanabe b, Motoki Korenaga c,⁎a Gas Safety Division, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, 1-3-1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8901, Japanb Machine Parts and Tooling Industries Office, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, 1-3-1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8901, Japanc Industrial Machinery Division & Robot Industry Office, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, 1-3-1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8901, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 11 October 2007Received in revised form 1 April 2008 Accepted 26 June 2008

Keywords: Technology roadmap RoadmappingTechnology convergence

1. Introduction

The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan has actively involved itself in technology roadmapping in recent years in order to build a broad discussion basis for researchers and business-oriented people in academia, industry and government. This unique attempt is not fully tested in the context whether the “public sector's roadmaps” are viable for promoting innovation and for building tight collaborative relationships between different sectors. However, the authors have been widening the application of roadmapping activities from classical R&D management to new ways of promoting technology convergence, in which the Japanese R&D community is said to be not so accustomed. This paper depicts the governmental agency's objectives, activity details and ways of applications of technology roadmaps and roadmapping. The authors' intention is not only to introduce this kind of governmental activity to the MOT world, but rather to ignite discussions on the usefulness and effectiveness of technology roadmaps and roadmapping in a wide range of knowledge sharing.

© 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

In the field of technology management, development and utilization of technology roadmap has been discussed in the recent 20 years. After the introduction of the Motorola's attempt by Willyard and McClees [1] regarding the company's “product- technology roadmap” and “emerging technology roadmap”, technology roadmap is frequently referred and studied as a “management tool” in R&D, product development, and various communication process among wide range of stakeholders.

The function of technology roadmap is most eloquently characterized in the popular definition of Branscomb [2] as “a consensus articulation of scientifically informed vision of attractive technology futures”. In line with the concept depicted as above, a number of researches are made mainly from the private company's perspectives. Those views are typically reflected, for example, as 1) “lay-out” of a specific technology's direction (Meyer [3]), 2) “linchpin” management tool (Radnor and Probert [4]), 3) tool for “consensus building”, “technology forecasting” and “planning and coordination” (Bray and Garcia [5]), and 4) roadmapping process as “decision making” and its nature of intra-organizational load-sharing mechanism (Kappel [6]).

Phaal et al. [7] proposed a practical approach in technology roadmapping for industry users as “T-Plan” and he also points out the unique characteristic of technology roadmap to be composed of “architecture of knowledge”. Similar observations are made by Yasunaga and Yoon [8] to propose technology roadmap's necessary components as “time frame”, “forecast”, “relationship illustration (among technology, product and market), and “bird's-eye view” for strategic uses.

Those studies are mainly based on private companies' experiences. Of course, technology roadmaps are actively used by governmental organizations and the authors have been firmly convinced that it is useful for national technology policy. However, it

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Korenaga).

0040-1625/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2008.06.004

Y. Yasunaga et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 3seems that the number of studies on governmental activities regarding technology roadmapping and its use are relatively small. The authors have been building an international network regarding governmental roadmapping activities in the United States (DOE, NIH, etc.) and European countries such as the United Kingdom and made comparative study on the role and methodology of development and usage of technology roadmap [9] in a preliminary phase.

The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan (hereinafter, METI) has actively involved itself in technology roadmapping since 2003. The authors are the core officials to promote this unique attempt. This paper illustrates the objectives, structure, development methodologies and application of the roadmaps. As is stated in the later part of this paper, the authors are not in a position to treat a technology roadmap as a “magic wand” of the innovation mechanism. However, many people in the R&D community in Japan have become aware of its usefulness and effectiveness if it is properly developed and used.

The authors' original intention of this paper is not only to introduce these kinds of governmental activities to the MOT world, rather to ignite discussions on the usefulness and effectiveness of technology roadmaps and roadmapping in a wide range of knowledge sharing.

2. Why did METI begin roadmapping?

2.1. METI's dilemma in technology policy in the beginning of this century

The basic ideas in the field of technology policy of the Japanese government is not so peculiar, and is in fact rather simple: 1) to develop institutional schemes to help the market mechanism work in pursuing new technology to boost our economy, 2) to supply governmental research funds into the “pre-competitive” area without harming competition among private companies, and 3) to actively seek “potential research seeds” for future leading industries and promote academia-industry collaboration for economic development.

In the 1990s, the so-called “the lost decade” of Japan's economy, a number of large private companies had to cut R&D expenditures and personnel that resulted in the (maybe) short-term business upturn and long-term competitiveness downturn. Along with this change in industry, METI's technology policy also changed its priority to more “application-oriented” industrial technology, which resulted in short-sighted R&D support. However, the recent economic upturn has revealed that private companies that invested their resources more into “challenging” technology, or sometimes “basic” research, but with clear future “vision” are becoming more competitive and innovative; examples include Toyota, Canon, Toray, Sharp and Nihon Zeon.

This phenomenon seems to be clear evidence to show that long-term R&D is an engine for sustainable growth, and the authors think that it is important for governmental policy to provide more support for private company that conduct “challenging” or “future-business oriented” R&D activities that are accompanied with persuasive illustrations of future commercialization. As is often the case, long-term R&D tends to be the first “restructured” portion of a private company's expenditure to boost its short-term profitability.

With this thought, METI's technology policy in recent years again put its emphasis more on basic and challenging technologies, but those accompanying clear future visions. We have a common evaluation of past technology policies that the “age of basic research” in the 1980s to the early 1990s, which is often said not to have been productive for governmental R&D, not because the shift to basic research itself was inappropriate but because our definition of the goal of the basic research was too vague. Therefore we decided to develop our technology roadmaps in various areas in order to illustrate future industry opportunities and reasonable ways for technology to be developed. We call the roadmaps “Strategic Technology Roadmaps (hereinafter, STR)”.

2.2. Objectives of development of technology roadmaps by the government

The objectives of the STR and the objective of making STR should be identified in careful paraphrasing. METI defines the objectives of the STR as follows:1.) to enhance public understanding by providing an explanation of the perspectives, details, and future

achievements of METI's (future & on-going) R&D investments with STR,2.) to help people in the R&D community understand future market trends, prioritize critical technology, and build

“commonunderstandings” for planning and implementing R&D projects, and

3.) to promote cross-sector (academia-industry, among different industries, etc.) alliances, to stimulate interdisciplinary technology convergences and to call for coordinating other relevant policies.These objectives are expected to collectively work different economic agents such as academia, industry and

public sector to enhance Japan's competitiveness.As defined by Galvin [10], the authors find that the process of making STR is a highly valuable tool for nurturing

communication in various ways: 1) among researchers, 2) between researchers and businesspersons, 3) among different players in value chains, and 4) between scientists and engineers, etc. We also found that STR is often referred in the discussion process of actual R&D projects in many ways, not only for evaluating the progress of specific projects (“ahead” or “behind”), but also for discussing future expansion of applications, etc.

In any case, our original intention was to develop a common “soft infrastructure” for many kinds of people to discuss problems,opportunities and ways of resolution in connection to specific technologies in a visible form.

6 Y. Yasunaga et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change

2.3. Differences in objectives compared to private sector roadmaps

The authors also conducted intensive discussions with colleagues and with industry people on the differences in objectives of technology roadmaps. Typical FAQs (frequently asked questions) and our relevant answers concerning these discussions are depicted below. We expect that these points might also be argued about in other governments and other entities if they were to conduct similar activities and we of course would like to receive such feedback.[Q1] In the case of “governmental” roadmaps, the goal (or final product) cannot be clearly defined since we are

not engaged in actual business nor manufacturing activities. How can METI define its own goals of our roadmaps?

[A1] We may set our own goal by formulating the “common understanding (or common visions)” through intensive discussions with business people and researchers in academia. That shall function as goals even if a concrete product image is not illustrated.

[Q2] METI's principle in industrial policy is basically to follow and exploit the market mechanism. Is there any risk of developing and maintaining our roadmap to lead to a misunderstanding from the private sector that METI would conduct policies not in line with the market mechanism?

[A2] METI is going to present a “reference case scenario” in a form of technology roadmap and that is a policy consistent with themarket mechanism. Many players (industry, academia, etc.) have perfect freedom in pursuit of their economic activities and at the same time they may interpret “government” roadmaps in their own way for their own strategies. In that sense, we shall stress that there are various ways to use roadmaps.

[Q3] Private sector roadmaps are in many case classified to outsiders, however, governmental roadmaps can only function if publicized. Our roadmaps can be seen by other country's governments and private sectors which are competing with Japanese companies. Shall we run a risk for those “outsiders” to be benefited by seeing our roadmaps?

[A3] Yes. We must broaden our partnership with every R&D partner domestically and even in some cases internationally. The advantage of publicizing roadmaps via the Internet is that it promotes more open innovation in the rather closed R&D community of Japan, and the advantage of this is perhaps greater than other possible disadvantages.

[Q4] Technology roadmaps function well in some sectors such as semiconductors, computers and automotive technologies, where the dominant design of the technology/product has been already established: however, we do not exactly know the appropriate methodologies to develop roadmaps in other areas like nanotechnology and materials technology. How can we solve the problem?

[A4] Simply, we must challenge that. We may know the variety of methodologies can be applied if type of technology changes.

That is also worth discussing in the context of MOT (Management of Technology).[Q5] Technology roadmaps are generally applicable for incremental innovations but not suitable for disruptive

innovations. How can METI promote both types of innovations with developing and using roadmaps?[A5] We must not jeopardize the potential of Japan's R&D community for disruptive innovation. Correctly developed

roadmaps reveal the limitation of a specific technology and necessity of breakthrough based on scientific data and insights. Such roadmaps can rather push the development new research methodologies and disruptive innovations. We must know the advantages and disadvantages of roadmaps and corresponding types of innovations.

[Q6] Most of the staff of the Japanese government are not science/technology experts. How can METI develop and maintain state- of-the-art technology roadmaps in a proper way and with the correct timing?

[A6] We need to obtain wider participation by academia, industry and other counterparts to develop technology roadmaps. If we continue to activate our human networks, governmental roadmaps are “living”. Our powerful partners, namely NEDO (New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization), Japan's largest R&D funding and management agency, and AIST (Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology), Japan's largest national laboratory, are reliable organizations to maintain the knowledge on state-of-the-art technologies.

[Q7] We need to know that bureaucratic interpretation of technology roadmaps often raises non-constructive discussions. How can we escape from such inflexibility?

[A7] We must recognize that risk. We must not say “we cannot take your proposal (simply) because your idea is not in line withour roadmaps.” New ideas come from everywhere regardless of whether they were on the existing roadmaps or not.

In a sense, the authors are not “roadmap crusaders” and tolerate infidels. We are always conscious about that there are neither “magic wands” nor almighty tools in innovation; on the other hand, we are firmly convinced that technology roadmaps and roadmapping are powerful tools if they are properly developed and used.

3. What are the METI's STR (strategic technology roadmaps)?

3.1. Basic structure of METI's STR

METI's STR has a unique characteristic in its structure. This is a “three-layer” structure shown in Fig. 1. However this is different from the most generally-accepted idea of an ordinary technology roadmap consisting of 3 or 4

Y. Yasunaga et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 5layers.An ordinary prototype has a “market”, “product”, “technology” and a “resource” layer and it seems to have been

commonly used since Phaal et al. [7] and other analysts' proposals. METI's STR has three layers; the top is a “dissemination scenario”, the second is the “technology overview (technology map)”, which does not have a time horizon, and the third is the “technology roadmap”. The


Fig.

1. S

truct

ure

of M

ETI's

stra

tegi

c te

chno

logy

road

map

(3-la

yer

stru

ctur

e).

Fig.

2. E

xam

ple

of th

e 3-

laye

r stru

ctur

e (r

obot

ics).

Y. Yasunaga et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 5

Fig.

3. E

xam

ple

of d

issem

inat

ion

scen

ario

(3R

— re

cycle

, reu

se,

redu

ce).


Y. Yasunaga et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 7reason why we have adopted this structure is because this roadmap is a governmental one to fulfill our policy objectives mentioned earlier. Fig. 2 is an example of the 3-layer structure of robotics.

METI develops STRs in 25 areas including: 1) semiconductors, 2) storage and solid-state memories, 3) computers, 4) networks,

5) IT usability (displays and human interfaces), 6) software, 7) drug discovery and medicine, 8) medical equipment, 9) recovery medicine, 10) cancer cures, 11) CO2 fixation and utilization, 12) countermeasures to chlorofluorocarbon emissions that damage the ozone layer, 13) chemical product management and countermeasures for toxic chemicals, 14) reduce, reuse and recycle, 15) energy (including energy conservation, renewable energy, fossil fuel utilization, hydrogen and fuel cells, nuclear energy, etc.),16) nanotechnology and materials, 17) robotics, 18) aeronautical and avionics, 19) space, 20) superconductivity, 21) MEMS (Micro Electronic Mechanical System), 22) green biotechnology, 23) human life, 24) manufacturing of components, and 25) fibers.

Those comprise almost all the technology areas that METI covers. The number of areas is expected to increase gradually.

3.2. Characteristics of each layer of the STR

3.2.1. Uniqueness of the top layer — dissemination scenariosThe top layer, “dissemination scenarios”, has unique characteristics and important functions. This layer functions

as a “linchpin” between R&D policy and other policy measures, as shown in Fig. 3. For example, the action plan of the deregulation program is defined in this layer to allow possible fruits from R&D (i.e., new genome-oriented

medicines) to be tested and commercially sold in the market within a reasonable time. In case of IT, the policy for broadband infrastructure development is defined. In the case of CO2 reductions, the policy for economic instruments

to implement the Kyoto Protocol is mentioned. In case of robotics, the policy for demonstrating state- of-the-art technology in everyday life and policy devices for the dissemination of robot technologies (such as safety codes of

conduct, and a new business model combining insurance and lease businesses, etc.) are illustrated in this layer together with a time horizon. Of course, bureaucracy does not everywhere allow the R&D side to define the time

horizon of other policy measures, however,METI believes this layer can be a tool for promoting policy dialogues with relevant counterparts to disseminate new technologies developed from our R&D programs.

3.2.2. How to specify prioritized technologies — role of the second layerThe second layer is a “technology overview (technology map)” in which various technologies are itemized and

(sometimes) marked if prioritized. This layer is prepared to portray the importance, urgency, application and relationships between different technology options.

However, such issues cannot be fully determined beforehand in the realities of an uncertain world, and priorities may drastically change if different applications are sought.

From this point of view, METI presents this layer as a “comprehensive shopping list” and expects that various players will puttheir own interpretations and priorities based on their specific business perspectives.

Fig. 4 shows the case for nanotechnology.

3.2.3. How to define the time horizon and required level of specification — the third layer: technology roadmap

How to define the time horizon of roadmaps is a crucial issue. As pointed out by Yasunaga [11] for the case of semiconductors, the “top runner” of a given industry or sector is tempted to go faster than the average player in the same industry. The time horizon of METI's roadmap reflects the “reference” case of industries, since it is defined from intensive discussions between industry, academia and other relevant people. In line with the Branscomb's [2] popular definition of a technology roadmap, METI's STR reflects the reference “vision” based on “consensus” views from the observations of stakeholders that are “scientifically” organized.

3.3. Difference in technologies and methodologies

Among the authors, when METI decided to develop its technology roadmaps, Yasunaga was a Director of NEDO (New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization), which is a R&D funding and project

management organization, and one of his roles was organizing proper task forces for developing roadmaps. He and his colleagues have experienced many practical Q&As and he reached his hypothesis empirically that different

types of methodologies must be applied to different types of technologies.Fig. 5 illustrates this idea. For the first category, represented by IT and robotics, the primary flow of the

roadmapping idea descends from the market, to the product and then to technology. We call this a “top-down” process.

For the second category, represented by materials technology and nanotechnology, the primary flow of the roadmapping idea is a “mixture” of ascending (from technology, to function, and then to value in the market) and descending (from value, to function, and then to technology). For this category, contrary to the first case, technology is a means to realize new products or services and is not limited for use in a couple of specific applications. For example, carbon nanotubes (hereinafter, CNTs) is one of the most promising nano-materials due to its wide range of potential applications. These include: large thermal conductivity, which is good for thermal dissipation components, high electron emission characteristics, which are good for flat panel displays, and a large

6 Y. Yasunaga et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change surface/volume ratio, which is suitable for catalyst supporting devices, etc. One technology has many applications and one application requires a number of technologies. In such a case, going up-and-down (or, back-and-forth) would be appropriate way of thinking.

For the third, represented by environmental technology, the primary flow of the roadmapping idea is the “top-down,” the sameas with the first case. However, it has a different implication. Let's take a look for the case of long-term environmental technology, such as coping with the issue of global warming. Here, the new market is hard to predict and a new “social framework” must be

Fig.

4. E

xam

ple

of te

chno

logy

ove

rvie

w

(nan

otec

hnol

ogy)

.



Fig. 5. 3 types of roadmapping methodologies corresponding to types of technologies.

designed prior to the discussion about new products or services that will be needed. Our interpretation about the flow for such a case is from an “image of the society to emerge”, to products or services, then to technology.

Of course, these categorizations may be oversimplified and, for all of the cases may, necessitate a “bi-directional” way (up- and-down or back-and-forth) of thinking instead of a one-directional way. This way of thinking is effectively introduced in the actual roadmapping procedures of various task forces.

4. How does METI develop roadmaps?

4.1. “Engagement” system

As discussed in the previous section, METI and NEDO collaboratively organized task forces corresponding to each category of technology.

What is most considered next is a way of “engagement” of stakeholders in task forces. Each task force has a couple of sub-working groups to cover the subcategories in an appropriate manner. The sub-groups consisted of 10–15 members, which include private companies, universities and public research institutes. In some cases, representatives from the user community join in.

We need to reshuffle the membership of the task forces with a view to broadening our “roadmapping” communities and putting new fresh input into the discussion. This procedure may proceed gradually in order to maintain the continuity of knowledge. This means that the roadmapping process is a knowledge sharing process.

4.2. “Rolling (updating)” scheme

As is stressed by Radnor [12], our technology roadmaps are regularly updated and we call the procedure “rolling”. Such “rolling” is conducted each year to reflect the progress of technologies and changes in research environment, however overall updating is done two-to-three year intervals and iteration resembles fine tuning.

This sort of “rolling” scheme works not only to keep our roadmaps “alive” but also to keep our roadmapping community “alive,”and so our channels with the private sector and academia are always kept open. More importantly, while this process imposes a workload on the relevant sections of METI, it is also considered as meaningful to educate younger staff to learn about roadmapping and technology policy.

The authors also took different approaches for each year's rolling procedures. At the first rolling procedure just after we devoted ourselves in developing STR, we stressed the importance of “utilization” of STR, especially in the “internal” discussions of METI. Then at the second year's rolling procedure, we shifted our focus from internal discussions to “external” ones among various R&D players including a broad range of private companies and universities. The third year's focus is to more exploit the methodologies of roadmapping (not roadmaps) for the promotion of convergence among different types of technologies, especially toward the sustainability of Japan's industry and society. This idea is illustrated in Fig. 6 and this idea is frequently referred to by Watanabe [13].


Fig. 6. Basic direction of METI's “rolling” policy of STR.

4.3. “Council” to supervise roadmapping methodology

The Japanese government often employs a “council”, or a tentative advisory board for discussing a new policy or change in the direction of existing policy. METI employs a specific council called the “R&D Policy Committee,” which was officially established a few years ago. The council meetings are held, on average, quarterly, and advisors mainly discuss or supervise the methodologies of our roadmapping. (Of course, the contents of the roadmaps are fully discussed beforehand in the task forces.)

This supervision scheme seems to work very effectively. The council procedure also serves as a “pace setting” vehicle and acts as an empowering device of METI's R&D policy.

METI also “synchronizes” the roadmapping process and its policy cycle, especially with its budget planning and implementation and review of its R&D program. This process is essential for stakeholders (both inside and outside METI) to coordinate their actions in relevant and timely ways. Of course, actual coordination should be further refined since this procedure has not been fully matured

Fig. 7. Annual policy planning procedure and STR.


among METI/NEDO staff. Prioritization and fine tuning of R&D project management based on “synchronicity” seems to be the key to success. Fig. 7 illustrates this idea.

5. How do the roadmaps work in R&D communities?

5.1. Dialogue with industry

The R&D division of METI often has the opportunity to exchange views with a number of private companies in a face-to-face manner on a wide range of issues related to innovation policy. In such dialogues, STR is often referred to, although each company's strategy is not in line with such a “consensus-based” roadmap. Through this conversation, METI recognizes each company's own strategy (i.e., “ahead” of the roadmap, “behind” the roadmap, or “off” the roadmap) and welcomes inputs from the business sector. STR is said to be a tool for communication as pointed by Galvin [10].

Such exchanges of views are also conducted with industry groups and such dialogue is helpful for formulating new policies. Of course, METI encounters various strategies of specific companies and learns their own views on roadmaps and roadmapping. We've found that almost 80% of Japan's private companies have their own technology roadmaps which are based on their internal discussions between their R&D and business sections. However, most of those roadmaps are short-sighted (typically with 3–5 year targets) and are not commonly shared by top corporate executives in an extensive manner. METI expects such communication employing STR will positively work for Japan's R&D community to build an appropriate balance between short-sighted and long- term R&D activities. Fig. 8 illustrates the idea.

5.2. Dialogue with academia — communication via Academic Roadmaps

The academic sector is generally considered negative toward roadmapping since a basic philosophy of this sector is that “research” is mainly conducted in an area in which serendipity works as a key to innovation and a “planned” way does not work effectively. The larger population of industries also thinks that roadmaps are more suitable for the areas in which the “dominant design” of a product is already established. However, a considerable number of researchers in the academic sector have begun to feel that technology roadmaps are helpful for finding new research topics that are promising from both the research point of views and are wanted by industries at the same time.

The authors hypothetically expect that, even in such areas close to science, technology roadmaps may work as a tool for finding new topics, for organizing new teams composed of cross-boundary researchers, and for exploring new applications of specific technologies. METI and a couple of academic associations including the Japan Society of Applied Physics, the Chemical Society of Japan, the Robotics Society of Japan, etc. have started cooperative activities to develop “Academic Roadmaps”. The characteristics of those roadmaps are quite different from METI's STR in the following ways:1.) Academic Roadmaps have longer time horizons, typically more than 20 years,2.) Academic Roadmaps have more flexibility in the direction of technology, in many cases, where many

alternatives are considered and described (in other words, not “single-line” roadmaps),3.) Academic Roadmaps have more freedom for different researchers to “interpret” then with a view to defining

different research topics based on their curiosity, and

Fig. 8. Basic concept of communications employing technology roadmap.


Fig. 9. Three different time horizons and each sector's roadmap.

4.) METI intentionally keeps a less-involved attitude towards the contents of Academic Roadmaps in order not to confine the

“freedom” of academia.In a sense, if Academic Roadmaps are completed, Japan's R&D community can refer to three different types of

technology roadmaps: 1) the roadmaps of private companies that typically have 3–5-year time horizons that typically target product development; 2) METI's STRs whose time horizon is 10–15 years covering pre-competitive technologies for the next generation, and 3) Academic Roadmaps whose time horizon is 20–30 years and is closely related to scientific progress.

These three categories of roadmaps are different in their objectives, authors and time horizons. However, every stakeholder can draw a number of implications and hints by connecting and comparing them. The authors strongly expect that this idea is working to “bridge the chasm” between science and technology, and between technology and business, where these chasms are the weak points of Japan's innovation mechanism. Figs. 9 and 10 also illustrate this idea.

5.3. Communication tool for private sectors

METI's STR reflects “reference” visions of various industrial technologies and the authors found that they are frequently used inside private companies (between laboratories and management side) and among different private companies. As mentioned earlier, STR's goal and time horizon may be different from the strategy of private companies; however a number of private

Fig. 10. Cooperative relationship between academic societies and METI.


Fig. 11. How METI's STR are used in private sectors.

companies compare the STR with their own roadmaps. In addition, some private companies have begun communicating using STRs as their reference. In addition, we have heard that some researchers use STRs to persuade their headquarters when requesting R&D resource allocations.

Fig. 11 illustrates the general situation of methods of utilization of METI's STR in Japan's private sector.Fig. 12 also shows that the use and application of STRs are widened and the involvement in STRs roadmapping

activities is continuingly becoming widespread.

5.4. Roadmaps as R&D management tools at NEDO

NEDO, the R&D funding and project management organization under the auspices of METI, is the body which operates task forces for roadmapping. NEDO utilizes roadmaps for its project management activities in the ways mentioned below.

The Information Technology Department of NEDO regularly holds an annual roadmapping committee to accomplish the following objectives:1.) to update the latest technology & research trends,2.) to review the current situation of R&D projects that NEDO manages,3.) to evaluate the necessity for amending the goals/memberships/schedules of R&D projects (i.e. altering targets,

adding/cutting budgets, reorganizing R&D teams, introducing new methodologies, etc.), and4.) to promote the application of the fruits of R&D projects (i.e. standardization, etc.).

The department operates its own PDCA cycle to promote higher R&D project quality. The Nanotechnology and Material Technology Department of NEDO has a unique.

R&D funding scheme called the “nanotech-challenge” program, in which “vertically-coordinated” alliances between differentcompanies with different business domains (please take note that our use of “vertically-integrated” has nothing to do with the structure referred to using the same term in many large manufacturing companies in Japan) and universities are strongly recommended. In this program, for example, a materials manufacturer, an electronic device manufacturer, an application-oriented

Fig. 12. Use and application of STRs and involvement in STRs development.


business and a university are all expected to ally. This scheme is designed not only to promote the application of nanotechnology into the actual market but also to promote the “flow of knowledge” along the value chain.

The New Energy Technology Department has its originality in the linkage between their roadmap and some policy targets (i.e. power generation costs, etc.) in numerical terms in the dissemination scenario in close communication

with METI and business sectors. The Biotechnology and Medical Technology Department takes a different approach to exploit the roadmaps. The section maintains a dialogue with hospitals, potential users and

beneficiaries of developed technology to update its strategy not only for R&D but also so that its voice is reflected in relevant legal regulations. The Environmental Technology Department is going to take a

similar path with regard to its 3R (recycle, reuse and reduce) policy.

6. Three experiments for new applications of technology roadmaps and roadmapping

6.1. “C-Plan” for promoting technology convergence

The authors, as many researchers do, evaluate that typically new frontiers of industry and technology tend to be built on the converging paths of previously discrete technologies. Yasunaga has often illustrated some empirical cases of innovations from such convergence such as MEMS (Micro-Electro Mechanical Systems, the convergence of mechanical devices and semiconductor manufacturing technology), bio-informatics (computer science and biotechnology) and mechatronics (mechanics and numeral control technology based on computing). Although the last example was considered to be born and developed in Japan (please take note that the terminology “mechatronics” was originally introduced by Japan's industrial robot manufacturer, Yasukawa Electric Works., Ltd.), many in the Japanese community believe that we are not so enthusiastic in converging different technologies and jumping into frontiers that have yet to be challenged by others.

Yasunaga [14] also analyzes that one simple reason why Japan's biotechnology seems to be evaluated as generally “behind” that of US and European countries can be attributed to the situation where Japan's R&D communities are “divided” and “isolated” from other fields, although our country has a very advanced science and technology potential if evaluated in an “item-by-item” way. Fig. 13illustrates this situation in which many divisions within science and business domains are found.

After the authors acknowledge that roadmapping procedure (NOT roadmaps) may be helpful in sharing knowledge among researchers with different academic backgrounds, METI has begun an experimental session to “converge” different technology areas. The experiment is conducted by the following procedure:1.) define a topic for the convergence (only broadly),2.) call a couple of researchers with different backgrounds for the session, 3.) exchange research papers of each researcher before the session,4.) assign a “coordinator” to lead and guide the discussion,

Fig. 13. Illustration of Japan's innovation mechanism (biotechnology).

Y. Yasunaga et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 75.) begin a session with a preliminary discussion about the “future wants” of consumers related to a specified topic

(and not get involved in a technology talk directly),6.) summarize the “future wants” discussion and define the essential and needed function of the system (in some

cases, also a business model) to be developed,7.) define the structure of the system then to divide it into appropriate subsystems and start technological discussion, 8.) intensively continue technological discussions for more details exploiting the “post-it” method on the white board, 9.) draw up roadmaps based on the discussion above, and

10.) conclude the session.The authors conducted the experiments for three cases in line with the abovementioned procedure and the

implications and materials from the sessions are summarized in a form of manual called “C-Plan” Guidebook (ver.2.0) edited by Watanabe (C represents “convergence”) which is downloadable [15]. While it has yet to gain widespread popularity, the authors have introduced this methodology to various research sectors. Fig. 14 illustrates the overall concept of the methodology.

After 2-year experiences through 3 case studies; 1) optical molecular imaging, 2) total engineering increasing quality of life as a balance between body and mind, and 3) nano-bio integration, the authors made interviews to the all 24 participants of the latter 2 cases. And the interviewees illustrated that they all felt the roadmapping activities worked as a trigger of convergence of among different technology areas [16,17].

6.2. “IS-Plan” for creating new business (especially for small and medium businesses)

As far as roadmapping is helpful for stakeholders to share knowledge and vision, it can also work also as a tool for new business creation. Such an idea has been applied by the authors commanding another experiment.

We call the “IS-Plan (IS represents “innovation strategy”)” and applied it to a regional cluster discussion. Regional clustersinvolve a number of small and medium-scale enterprises which have specific and unique competences and technologies in the markets they operate in. Such enterprises often seek new applications for their technologies. We employed a technology manager in the cluster as a key coordinator. The experiment was conducted in the following way:1.) assign a “coordinator” who has experience and know-how in collaboration and private company alliances,2.) call for a couple of small and medium enterprises who are interested in collaboration and alliances to create a new business, 3.) exchange information about the companies before sessions,

Fig. 14. How to promote technology convergence using roadmapping.


4.) begin the session with a preliminary discussion of “future business” and possibilities of each company's contribution to the business,

5.) define the business model and business structure with subsystems and start technological discussion,6.) intensively continue technological discussions for more details exploiting the “post-it” method on the white board,7.) draw up a technology roadmap and business plan based on the discussion above, (in this process METI's STR is

used for reference to help them decide their strategy) and8.) conclude the session.

This session will be followed by the participating companies' business-based coordination to define their action plan for collaborative R&D, finance, investment, production and marketing. We have not seen yet that this methodology really works for creating businesses; however we have conducted this experiment several times. We need more time to see whether this experiment will succeed or not, and we need to collect feedback from the participating companies to update this scheme. As mentioned above, this scheme seems to be more appropriate for a regional cluster policy since large companies in Japan equipped with a broad range of internal compe- tencies are not so aggressive about collaborating or alliances with other companies, and are even rather reluctant in some cases (Fig. 15).

6.3. Seeking “off-road” technology

Technology roadmaps inevitably reveal “off-road” technologies and there must be the crucially important ones. Ignorance of those technologies simply because they are not described on existing roadmaps must be avoided for promoting breakthroughs. Historically such “off-road” technologies often served as pathfinders where industry faced difficulty with an attitude of only applying the improvement of and combination of existing technologies. Bearing this in mind, NEDO is conducting a competitive grant especially for those types of “off-road” technologies. That grant is only applicable for convergence-type of research, which was neither examined in the past nor “on-road”. The scheme is expected to pick a challenging (sometimes bizarre) research topic, or a “future seed” from an industry point of view. This attempt just began in 2006 and NEDO and we have found some caveats from our narrow experiences. To choose a genuine “seed”, we need more “insightful” reviewers with a wider range of technological business backgrounds, and that is almost impossible.

Current NEDO reviewers include university researchers, R&D managers in corporate laboratories of large private companies and staff in public research organizations, which means that no other people are eligible. However, we feel there is further room for elaboration. In this sense, the issue is disparate from roadmap/roadmapping, but an important challenge for the promotion of innovation.

Fig. 15. Regional business creation and roadmapping.

Fig.

16.

Visu

al il

lust

ratio

n of

our

“fu

ture

life

” ba

sed

on

STRs

.



6.4. Promoting public acceptance of technology policy

Technology policy is sometimes said to be too professional and unfamiliar to the general public. STRs are fairly appealing to people engaged in R&D, however, we need to enhance public acceptance of our technology policy since the expenditures for R&D programs account for a considerably large amount of the national budget and this funding is still increasing despite the severe fiscal situation. Technology roadmaps can be summarized in a form of visual illustration to show our future life. METI distributes brochures containing such visual illustrations as can be seen in Fig. 16. This may work as education materials for junior high or high school students.

7. Conclusion

The authors have stated their objectives, structures, development methodologies and application methodology for METI's Strategic Technology Roadmaps. As stated in this article, METI's actions are formulated based on our hypotheses:1.) Technology roadmaps made by the Government's initiatives can work effectively as the “reference” scenario and

vision for private companies and universities,2.) Technology roadmaps can work to elaborate governmental R&D policy and can improve governmental R&D

project management if properly used,3.) Different types of technology require different types of methodologies to develop technology roadmaps,4.) Technology roadmaps can work as discussion materials for formulating relevant policy measures (i.e.

deregulation, tax incentives, financial support for penetration, etc.) in a timely manner,5.) Roadmapping is a powerful knowledge sharing tool and it is helpful for different technologies to converge and to

create new business models.These hypotheses are not yet proven and the authors want to explore these in deeper ways so as to further

elaborate our Government's innovation policy. We welcome any feedback from any stakeholders anywhere in the world.

References

[1] C.H. Willyard, C.W. McClees, Motorola's technology roadmap process, Res. Manage. 30 (5) (1987) 13–19. [2] L.M. Branscomb, Empowering Technology: Implementing a U.S. Policy, MIT Press, 1993.[3] J. Meyer, Technology roadmapping: an industry perspective, Presentation at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, October 1998.[4] D. Probert, M. Radnor, Technology roadmapping: frontier experiences from industry-academia consortia, Res. Technol. Manag. 42 (2) (2003) 27–30.[5] O.H. Bray, M.L. Garcia, Technology roadmapping: approaches, tools, and lessons learned, Presentation at the Technology Roadmap Workshop,

Washington DC: Office of Naval Research, October 1998, p. 38.[6] T.A. Kappel, Technology Roadmapping: An Evaluation. Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University (1998) 280.[7] R. Phaal, C. Farrukh, D. Probert, T-Plan: Fast Start. Technology Roadmapping: Planning Your Route to. Success, Institute for Manufacturing,

University of Cambridge, 2001.[8] Y. Yasunaga, T. Yoon, Technology Roadmap ~ Creation of New Industries Through Comprehensive and Analytical View on Technology-oriented

Knowledge, (Open Knowledge), 2006 (Japanese).[9] Y. Yasunaga, M. Watanabe, A. Yasuda, Study on technology roadmapping as a management tool for R&D, The Journal of Science Policy and

Research Management 21 (1) (2007) 117–128.[10] R. Galvin, Science roadmaps, Science, 280 (5365) (1998) 803.[11] Y. Yasunaga, Analysis on role and contribution of international technology roadmap for semiconductors for development of semiconductor industry, Technol.

Manage. J. (Oct. 2007) 44–53 (Japanese).[12] R. Michael, Speech by Radnor, Global Advanced Technology Innovation Consortium Seminar in Tokyo, Oct. 2003.[13] M. Watanabe, METI's New Challenges for R&D Management ~ METI's the STRM Enters the Third Round~, 99th Management of Technology

Session, The Japan Society for Science Policy and Research Management, June 2006.[14] Y. Yasunaga, Current status and tasks of japan's innovation process, Technol. Manage. J. (1) (Oct. 2006) 6 (Japanese).[15] M. Watanabe, T. Arai, Discussion Manual: Technology Roadmapping as an Approach to Promote Technology Fusion among Heterogeneous

Sectors, The R&D Subcommittee, The METI's Industrial Structure Council, July 2006.[16] Y. Yasunaga, M. Watanabe, M. Korenaga, Outline of the strategic technology roadmap of METI (Ministry of Trade and Industry of JAPAN) and

Trial Approach for Technology Convergence with the Methodology of Technology Roadmapping, Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology in Portland, Aug. 2007.

[17] The New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Case Studies on Convergence of Different Technology Areas with the Methodology of Technology Roadmapping, 2007.

Yuko Yasunaga joined the Ministry of International Trade and Industries in 1986 and has engaged in policy planning and implementation on 1) Basic industries, 2) Space industry, 3) Metal mining industry, 4) National oil stockpile management and Middle East analysis, 5) Semiconductor industry, 6) Remedy for Asian economic crisis, 7) Retail industry and consumer protection, 8) R&D program/management, and 9) Safety regulation of gas. His keen interests are innovation, R&D management and sustainability issue on industry/society. ME in Mining and Mineral Processing (Tokyo Univ., 1986). MS in Mineral Economics (Colorado School of Mines, 1993). PhD in Environmental and Oceanic Engineering (Tokyo Univ., 2006).

Masayoshi Watanabe joined the Ministry of International Trade and Industries in 1990 and has engaged in policy planning and implementation on 1) Industrial Science and Technology, 2) Iron industry, 3) Energy industry, 4) Machine parts and tooling, and 5) Monodzukuri. His keen interests are innovation, R&D management and Universal Design. ME in Mechanical Engineering (Tokyo Institute of Technology, 1988). MS in Mechanical Engineering (Tokyo Institute of Technology, 1990). PhD in Engineering (Tohoku Univ., 2005).

Y. Yasunaga et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 7Motoki Korenaga joined the Ministry of International Trade and Industries in 2000 and has engaged in policy planning and implementation on 1) Industrial Science and Technology, 2) Innovation and technological development, 3) Industrial machinery and robot industry, 4) Standards and conformity assessment, and 5) International trade and transport security. His keen interests are innovation, transition from science and technology to profit, and knowledge systems. Visiting Scholar (Stanford Uni., 2005–2006). ME in Electrical and Computer Engineering (Keio Uni., 2000). Master of Engineering Management (Duke Uni., 2005). PhD in Engineering (Keio Univ., 2004).

application of technology roadmaps to governmental innovation policy for promoting technology...

Documents