Schimpfheubach13 rndmgtconf the wisdom of technology experts final

The wisdom of technology experts: a collaborative and IT supported approach to monitoring technological developments Dr. Sven Schimpf1, Dr. Daniel Heubach2 1

Competence Center R&D Management, Fraunhofer IAO / IAT University of Stuttgart, Nobelstrasse 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany. Sven.Schimpf@iao.fraunhofer.de 2

Alfred Kärcher GmbH & Co. KG,

Alfred-Kärcher-Str. 28-40, 71364 Winnenden, Germany. Daniel.Heubach@de.kaercher.com RND2013

Abstract This paper presents a new approach to monitoring technological developments within industrial organisations based on three dimensions that aim at an improved integration of the know-how of technology experts. The first of these dimensions covers a structured approach to defining relevant technology fields. The second concerns organisational roles and responsibilities that support employees in the monitoring of technologies. Finally, third dimension is the implementation of a collaborative IT tool based on a semantically enhanced wiki-system. The approach presented is tested and validated by a case study on Alfred Kärcher GmbH & Co. KG.

Keywords: Technology Monitoring, Technology Intelligence, R&D Planning, R&D Process, R&D methods, Social Software, Web 2.0

1

Schimpf, S. & Heubach, D. (2013). The wisdom of technology experts: a collaborative and IT supported approach to monitoring technological developments. Proceedings of the R&D

Management Conference 2013, Manchester, UK, June 25th to 28th

Introduction and Motivation Technological development continuously influences R&D activities by providing new ways of achieving business objectives, by altering these objectives or rendering them obsolete (Martino, 1993, p. 251). The omnipresence of technologies in today’s society makes technological development a concern not only for high-tech companies but also for sectors that are traditionally not technology-oriented (Sywottek, 2006, p. 62). As a result, it is of utmost importance for most companies to continuously monitor developments in the fields of those technologies that are currently applied in the company’s products, processes or services.

Similarly, companies need to monitor developments in complementing, integrative or substitutive technological fields (Spath & Warschat, 2008). Increasing technological complexity, increasingly shorter technological life-cycles, globally distributed technological competencies and other recent developments add to the difficulty of monitoring technological developments.

A major challenge in technology monitoring is the identification of those technologies and developments that are of importance to current and future business. This requires a precise definition of relevant technology fields in order to avoid information overflow. At the same time, companies need to be careful not to miss relevant developments on a broader level. It follows that companies need to consider future developments not only on a technological level but also within markets, looking at functional requirements and substitutes. Another challenge is the availability of information on technologies for technology planning and decision making.

The aim of this paper is to present the current state of development in collaborative technology monitoring. This involves the integration of methods for technology monitoring, organisational structures and collaborative IT tools. The resulting decentralised, expert based approach allows for a considerable improvement in technology monitoring in industrial organisations. The approach is subsequently illustrated by a practical example in the paper.

Objectives and Research Methodology The objectives of the work presented in this paper are threefold. The first objective concerns the creation of a methodology able to respond to the majority of recent requirements 2

regarding the identification of relevant technology fields for technology monitoring and evaluation. The second objective is the integration of technology monitoring into business organisations, capitalising on the knowledge of existing technology experts and possibly consulting external resources. The third objective is the development of an IT tool that provides a framework supporting different stakeholders in their tasks of technology monitoring.

To reach these objectives, the authors benefited from previous work within this field (Schimpf & Lang-Koetz, 2008; Schimpf, 2008, 2010a; Spath, Schimpf, & Lang-Koetz, 2010) as well as from literature regarding related approaches such as the Technology Radar (Spath et al., 2010; Spath, Warschat, & Ardilio, 2011), Technology Roadmapping (Laube, 2008; Martin Moehrle, Ralf Isenmann, 2013; Phaal, Farrukh, & Probert, 2010) and general approaches of Technology Intelligence (Lichtenthaler, 2000; Savioz, 2003). Regarding the IT tools considered for supporting the decentralised approach, we refer principally to the area of Social Software and Web 2.0 (Koch & Richter, 2008) tools within business organisations.

Due to practical reasons we have focused on the enhancement and application of open source solutions. The work presented here was carried out during the “SyncTech – Synchronised Technology Adaptation”1 project. The requirements for technology monitoring were identified and validated in semi-structured interviews with representatives of the four companies involved in the project. In addition, methodologies, organisational models and tools developed in the context of the project are continuously tested and validated. Within this paper, the case of the company Kärcher2, which is one of the companies involved in the Synctech project, is described in more detail.

1

“Synctech – synchronised technology adaptation” (www.synctech‐innovation.com), funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research.

2

The company Alfred Kärcher GmbH & Co. KG is referred to as Kärcher within this paper.

3

The paper is structured into two main parts: First, the description of the scientific development carried out to reach the objectives. Second, the presentation of the Kärcher case, which is then followed by the conclusions reached for both parts through the work conducted.

A collaborative and IT supported approach to monitoring technological developments Technology monitoring can be generally defined in two ways. A narrow definition differentiates between technology monitoring and technology scouting. It defines the process of monitoring as the identification of technologies in a defined field, which is also referred to as an inside-out process (Savioz, 2003, p. 54f). In a wider definition technology monitoring integrates specified and unspecified technology fields (Porter, Roper, Mason, Rossini, & Wiederholt, 1991, p. 114). Since this definition is in line with the observation that monitoring in specified and unspecified technology fields is related to common personal and organisational structures, it is used as a basis for this paper. Thus, the focus of this paper is on specified technology fields that are relevant to the business organisation. They are complemented by input from unspecified technology field, which are considered either on a strategic, or an operational level.

Despite knowing that linear processes only seldom appear in practical technology monitoring, a common understanding of relevant process phases is required to model interdisciplinary organisational structures and to distribute necessary activities between different stakeholders.

In literature, models for technology monitoring vary from three to up to eight phases (see Schimpf, 2010a, p. 40). Based on the analysis of the participating companies, two major phases of technology monitoring have been identified as a common basis for further development within the SyncTech project: (1) Technology Identification and (2) Technology Evaluation and Selection. These phases are an integral part of technology adaptation and closely interlinked with the resulting strategic decisions (see Figure 1).

4

Technology Identification Technology development Product development Process development

Technology Evaluation and Selection : Process or process phase

: Process flow

Figure 1: Generalised process of technology monitoring within organisational technology adaptation.

This process is supported by three dimensions: A pre-requisite is the definition of relevant technology fields. This needs to be followed by the entrenchment of technology monitoring into the organisational structure, which is a major success factor. Finally, support through information technology is a major enabler that facilitates the documentation and sharing of relevant information on technological developments to support decision making. These dimensions are described in more detail in the following paragraphs.

A Pre-requisite to effective Technology Monitoring: The Definition of relevant Technology Fields For the monitoring of technologies to be specific enough to add value to technology planning, a range of technology fields has to be defined previous to the identification of specific technologies. The selection of technology fields for the technology monitoring process needs to occur on two levels (Schimpf, 2010b, p. 89f), the operational and the strategic level. The most important level, the operational level, looks at relevant technology fields based on the current state of technology utilisation within the organisation. This has to include those technology fields from which technologies are applied in today’s products, processes and services, reflecting the current technological competences of the organisation. A common 5

classification used on the operational level is a classification based on functions that reflect the requirements of current customers. This classification may be supported by methods such as the function analysis (VDI-Society Product and Process Engineering, 1996), the technological decomposition (Bullinger & Seidel, 1994, p. 154) or the house of technology (Kröll, 2007, p. 75f; Schimpf, 2010b, p. 94f). Regarding the strategic level, those technology fields need to be selected that are able to fulfil the requirements that arise through the strategic planning process (Schimpf, 2010b, p. 95f). Both levels need to be brought together to create the guiding framework for technology monitoring.

In the context of the project, the need for a flexible structure arose as a major requirement for successful technology monitoring. This flexible structure needs to allow for the definition of technology fields related to functions as well as to other factors, which may, e.g., include technological principals or specific characteristics of a technology field. Furthermore, the methodology should enable a flexible allocation of technologies to a changing number of technology fields. Thus, some technologies might be allocated to none of the defined technology fields within the organisation, while others might be allocated to a multitude.

Ensuring continuous Technology Monitoring: Entrenchment into the Organisational Structure When technology monitoring is entrenched into the organisational structure, one of the most critical factors to success is the level of acceptance and understanding of the involved stakeholders, particularly of experts with specific technological know-how (see also Savioz, 2003, p. 251). Experts within this paper are defined as individuals who possess specific knowledge on technologies or their application (Hauschildt, 1997, p. 7). The organisational integration of technology monitoring is usually differentiated into (1) centralised technology monitoring in which a central department is responsible for the monitoring of technological developments and (2) decentralised technology monitoring in which technological developments are monitored within different departments, generally related to the departments function or thematic focus (Lichtenthaler, 2000, p. 257f). A strictly centralised technology monitoring approach is frequently adopted in large corporations. In most companies, however, only coordination activities related to technology monitoring are 6

covered within a central department (Lichtenthaler, 2000, p. 262). Thus the approach adopted within the SyncTech project is a combination of the two, with a focus on decentralised technology monitoring and the involvement of experts from different departments of the organisation. In this context, the allocation of specific resources and responsibilities for technologies was identified as crucial as it prevents the process from being viewed as a supplementary activity.

A Technology Wiki: IT-Support through the Semantic MediaWiki Recent developments in information and communication technologies as well as in their useracceptance could considerably change the way knowledge-based work is defined. Especially in the area of social software systems, which already find widespread application in private life, much potential lies in their successful integration into the IT landscape of business environments (Gouthier & Hippner, 2008, p. 92). Following the concept of social software supported technology monitoring (see also Schimpf, 2008, 2010b, 2010c), the approach applied within the Synctech project involves the enhancement of a technology repository using the open source software Semantic Mediawiki. Based on the principles of the Encyclopaedia Wikipedia3, the Semantic Mediawikia complements the unstructured collaborative editing environment through semantic functionalities (for more information see: Krötzsch, Vrandecic, & Völkel, 2006).

3

http://www.wikipedia.org

7

Technology Field Technology is part of technology field

Technology Criterion describes technology

Criterion : Template / Form

: Semantic relationship

Figure 2 : Semantic relationships in the Semantic MediaWiki applied to technology monitoring

Beyond linking one page to another, the kind of relationship between two technologies can be specified in detail in the Semantic MediaWiki. In addition, evaluation as well as classification criteria can be set up in a structured manner (see Figure 2). When using IT for technology monitoring, a major challenge lies in the appropriate level of detail that can be shared without breaching intellectual property rights.

The challenges faced within each of these three dimensions will be looked at in greater detail in the following case study on the German company Kärcher: The case of Alfred Kärcher GmbH & Co. KG: A collaborative and IT supported approach to monitoring cleaning technologies Kärcher is the world’s leading provider of cleaning technology systems, cleaning technology products and services for recreation, household, trade and industry by means of quality and technology. Its products enable customers to solve their cleaning tasks in an economical and

8

environmentally-friendly way.4 In the case of Kärcher, the main research focus during the SyncTech project was on developing an improved technology monitoring consistent with its current decentralised organisational structure. The focus of Kärcher’s technology monitoring is on the development of technologies and their integration into products and services.

The Definition of Technology Fields: The example of cleaning technologies Kärcher started off with the decomposition of its products into technology fields based on the main functions that need to be fulfilled. These functions were subsequently broken down into more detailed functionalities or technological principles that provide the basis for the identification and evaluation of specific technologies. One of the most relevant fields for Kärcher within this structure is cleaning technologies. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the field that goes beyond the internal company view, the field was structured according to the standard on cleaning technologies based on the DIN 8592 (DIN, 2003) from the German Institute for Standardisation5 (see Figure 3).

Cleaning

Abrasive blast cleaning

Mechanical cleaning

Fluidic cleaning

…

Compressed air blasting

Wet compressed air blasting

Solvent cleaning

Thermal cleaning

…

…

…

Sludge blasting

Compressed fluid blasting

Steam blasting

Centrifuge blasting

Figure 3 : Decomposition of technology fields by technological principles, exemplified by cleaning technologies categorised in line with the German standard DIN 8592 (DIN, 2003)

4

See also http://www.kaercher.com

5

See also http://www.din.de

9

Depending on the level of complexity of the technology field, responsibilities are allocated either on the technology field level or on the level of single technologies within a technology field.

Organisational Entrenchment: A combination of centralised and decentralised structures New technologies are identified and evaluated based on multiple activities. Among others, these activities involve technology program planning, evaluation of external inventions or concept evaluation in pre-development phases. The process is centrally coordinated by the technology and innovation management department. A major part of the technology monitoring at Kärcher, however, is carried out at a decentralised level by technology experts within the company. Tools that are applied are, e.g., a regular technology newsletter and regularly updated detailed descriptions and presentations of each technology field. A major success factor is the explicit allocation of resources to tasks carried out in the process of technology monitoring. Responsibilities are therefore allocated to the different roles necessary for technology monitoring, which is referred to as Technology Radar at Kärcher (see Table 1).

10

Table 1: Roles, associated tasks and characteristics of technology monitoring at Kärcher

Role

Associated tasks and characteristics

Technology Radar (TR)‐Teams

• • • •

TR‐Steering Board

• Definition of technology fields and strategic orientation • Management level • „Gate” for successive activities at Kärcher (e.g. technology development)

Technology Board

• High‐level decision making

TR Coordinator

• Strategic coordination and support of TR‐Teams • Interface management • Further development of the TR‐System

Kärcher Developer

• Content user

Gate keeping Composed according to technological focus areas in the search field Interdisciplinary internal teams Responsible for technology monitoring

These roles have already been established in selected departments and will be implemented on a wider organisational level.

A prototypical realisation of a Technology Wiki for cleaning technologies To test user experience and user acceptance of people involved in technology monitoring regarding a technology repository, the Semantic MediaWiki was adapted to serve as a technology wiki at Kärcher. For the development of the prototype, the field of cleaning technologies was chosen as a starting point. The prototype features three main categories for the description of each technology. In the first category, the underlying technological principles are described, including a categorisation according to current product groups. In the second category, the technology’s relevance for Kärcher is evaluated based on pre-defined criteria. The final category features information sources and contact details so that the user can gather more detailed information on current and future developments. These categories, which are only editable via a restricted-access form (see Figure 4), are complemented by a free editing environment in which unstructured information as well as additional material can be stored.

11

Figure 4: IT prototype based on the Semantic MediaWiki in « read » (left) and « edit with form » mode (right)

The realisation of the IT prototype based on the Semantic MediaWiki allowed for (positive) feedback from employees involved in technology monitoring. Furthermore, it laid the foundation for the implementation of a Wiki-based technology repository in support of the collaborative and expert based Technology Radar System at Kärcher.

Conclusion To sum up, implementing the three dimensions that support the technology monitoring process as outlined in this paper can considerably improve the identification and evaluation of technologies as well as the selection of technologies that are of importance to current and future business. They can considerably improve technology monitoring in industrial organisations by providing a more precise specification of the search field, defining specific roles for technology monitoring and allowing for a structured collection of relevant information on an appropriate level in a collaborative and expert based technology repository.

The insights gained from the case study on Kärcher show that the involvement and the motivation of employees is the most important success factor in implementing such an approach.

More research, however, is needed to validate the benefits gained by implementing a collaborative and IT supported approach to monitoring technological developments, 12

especially in comparison to other systems for technology planning and monitoring. The next step of the SyncTech project is to extend the technology repository based on the Semantic MediaWiki towards additional semantic search functionalities that enable a partially automated information gathering.

References Bullinger, H.-J., & Seidel, U. A. (1994). Einführung in das Technologiemanagement.

Modelle, Methoden, Praxisbeispiele. Stuttgart: Teubner.

DIN. (2003). DIN 8592:2003-09 Fertigungsverfahren Reinigen - Einordnung, Unterteilung, Begriffe. Berlin: Beuth Verlag.

Gouthier, M. H. J., & Hippner, H. (2008). Web 2.0-Anwendungen als Corporate Social Software. In B. Hall, G. Walsh, & T. Kilian (Eds.), Web 2.0: Neue Perspektiven für Marketing und Medien (pp. 91–100). Berlin: Springer.

Hauschildt, J. (1997). Innovationsmanagement. München: Vahlen.

Koch, M., & Richter, A. (2008). Enterprise 2.0: Planung, Einführung und erfolgreicher Einsatz von Social Software in Unternehmen. München: Oldenbourg.

Kröll, M. (2007). Methode zur Technologiebewertung für eine ergebnisorientierte Produktentwicklung. Universität Stuttgart.

Krötzsch, M., Vrandecic, D., & Völkel, M. (2006). Semantic Media Wiki. In I. F. Cruz, S. Decker, D. Allemang, C. Preist, D. Schwabe, P. Mika, M. Uschold, et al. (Eds.), The Semantic Web - ISWC 2006, 5th International Semantic Web Conference (pp. 935–942).

Athens, GA, USA: Springer.

Laube, T. (2008). Methodik des interorganisationalen Technologietransfers. Ein TechnologieRoadmap-basiertes Verfahren für kleine und mittlere technologieorientierte Unternehmen. University of Stuttgart.

Lichtenthaler, E. (2000). Organisation der Technology Intelligence - Eine empirische Untersuchung der Technologiefrühaufklärung in technologieintensiven Grossunternehmen. Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich.

Martin Moehrle, Ralf Isenmann, R. P. (2013). Technology Roadmapping for Strategy and Innovation. Berlin: Springer.

Martino, J. P. (1993). Technological forecasting for decision making. New York: McGrawHill.

Phaal, R., Farrukh, C., & Probert, D. (2010). Roadmapping for strategy and innovation: aligning technology and markets in a dynamic world. Roadmapping for strategy and innovation: aligning technology and markets in a dynamic world. IfM Centre for Technology Management.

Porter, A. L., Roper, A. T., Mason, T. W., Rossini, F. A., & Wiederholt, B. J. (1991).

Forecasting and Management of Technology. New York: Wiley.

Savioz, P. (2003). Technology intelligence Concept design and implementation in technology based SMEs. Gordonsville: Palgrave Macmillan.

13

Schimpf, S. (2008). Technologiemonitoring 2.0 - Social Software Systeme als Instrument zur Identifikation und Bewertung von Technologie-Optionen im Unternehmen. In J. Gausemeier (Ed.), Vorausschau und Technologieplanung - 4. Symposium für Vorausschau und Technologieplanung (pp. 163–174). Paderborn: Heinz Nixdorf Institut.

Schimpf, S. (2010a). Social software-supported technology monitoring for custom-built products. University of Stuttgart.

Schimpf, S. (2010b). Social Software-Supported Technology Monitoring for Custom-Built Products. University of Stuttgart.

Schimpf, S. (2010c). Decentralised and continuous monitoring of technologies: a social software supported methodology for the construction sector. In I. Wallis, L. Bilan, & M. Smith (Eds.), Industrialised, integrated and intelligent construction solutions – Handbook 3 (pp. 17–22). Bracknell: I3CON/BSRIA. Schimpf, S., & Lang-Koetz, C. (2008). Social Software for Uncertainty Reduction in R&D Programme Planning for Custom-Built Products. Proceedings of the R&D Management Conference. Ottawa, Canada.

Spath, D., Schimpf, S., & Lang-Koetz, C. (2010). Technologiemonitoring: Technologien identifzieren, beobachten und bewerten. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.

Spath, D., & Warschat, J. (2008). Innovation durch neue Technologien. In H.-J. Bullinger (Ed.), Fokus Technologie. Chancen erkennen, Leistungen entwickeln (pp. 1–12).

München: Hanser.

Spath, D., Warschat, J., & Ardilio, A. (2011). Technologiemanagement: Radar für Erfolg.

Ludwigsburg: LOG_X. Sywottek, C. (2006). Die große Sortiermaschine. McKinsey Wissen, 15, 62–67.

VDI-Society Product and Process Engineering. (1996). VDI 2803: Function analysis Fundamentals and method. Düsseldorf: Beuth Verlag.

14