Distributed Generation Technology Roadmap

Distributed Generation Roadmap

Distributed power generation (DG) provides flexible and potentially highly efficient energy solutions, and has already seen some market growth in areas like the United States.

With appropriate policy and developmental support, the DG market within the EU can be stimulated to provide a significant contribution to the resolution of future energy supply concerns within the EU.

A flourishing DG industry within the EU will also enable wealth creation and will generate significant employment benefits to the EU as a whole. However, no strategic plan or roadmap has yet been developed within the EU to assess the case for DG and to and implement appropriate courses of action to enable the European Union to realise the full technical and economic benefits of this technology.

This report therefore provides a review of the issues pertinent to DG within the EU, and proposes a series of actions that should be considered by the European Commission, Regulatory bodies, manufacturers and other stakeholders, with the ultimate goal of creating a thriving DG market and industry in the EU.

The actions and recommendations contained in this document fall into two main categories: (i) technical issues, and (ii) policy and economic issues.

For example, from the technical perspective, there is an urgent need to develop and implement a European Interconnection Standard for DG to ensure that DG schemes are treated fairly in terms of their interconnection requirements and potential impact on the host electricity network. Other important technical issues include the need for standardised DG certification and authorisation protocols, and the need for a co-ordinated EU approach towards DG system demonstration and performance.

To download the .pdf file of the example technology roadmap click the image of the front cover of the road map document.



Innovation Economics Roadmap Announcement

Innovation Economics is about to officially announce a major project conducted in collaboration with Government and major Public Sector Research Institutions.

The announcement, expected this week, will detail how Innovation Economics’ proprietary roadmap analytics technique will be deployed to aid faster, market-directed decision making at the very front end of the innovation process.

Te Media Release will be cross posted on this site as soon as the announcement is made.

 

Andrew Duff,
Managing Director



Roadmap Analytics: The New Path to Value

The combination of an increasingly complex world, the vast proliferation of data and the pressing need to stay ahead of the competition has sharpened the focus on analytics as a means of staying ahead. To help organizations understand the opportunity provided by information and advanced analytics, MIT Sloan Management Review partnered with the IBM Institute for Business Value to conduct a survey of nearly 3000 executives, managers and analysts working across more than 30 industries and 100 countries. This was published as a report Analytics: The New Path to Value.
Amongst the key findings: Top performing organisations use analytics five times more than lower performers.

Senior executives now want businesses to run on data-driven decisions. They want scenarios and simulations that provide immediate guidance on the best actions to take.

Top performers approach business operations differently from their peers. Specifically, they put analytics to use in the widest possible range of decisions, large and small. They were twice as likely to use insights to guide day to day operations. They made decisions based on rigorous analysis at more than double the rate of lower performers.

With such emphatic confirmation of the value of analytics organisations may care to consider one class of analytics that is capable of transforming decisions in strategy and innovation. Roadmap analytic distils the insights available within existing roadmap documents an prepares them to support innovation investment decisions.

The report is available via this link.



Innovation Leadership By Example

The Holst Centre is an independent open-innovation research and development centre that generates new Wireless Autonomous Sensor and Flexible Electronics technology platforms. A key feature of Holst Centre is its partnership model with industry and academia based around shared roadmaps and programs. It is the relationships generated through this cross-fertilization that enables Holst Centre to tailor its scientific strategy to industrial needs.

The Holst Centre was set up in 2005 by imec (Flanders, Belgium) and TNO (The Netherlands) with support from the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Government of Flanders. It is named after Gilles Holst, a Dutch pioneer in Research and Development and first director of Philips Research.

Located on High Tech Campus Eindhoven, Holst Centre benefits from the state-of-the-art on-site facilities. Holst Centre has over 150 employees from around 25 nationalities and a commitment from close to 30 industrial partners.

It has developed technology integration programs which see these technology platforms applied practically to target particular applications. The Holst Centre business model defined for open and collaborative  innovation is clear and simple with an exceptional graphic that communicates very effectively how IP for licensing, IP in co-ownership and IP owned exclusively by one of the innovation partners ought to be handled.

The example set by the Holst Centre in using Roadmaps to guide its partnering efforts is one that should be adopted far more widely, both by research centres and by business.



Roadmap Template – 10 Must Have Components

Technologyroadmap.net performs analytics on populations of existing roadmaps for the purposes of informing decision making in innovation. As a result, we have benefited from reviewing a very large number of  roadmap documents – seeing what works well and is most important.

As a result, our distillation of the components that should be included in a roadmap designed to enable well informed innovation investment decisions is as follows:

  1. introduction, intended audience and dominant perspective of the roadmap
  2. present status of the “space” using social, political, economic, sustainability and other indicators
  3. state of the art (description of technology/innovation platform/s and (tech and customer) metrics that define their performance)
  4. description of major drivers, trends and shifts impacting or that could impact the space
  5. characterization of how such changes are likely to manifest (anticipated scenarios) emphasizing the impact that the shifts will have on client/end user demand (and therefore how this may drive/reshape value appreciation for relevant products/services and define the major themes of innovation in the sector, into the future)
  6. limitations, problems, capability gaps, and practical difficulties/frustrations encountered in putting current and anticipated new solutions into practice from the customer as well as the supplier perspective – (section highlighting how these might prove especially problematic if scenario A or C becomes reality)
  7. definition of the major innovation theme(s) required to a) respond to shifts in client requirements b) overcome limitations/etc together with an assessment of relative importance/urgency
  8. for each theme, develop a statement(s) of “innovation progression” identifying major achievements across the time period judged to be relevant to the sector – commonly 15 to 30 years, sometimes out 50 years into the future
  9. unpack the projects and sub-projects required to bring each theme into reality and redefine (re-chunk) these work elements into related themes as discrete projects with defined performance metrics (some (near term) will be able to be specified in detail together with required performance metrics, others further out may be defined more qualitatively with target maturity levels over time
  10. summary of major themes and decision points designed to enable the next step in the process – the translation of prioritized projects into programs and projects with appropriate commitments of resources to bring them into being.

An approach like this enables the definition of requirements that anticipate the need for introduction of “paradigm shift”  solutions versus a simple linear progression of incremental performance advancement by the current dominant technology over time.

In our view roadmapping efforts would be significantly more useful if they devoted more attention to items 4, 5 and 6 above.

One of the benefits of assessing multiple roadmaps relevant to a particular industry or technology platform is that in the past it has been rare for any one document to contain each of these elements. However, by considering an array of relevant documents, written from different perspectives, the reader benefits by assembling a more comprehensive and cohesive view.



When “Build It and They Will Come” is Actually OK

Which Path: Track 1 or Track 2?

You know the old adage …  it goes something like ” build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.”

Its almost the first thing that gets said in every Commercialisation 101 talk that’s ever been heard.  …and its normally used to illustrate what not to do in taking a new concept to market.

We at Technologyroadmap.net routinely use a graphic like the one on the left to try and emphasise the merits of investing first in trying to understand more about the market dimensions of a problem before diving in and building a solution based on guesswork by the originator. We talk with clients about the merits of committing funds to a Track 2 approach (market risk reduction) versus a Track 1 approach (technology risk reduction) and why Track 2 is generally preferred.

There is, however, one very clear situation where actually translating your idea into a prototype first actually pays real dividends.

In essence, when building a minimalist solution can be done cost effectively and the purpose is to deploy it with actual customers to see how they respond to the offer – a real experiment is what I mean here.

This type of approach was illustrated very nicely in a recent article on MIT technology review – Trusting Data, Not Intuition. The article describes Amazon and Microsoft experimentation.

So, where you can experiment at low cost and directly with real end users, its actually preferable to conduct the experiment and base your decision on the merits of the idea on the outcome data – not intuition….  evidence-based decision making.



Innovation Strategy

… the evidence is mounting.

In the preface of his new book Permanent Innovation, Langdon Morris makes the following observations:

Many people believe (and I used to be one of them) that innovation starts with “ideas.” People, the common view holds, come up with ideas, and then they turn them into innovations. The managed innovation process was therefore assumed to begin with ideation.

After following this approach for some years ourselves we’ve found that it’s not an accurate description of how innovation actually happens, nor is it an effective guide for how it should be managed. Instead, the most successful innovators are those who begin from a strategic perspective, thinking broadly about their goals and the key trends in society and technology, in order to define their strategic intent. They then develop detailed models of risk and reward as it pertains to the uncertainty of innovation development, and all this gets translated into “innovation portfolios” of their innovation investments.

The design of this portfolio embodies a set of themes and goals, and also identifies many unknowns, or questions. The pursuit of answers to these questions is the purpose of research, and the output of research is then the input to ideation.

In this way, the innovation process is inherently strategically aligned, risk-managed, and goal-directed. And as you undoubtedly noticed, ideation is definitely not the beginning, it’s the middle, and hence the need to … reflect this more accurate and more useful understanding.

We agree.

Developing ideas without strategic intent is equivalent to adopting the “any road will get you there” approach.

More information about the extensive and highly credentialled writings of Langdon Morris is available via the InnovationLabs website.

More on our thoughts regarding innovation strategy is available here.



Roadmaps for Reducing Innovation Failure

Jeffrey Phillips makes an important contribution to our understanding of the innovation process by identifying the principal causes of innovation failure. In a recent post, he states that  innovations fail in the marketplace based on one or more of four key issues:

  1. Ideas don’t solve an important problem for a customer
  2. Ideas take too long to get to market/shifts in needs
  3. Ideas underfunded or poorly launched
  4. Ideas require too much work to adopt

One of the ways that a high quality technology roadmap identifies itself to its readers, is the extent to which it delivers insights that helps avoid these modes of failure. Lets take a look at the various aspects of roadmapping that help to minimise innovation failure. To assist you to visualise and apply such approaches to your own situation, I’ll include some examples drawn from existing roadmaps.

Important Problems

Timber Industry Innovation Priorities 2010

US Timber Industry Innovation Priorities

In a recently published roadmap the integrated timber and paper manufacturing industries in the US identified six important innovation themes. The clarity of communication was enhanced by using a graphic that depicts each of the priorities across the industry value chain and relates it to a chapter within the roadmap document.

Six broad priorities were identified:

  • reduce carbon emissions and energy consumption
  • reduce fresh water use by 50%
  • increase biomass supply
  • increase value from biomass
  • enable new products and new product features
  • increase recovery and recycling of wood products.

As you might expect, if you are developing a project and it happens to address one of these six priorities then there is likely to be a greater chance that a business in the timber industry will actually sit up and listen.

However, by analysing other material within the roadmap, even more detailed guidance is available. For each of these six priority areas, several top priority R&D needs were described.  Lets pick the first priority and focus on energy consumption.

Energy sources typically constitute the third largest cost component for the forest products industry. Overall, the industry is the third most energy intensive industry after petroleum and chemicals. The roadmap states that since 2002, energy input from renewable sources has grown to 64 percent, and fossil fuel usage has declined. To continue this trend, almost all fossil fuel consumption in integrated pulp and paper mills can be eliminated through the development of new process technologies, the adoption of best available technologies and by using renewable fuels from biorefineries integrated with pulp mills.

As a result, the industry has identified four top priority R&D needs related to achieving its energy efficiency priorities:

  1. Generate Power and Energy More Efficiently with 25% Lower GHG Emissions
  2. Reduce Energy Intensity in Manufacturing by 25%
  3. Eliminate Use of Fossil Fuels
  4. Reduce CO2 Emissions with Novel Mill-Based Capture Techniques
R&D Need Example

R&D Need - click on image for full size

The roadmap supplies further details and several layers of metrics identifying desired performance targets through what it terms “pathway maps”. Each pathway map presents seven perspectives about the Priority R&D Need:

  1. a detailed description of the R&D need
  2. current “state of the art” in technology and knowledge
  3. end state specifications for the kind of technology solutions effective R&D should ultimately lead to
  4. key knowledge and/or technology advancements required
  5. impacts on industry/society that can be used to justify funding
  6. anticipated barriers
  7. additional information that might be helpful.

As logic suggests, if you are developing a project that promotes energy efficiency, you are likely to gain some traction with the timber industry since this is amongst their top six innovation priorities. However, if your energy efficiency project can be directly mapped to achievement of reducing black liquor concentration by 50% (as defined in the R&D Need example) and your project is able to meet the metrics defined in the End State Specifications for the Technology Solution then your industry representative is likely to snap to attention and roll out the red carpet. You have successfully connected with an important problem!

So the important take away from this discussion is that if you are an innovator it is possible to review roadmap documents to seek out detailed information about specific problems for which customers are actively seeking solutions.

Missing the Window of Opportunity

Technology Needs - click to access full size

All opportunities are time related and innovation opportunities are no different. Roadmaps address this issue by putting performance metrics against time scales. Often, as is the case with the example to the left, this is presented graphically with particular technology achievement targets arrayed across multiple three year time windows into the future. If you have developed a project and want to understand how timely it is from an industry’s perspective then all you need to do is review the roadmap timeline.

A well founded roadmap also assists the reader to understand shifts in needs – whether a window of opportunity is opening or about to be slammed shut!  To achieve this, a roadmap includes scenarios – rich textured stories about the circumstances under which a major change is, or is likely to, become apparent and the effects that the shifts brought about by the change will deliver. Reviewing scenarios and identifying the implications for the demand for your product or service  can help minimise the likelihood of a project being scuttled by an unexpected shift in customer need.

Underfunding; Poorly Launched:

If an innovator clearly understands the nature of the client problems, appreciates the complication and barriers to implementation and has a clear perspective on the timing of the window of opportunity then the project has a great deal of information that can be used to establish its budget. The absence of such information contributes the expected surprises that commonly leads to underfunding.

Roadmaps can also assist new product launches. Often the organisation responsible for orchestrating the roadmap preparation maintains links with all those organisations and individuals that contributed to the development of the roadmap and these links may be able to be used to promote the development of solutions called for by the roadmap. Roadmap documents commonly list the contributors and organisation affiliations of those involved in preparing the roadmap.

Adoption Dynamics Misunderstood:

Appreciating Barriers to Adoption

Requiring too much work to adopt is equivalent to saying that the “solution” has been developed without factoring in the commercial and practical limitations or complications that must be routinely dealt with by industry. For instance, continuing with our energy consumption example, in the Waste Heat recovery Technology Roadmap numerous barriers impact the economy and effectiveness of heat recovery equipment and impede their wider installation. Many of these barriers are interrelated and can generally be categorised as related to cost, scale of solution, temperature restrictions, chemical composition of materials, application specifics, and inaccessibility/transportability of heat sources. Unless these limitations are understood and factored into a proposed solution, the risk is that the solution will not meet the customers needs effectively. The table “Appreciating Barriers …” communicates very succinctly the key issues and potential solutions.

Concluding Remarks

The issue at hand here, is that by considering some of the fundamental points of roadmapping practice – and by looking at roadmaps that already exist in your industry space – you are well on the way to avoiding these missteps in innovation practice. Unfortunately, as in the case illustrated above, it is uncommon to find that each individual roadmap includes every one of the important innovation risk reduction insights. Therefore, as illustrated in this case, there is much to be gained from reviewing the population of roadmaps relevant to your innovation space. By looking at several roadmap documents, you can harvest and then connect the insights to give you a thorough appreciation of the innovation realities operating in the target space .

Geoffrey Phillips’ four key issues for innovation failure help to illustrate one angle on the value to be gained by preparing for innovation.  We have written more about this here.



Rail Technology Roadmap

The Technology Roadmap Library presently contains 124 documents connecting with rail or technologies associated with rail.

For instance several roadmaps are specifically about rail, rail systems and rail technologies. Others are written from a logistics or energy efficiency in transport perspective. Further roadmaps deal with the use of particular technologies in rail-related uses – light metals, for instance.

If you were going to lead the preparation of a roadmap for rail, would it be a roadmap or several roadmaps? For how many domains of rail expertise is a specific roadmap required versus others where several related areas of investigation might be bundled?  Is one overarching roadmap going to be able to generate the right balance of depth and diversity of insight adequate to deliver the required outcomes?

There might be clear indicators of what the principal strengths are within your region. For example, over the last five years Australian authors generated approaching 5% of the 2,400 rail related journal articles published globally. This ranked Australia seventh in terms of the total number of articles produced, behind US, UK, China, Italy, Germany and Japan. How do you get a clearer picture of whether strengths are stand-alone or whether local capability competes head-on with several other clusters of expertise all jostling for acceptance?

In the event that you were considering proposing technology performance targets as means of streamlining workshop conversations or sparking discussion about specific innovation requirements (eg very efficient light electric vehicles with consumption max of between 0.07 and 0.25 kWh/km by 2015 depending on battery technology and electricity source) then harvesting information about such targets from existing roadmap documents could provide a very efficient means of beginning to define relevant performance metrics.

A significant part of the answer to these and other critical questions can be gained by not reinventing the wheel. Consulting the existing roadmap documents points expressly to the capabilities and domains receiving investment and attention in other jurisdictions.

Whether you want to see all rail related roadmaps, the top 10 or just the three most relevant to your roadmapping effort, if you would care to explore the merits of accessing the roadmap library, we would be pleased to assist.



The Future Foretold by Patent Analytics

Well drafted patents can help to protect intellectual property, but patent documents and the information they contain can also be put to other important uses.  By identifying the patterns of activity in a defined field of patenting and studying relationships between patent documents (bibliometrics)  important knowledge can be uncovered. In particular, knowledge that is critical to the crafting high quality technology roadmaps.

If you want to develop a roadmap that is based more on evidence and facts rather than just on well-meaning opinion, then incorporating bibliometric analysis into the preparation phase of your roadmapping effort is likely to significantly enhance your roadmapping results.

Bibliometric analysis is a form of over the horizon radar for technology roadmapping.

There is often a delay between when a patent is first filed and when new products or services are offered for sale in open commercial markets. Given this, patent activity can be an important indicator of the development of new technological capabilities and the impending introduction of new products. Of course, not every patent leads to a new product or service introduction. By cross linking bibliometric data to other indicators and seeking measures of the quality of new discoveries, judgements can be made about the importance of the discoveries disclosed patent documents.

Bibliometric analysis can also be applied in similar ways to journal article publication data.  Citations referencing other articles plays an important role in indicating the highest quality knowledge advancements. This mechanism is also exploited in patent analytics.

If you are keen to support your roadmapping effort with high quality data that allows you to develop a global picture of new and impending developments don’t wait to see new product or service offering announced in your local trade magazine. Bibliometric analysis of patents and journal articles can make a very important contribution to the quality of your roadmapping efforts and give you an over the horizon radar that assists you to assemble evidence about new capabilities likely to be introduced to the market in the short and medium term.



Strategic Inspiration and Technology Roadmapping

Innovation is a hot topic, but alarming statistics surround its practice. As many as nine out of ten projects founder. There is no denying that innovation is challenging, however, such failure rates are amplified to these truly outrageous proportions in organisations that default to the “innovation by chance” mode.

Innovation-by-chance allows random influences to impact on an organisation’s innovation processes, to occasionally and randomly result in an innovation outcome. When such “influences” occur they elicit innovation responses of variable quality and organisations usually don’t know how to deal with them. Under such circumstances it is truly an inevitable surprise when innovation performance turns out to be worse than patchy.

We can do significantly better than this lacklustre norm by deliberately managing innovation stimuli and the contexts in which they are applied. In our problem solving and future seeking activities the concept of strategic inspiration can help maximise the potential for success.

Developing a structured imagination about the future helps organisations to outflank the limitations set by the thinking that attends constant improvement and incremental advances. Strategic inspiration can provide a catalyst for breakthrough innovation. A fresh stimulus can provide the impetus to think in imaginative and unusual ways required to crystallise the beginnings of new combinations and breakthrough innovation concepts.

Ecouraging strategic inspiration requires a process that includes the opportunity for rich conversations between people with information about at least three things:

  • changes impacting current and future markets
  • information about future capabilities (or technologies) and gaps in those capabilities
  • information about future markets

A roadmapping process is one way of structuring the conversations and documenting the distilled insights to highlight the most important innovation stimuli for the future of your organisation.