PICMET 2009

1,499 views

Published on

Technology Roadmapping (TRM) for TBK Biodiesel Commercialization in the US as presented at PICMET 2009. Slide presentation shows the connection between the theory and the application, a snapshot of the TRM process if you will.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,499
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
31
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The term “knowledge worker” was first developed in the book “Landmarks of Tomorrow” by Peter Druker, 1959 [17].TK=Tacit Knowledge, KT=Knowledge Transfer, TRM=planning process, VT=Virtual Teams
  • People must feel the opportunity exists to have their ideas be influential to the overall plan. Trust is imperative for building functional teams.
  • TRM is a process for knowledge workers TRM Helps to Create a Learning Organization by reinforcing the 5 critical skills required of its employees (a.k.a. “Knowledge Worker”).
  • In the reviewed work of Francine Gignac, Building Successful Virtual Teams [17] (2005), a very comprehensive argument for VTs is explained, and encapsulates very thoroughly the driving impetus behind VTs. The earliest reference of 1789 is “The Decree Abolishing the Feudal System” by J.H. Robinson. The Preface by Gignac begins…The “Argyris” theory by C. Argyris (HBR June,1991 and Sept.-Oct.,1992) contain information of the relevance of human emotion for the human learning process. … as much concerned with integration of different kinds of information as it is concerned with dissecting different kinds of information, so the information of human emotion (even from a nonscientific perspective) is viewed as being important to managing VTs, and is in fact critical to it. Gignac [17] purports that emotion, which may be characterized as impulsive, illogical, and non-scientific, is a key part of the overall learning process, very critical component in any team building process, and particularly for VTs. Old school mgmt. forcing human beings into “logical” systems which place technology before basic human needs are by their very nature illogical. “ We are now entering into an era of collaborative technologies”, states Gignac [17], and we will be interacting much more frequently with the use of technology, and much less frequently face-to-face. In fact it can be paraphrased that VTs are a modern necessity for human survival. In terms of building successful VTs what is required is a shift from the “industrial culture” to the “knowledge culture” [17]. This shift involves a continuation of the trend that started with the end of the feudal system in Western Europe, and which continues today with the ubiquitous distribution of knowledge across populations throughout the world using the today’s technology. The effect of more uniform distribution of knowledge is the ability of workers to make their own decisions about the work they do, thus organizational hierarchies are flattened, and, or are limited in their ability to remain effective structures of control. The onset of the “knowledge culture” is the result of lessons learned within the last 20 years from the application of nascent computer information systems that were deployed and were subsequently redesigned for more optimal functionality until the integration of Business-to-Business (B2B) back office systems, and Customer Relationship Management (CRM) front office systems occurred. B2B, CRM, and other e-commerce systems symbolize the incorporation of lessons learned from the prior Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) era (1996-2000) which preceded wide adoption of the Internet. With the integration of B2B, CRM, and other e-commerce systems that have applied best-practices learned from prior waves of innovation comes Gignac’s theory of “Ecollaboration”. The primary objective of “Ecollaboration” involves an organization whose primary objectives are to [17]: “ exchange”, “ communicate”, “ share”, and “ create information”; “ simplify teamwork”; and, “ improve collaboration”. “ Ecollaboration can also be defined as a working environment driven by collaborative technologies or the convergence of telecommunications and information technology. In other words, the collaborative environment offers an integration of the information contained in the ERP, B2B, CRM, and legacy systems; business warehouses; and repositories with asynchronous and synchronous communication facilities.” Figure 3 – The Ecollaboration enterprise model by Gignac [17].   The “Ecollaboration enterprise model” by Gignac [17] is a challenging transition for most companies to achieve and can create a lot of stress on employees without proper change management that includes provisions of integrating employee feedback into planned changes while moving toward systems that are concerned with managing specific kinds of real-time information gathering processes for internal and external clients. “ According to T.A. Pearson, chairman of the Measurement Quality Division at the American Society for Quality, “the goal of the Knowledge Revolution is to provide a new generation of real-time information systems that align more closely with overall organizational objectives while making the best use of technology to help everyone manage real-time operations more effectively. Now, a new Knowledge Theory offers ways to integrate information sources with automated knowledge machines and a knowledge supply chain to get the right information to the right people at the right time, insuring that everyone is empowered and aligned to add value to any enterprise” [1].” [17]   Thereby the “knowledge worker” may be well informed, and inform others in order to make simultaneous decisions about their respective work processes which have an integral and reciprocal effect on the team-based enterprise (VT); this includes clients, colleagues, vendors, etc., who make-up and surround the organization. Knowledge management by and for the “knowledge worker” is an intangible asset associated with intellectual capital having a sum value equal to the economic potential that exists between the enterprise’s applications to which the new or concentrated knowledge-types are applied. Intellectual capital, at least in part, resides in the minds of the knowledge workers, and in a tacit sense within the ongoing technical issues addressing the possibilities of realizing innovating advantages of organizational pursuits. Seven (7) knowledge types are used to harness and cultivate “knowledge management strategies” [17]: “ The know-what is associated with knowledge and facts.” “ The know-why refers to knowledge about the natural world, society, culture, and human mind.” “ The know-who targets the people who know what and who can do what.” “ Know-where contains knowledge of where the knowledge resides.” “ Know-when is concerned with the timing for getting and using knowledge.” “ Know-how refers to skills and competencies and the ability to do things in a practical way.” “ Know-how-to-be corresponds to social skills and the ability to interact and work with others.” Therefore the knowledge worker becomes a vital asset to the VT-oriented organization with respect to its information structures and functions. According to Gignac [17] Here Gignac [17] sites: “[1]Pearson, T.A., “Measurements and the Knowledge Revolution,” American Society for Quality, available at http://google.ca/search?q=cache:TWG148K5GFAC:www.measurementquality.org/papers/Pearson.doc+knowledge+revolution&hl=en&ie=UTF8 , June 11, 2002.”
  • WE MUST MAKE THE NOTION “smart people are pragmatic” SEEM EVEN MORE REDICULOUS!!! In their 2002 book, Leading Strategic Change, Breaking Through the Brain Barrier, J. Stewart Black and Hal B. Gregersen propose that a “movement barrier” exists that prevents people and enterprises from moving forward because “smart people don’t try new tricks.” At the University of Portland, we have come to understand this as a distinct barrier not just to innovation but especially in the context of achieving environmental sustainability. Successful people all learn to do things more proficiently over time in our professional lives. We increasingly become efficient, competent, good professors or mechanics or salespeople or architects. But today, where the funnel of simultaneously declining natural resources and increasing demand for materials changes the world around us, adaptability is the key. Our own competence can be a barrier to adaptability if we are not careful. As we are educated and increasingly practiced at our profession, we move from a condition of doing things poorly initially, to doing things well. Unfortunately, as the world changes, what once seemed to be “done well” gradually becomes recognized as the wrong thing to do. In terms of sustainability, many enterprises have become highly efficient at operating in an environmentally unsustainable fashion because of what is now recognized as their excessive energy use, or waste stream, or reliance on chemicals that we have gradually recognized as toxic. The challenge emerges as it becomes clear that we have to shift from what once counted as “done well” to an entirely new outcome. This new environmentally sustainable “done well”, whatever it means in specific terms for any organization, will involve new thoughts, new processes, new partners, and as with any new enterprise, the people in charge of it will not instantly become proficient in what they need to do. So, they need to voluntarily move from doing the environmentally wrong thing to do (“doing well” in an environmentally unsustainable process) to becoming beginners again in a better new thing (“doing badly” in an environmentally sustainable process). Only by passing through this learning stage can they eventually achieve the goal of doing well in an environmentally sustainable process. This transition is the barrier. No one, especially not smart and successful people, wants to move from proficiency to being a novice. In fact, the smarter and more skilled a person is, the more they will resist giving up something they are really good at. However no one can move to proficiency in a new venture without passing through a learning stage. It is a challenge (it may be hard to do, and temporarily reduce profitability), it can be scary (“what if I don’t manage to get good at this new thing?” “what if others are better at it than I will be?”), it may be really hard to convince colleagues that it is the right path (doing something with less proficiency may not look so good to people unconvinced of the need for change), and it is entirely necessary.Newsletter July 2009 The table below, which we have modified from Black and Gregersen’s book, is a visual representation of the challenge involved. Our education and experience has moved us up the right hand column, from doing the “old right thing” badly to doing the “old right thing” well. We need to voluntarily take the plunge to doing the “new right thing” badly at first, so that we can eventually learn to do the “new right thing” well. That is, unfortunately, the only way to move forward to a sustainable society. This process is a lot like diving into cold water, necessary but a bit of a shock. The Natural Step can help with the shock. In fact, although we probably don’t think of it in these terms, The Natural Step is about helping people recognize the new right thing and having the confidence to take the plunge. Education and experience has moved us all up the arrow to doing the “old right thing” well. The Natural Step can help us jump from there to doing the “new right thing” badly at first, and then eventually help us move up a parallel arrow to doing the “new right thing” well. As Tug McGraw, New York Mets relief pitcher said as the team moved from behind to the National League Pennant in 1973, “Ya Gotta Believe!”
  • Inputs at the outset are typically divergent, outputs from the process are intended to be convergent. Inputs=Divergent  Outputs=Convergent … but what kind of TRM Process?
  • This is a process which distinguishes between ETs (Emerging Technology) Roadmaps and Product Roadmaps Source: Garcia, Marie L., Bray, Olin H., Fundamentals of Technology Roadmapping, Strategic Business Development Department, 1997, pg. 17 Garcia (1997) describes TRM as being fundamental to technology planning in increasingly competitive areas of research and development. TRM’s benefits include improving investment decisions by identifying important technologies and technology gaps in uncertain environments when investment alternatives become too complex to predict. Garcia (1997) argues that in the past it has been the end product of the TRM process that has been the focus; the focus has been on developing the technology roadmap, the focus has not been the process used to derive the technology roadmap. So Garcia (1997) focuses on the TRM process itself so that it may be applied more ubiquitously and so that it may become an integral part of a larger planning process. Garcia lays out the following phases [x]: Preliminary Activity: satisfy essential conditions provide leadership/sponsorship define the scope and boundaries for the technology roadmap Technology Roadmapping: Identify the “product” that will be the focus of the roadmap identify the critical system requirements and their targets specify the major technology areas specify the technology drivers and their targets identify technology alternatives and their timelines recommend the technology alternatives that should be pursued create the technology roadmap report Follow-up activities: critique and validate the roadmap develop an implementation plan review and update   Garcia (1997) argues that TRM is conducted at two levels, industry or corporate, which require different amounts of time and resources. Both levels, though, have the same structure present in their roadmaps: needs, critical system requirements and targets, technology areas, technology drivers and targets, technology alternative, recommended alternatives or paths, and a roadmapping report.   Garcia also argues that there are different kinds of technology roadmaps driven by process or product needs. One type of roadmap is the “emerging technology roadmap” which differs fundamentally from “product” roadmaps in two ways: it lacks broader product emphasis, and it focuses on forecasting the development and commercialization of emerging technologies and describes the competitive position of the organization and how the organization may develop with the emerging technologies.
  • This per Robert Phaal of the Centre for Technology Management at Cambridge…. We used this for our Sustainable Biodiesel Technology Roadmaps….. More on the 7 types of knowledge categorized for cultivating knowledge management strategies (next slide)….
  • Seven (7) knowledge types cited by Gignac (2005) are used to harness and cultivate “knowledge management strategies” [17]: “ The know-what is associated with knowledge and facts.” “ The know-why refers to knowledge about the natural world, society, culture, and human mind.” “ The know-who targets the people who know what and who can do what.” “ Know-where contains knowledge of where the knowledge resides.” “ Know-when is concerned with the timing for getting and using knowledge.” “ Know-how refers to skills and competencies and the ability to do things in a practical way.” “ Know-how-to-be corresponds to social skills and the ability to interact and work with others.” Therefore the knowledge worker becomes a vital asset to the VT-oriented organization with respect to its information structures and functions. According to Gignac [17] Here Gignac [17] sites: “[1]Pearson, T.A., “Measurements and the Knowledge Revolution,” American Society for Quality, available at http://google.ca/search?q=cache:TWG148K5GFAC:www.measurementquality.org/papers/Pearson.doc+knowledge+revolution&hl=en&ie=UTF8 , June 11, 2002.”
  • KT=Knowledge Transfer TK=tacit knowledge KM=knowledge management
  • Ill now walk you through the process used in the paper and the major findings which were incorporated into the roadmaps found in the PICMET 2009 paper. Imitate then Innovate!!!!! This was the process used in the research conducted for this paper. The first go around of this process was the result of a student project, strongly influenced by my efforts to define a roadmap which would identify possibilities for achieving sustainable biodiesel production in the NW.
  • Note: production costs for Spirulina=$5000 per ton. This is at least an order of magnitude higher than economically, or GHG abatement process.
  • Current Market: 4000 to 5000 tons/yr. of microalgae biomass are produced globally mainly for human food supplements markets. Production costs > agricultural crops specialty markets are the only economically viable alternative, mainly the human food supplements market.
  • Figure 4 of paper…
  • Earth Magazine – February 2009
  • “ Some species of algae can produce as much oil in an area the size of a football-field end zone as a crop of soybeans planted on three entire football fields.” 4000 to 5000 tons of microalgae biomass are produced annually at facilities around the world mainly for human food supplements markets. Production costs are higher than agricultural crops so specialty markets are the only economically viable alternative, mainly the human food supplements market. Production costs for Spirulina with 1500 tons produced world-wide is estimated to be approximately $5000 per ton. This is at least an order of magnitude higher than what could be deemed economically feasible for any biodiesel production, or GHG abatement process. It should be noted that microalgae ponds are extensively used for wastewater treatment and that algal biomass is rarely is used. However, one exception is in Sunnyvale, California that has 440 acres of algal oxidation ponds which converts harvested biomass to methane fuel by anaerobic digestion and then generates electricity from the gas. Cyanotech, Inc. of Kona, Hawaii operates a small power plant on biodiesel produced from algal cultures, then uses the CO2 to produce more algae.  
  • We found it Critical to address: Feedstock variation over time Yield Optimization in Production Processes Proximity to markets Customer values & quality Eminent Technological Change Organizational attributes which max profit AND sustainability TT
  • Cultivation Technologies Oil Extraction Oil to Biodiesel
  • I have received feedback from a couple of sources regarding the paper and what it is setting forth… What has come of this is clearer objectives for tech. that may involved for producing sustainable biodiesel in the NW.
  • A TRM process like the one undergone for this work may be adapted to develop a multidimensional crossorganizational consensus around strategies for commercializing new products and services which will create competitive advantages enabled by emerging technologies. Such a process may include aspects of the following generalized procedures, benefits, and motivators for rolling out a customized TRM process: 1. Defining organizational TRM goals, 2. Technologically specific literature review and bibliometric/patent analysis, 3. Identifying market trends with respect to developing technologies and S&T knowledge domains, 4. Identifying potential market niches and new products and services options of highest value and potential, 5. System dynamics modeling of the production supply Chain/organizational information flows/mental models, 6. SWOT and GAP analysis, 7. Scenario planning - evaluating the impacts of changes in markets, feedstocks, potentially disruptive technologies, policy changes, regulatory actions, etc., 8. Identifying key technological solutions to be integrated/differentiated, 9. Defining Strategic R&D Options, 10. Selecting Technology Transfer (TT) partnerships, 11. Defining Strategic R&D Options for Selected TT Partnerships, 12. Identifying and exploiting technological gaps to be leveraged by core strengths creating new products/services, 13. Making sound recommendations to Governmental Agencies for Incouraging the commericalization of sustainable biodiesel production.
  • Morris, Jason C., Inoculating Against The Productivity Paradox , Portland State University, Engineering Technology Management, Course: Innovation Management, Professor Dr. C. Weber, PhD, Fall, 2005.
  • With regard to TT we have all the ingredients for innovation….they are:…
  • methanol is fossil derived (produced via oxidation of methane industrially, so classical biodiesel is NOT 100% green!
  • There are several chemical processes which produce “Ethyl Acetate” for use in producing TBK Biodiesel production.
  • Ethanol is produced by fermentation is primary feedstock Ethyl Acetate + UV --> CO 2 + H2O Weyerhaeuser and Chevron JV (cellulosic ethanol fm. Switchgrass)
  • February 2009
  • Incidentally we are focusing in the circled realm and expanding the roadmap for biodiesel (sustainable production of biodiesel)…
  • Problems with TRM present corresponding opportunities questions  answers Big Firms  Funding Disclosure  Communication and Reciprocity Fuzzy Implication  Further Resolution No Experts  Become Experts No Team  Develop Team
  • PICMET 2009

    1. 1. Working Toward Producing Sustainable Biodiesel in the Pacific Northwest: Analysis and Implementation Using the T-Plan Technology Roadmapping Approach <ul><li>PICMET 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>Andrew J. Blair, EIT, MS ETM </li></ul><ul><li>Blair Consulting, LLC </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>503-880-0126 </li></ul>
    2. 2. <ul><li>Technology Roadmapping (TRM) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How TRM fits into technology management: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Senge’s and Gignac’s ideas for knowledge workers and virtual teams; TK+KT  VT  TRM  JV which promote disruptive/emerging technologies for commercialization </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Brief overview of considerations for devo. a S. TRM Plan </li></ul><ul><ul><li>SNL, Cambridge “T-Plan”, student project + continuing research  “B-Plan” for TBK Biodiesel </li></ul></ul><ul><li>An applied TRM process (Student project  PICMET Paper): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Review of Sustainable Biodiesel TRM Paper </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>T-Plan as a basis for research objectives </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Technology Roadmaps </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Working TRM Planning Process for sustainability </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>New Info. / Feedback </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Ongoing work for TBK Biodiesel TRM </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion (Q&A) </li></ul>Presentation Overview PICMET 2009
    3. 3. Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization <ul><li>Deals with How Our Actions Create Our Reality and How We Can Change It </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Problem: People are not aware of how to learn to improve, so their organizations are unaware of how to improve. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>It’s a systemic problem. How do WE learn? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>No team starts out great. </li></ul><ul><li>Barriers to learning exist and are real. The biggest barrier is a lack of a positive VISION for the future, and how to get there. </li></ul><ul><li>The disciplines of learning are vital to individuals and their organizations. </li></ul><ul><li>There will be a transition away from authoritarian “controlling organizations” toward “learning organizations”. For this to occur mastery of the “disciplines of the learning organization” are most important. </li></ul>PICMET 2009
    4. 4. What is a “Learning Organization”? <ul><li>Innovative/Learning Organizations emerge when their employees master the 5 following things: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Personal Mastery </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mental Models </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Building Shared Vision </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Team Learning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Systems Thinking </li></ul></ul>PICMET 2009
    5. 5. How TRM fits into modern organizational management <ul><ul><li>Planning tool for managing inter-organizational adaptability: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Business Intelligence </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tacit Knowledge Management </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Collaborative Technologies </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>NPD processes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>R&D processes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Entrepreneurship </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Team Building </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>TT </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>x-integration (netorking) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ID’ing new partners/tech </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Synergy for Innovation </li></ul></ul></ul>PICMET 2009 The Ecollaboration Enterprise Model by Gignac (2005)
    6. 6. TRM and Sustainability <ul><li>What are guidelines for generating criteria for “sustainability”?: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Peter M. Senge, et al., “The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations Are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ There is no path forward that does not take into account the needs of future generations” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Institutions Matter” (impact of networks>>individual) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>NEED partnerships to leverage external and internal knowledge </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ All real change is grounded in new ways of thinking and perceiving” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them” (Einstein) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>3 areas of emphasis: food and water, energy and transportation, waste and toxicity  social entrepreneurship  TRM is a process for helping to “fix” these areas for long term sustainability. </li></ul></ul></ul>PICMET 2009
    7. 7. New Problem: Overcoming the “Sustainability” Learning Curve PICMET 2009 Figure Source: Black, Stewart, Gregersen, Hal, B., Leading Strategic Change, Breaking Through the Brain Barrier, 2001 “ smart people[firms] don’t try new tricks.” , they do the old thing well… Postulate 1: To achieve sustainability firms must continuously take action to find more profitable ways of developing “greener” revenue streams using unique processes that encourage and manage innovation. Postulate 2: Those processes which seek to foster innovation must leverage core competencies, new partnerships, and new technologies with winning strategies. Postulate 3: The development of winning strategies requires input and buy-in from experts having diverse technical backgrounds working together to evaluate , integrate, and implement the best-possible solutions. Quote Source: “Understanding a Barrier to Change” Steven Kolmes, Chair of Environmental Science Department, Molter Chair in Science, University of Portland Robin Anderson, Dean of the Pamplin School of Business Administration, Franz Chair in Entrepreneurship, University of Portland
    8. 8. New Solution: TRM <ul><li>Benefits and Expectations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify and Bridge GAPs between emerging markets and disruptive technologies by creating sustainable visions for new products and services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integrate KT  VT  TRM  TT  JV (?...) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Easy to Understand - Communicates a Defined Consensus for Long Term/Short Term Vision </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tool for Organizational Self-Regulation and Compliance – Help drive change </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Buy-in from knowledge workers who participate  trust </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Develop Internal Processes for Strategic Alignment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reiterate the process (Do it again!) </li></ul></ul>PICMET 2009
    9. 9. Achieving a consensus around building a strategic vision for sustainability… <ul><ul><li>Input: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>TRM Scope and Objectives </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Quick and Dirty  TK </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Record and integrate input from: </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>several organizational experts </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>diverse knowledge domains </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Low risk/commitment level req’d </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Discordant planning processes from several organizations </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Output: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Marketable and Innovative “Green” Strategy </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Team-Building  VT (or more un/official team/JV/NPD) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Get the “Big Picture” Right during Planning </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>TRM  standard early phase planning processes </li></ul></ul></ul>PICMET 2009
    10. 10. Sandia National Labs – A Rigid TRM Process for R&D Program Mgmt. <ul><li>Phase I </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Satisfy essential conditions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide leadership/sponsorship </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Define the scope and boundaries for the technology roadmap </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Phase II </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ID the “product” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ID system requirements and targets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Spec major tech area </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Spec tech drivers and targets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ID tech alternatives and time lines </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recommend tech alternatives to be pursued </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Create the technology roadmap report </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Phase III </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Critique and validate the roadmap </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Develop an implementation plan </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Review and update </li></ul></ul>PICMET 2009
    11. 11. Cambridge “T-Plan” – A Flexible TRM Process <ul><li>Best suited as a tool for implementing change management and knowledge management </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Advantages: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Support start-up of unique TRM processes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Develop an initial rough draft roadmap </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Support Planning Technology Strategy </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ID Market/Technology/Product Gaps </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Support Communication between Organizational Divisions </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Basis for my TRM-Biodiesel research (“B”-Plan)… </li></ul>PICMET 2009
    12. 12. T-Plan (Generic TRM), leverages KM PICMET 2009
    13. 13. Working toward a “B-Plan”… Goals: <ul><li>Input involves sustainability criteria for technology selection </li></ul><ul><ul><li>subjective or more formal (AHP, etc.) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Flexibility of process to harness “expert” tacit knowledge (TK) for new ventures </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More organic approach implies that a “B-Plan” more appropriate for KT (knowledge transfer) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Early Phase Planning Process </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Appropriate approach for Initial TRM for Technology Push </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Focuses on KT and collaboration </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>PICMET 2009
    14. 14. Paper Overview: TRM applied <ul><li>Student project + continued research = a first step in working toward a TRM process for sustainability= a basis for a “B-Plan” </li></ul><ul><li>T-Plan basis for research criteria </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Literature Review </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sustainability Metrics (>NEB for production process) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Benefits of TRM </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Biodiesel Bibliometric Review </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Exacting TRM Efforts on Transesterification Processes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Areas of innovation in Biodiesel Feedstock Production </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Major Technology Drivers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Regional Biodiesel Market </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Regional Market Drivers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emerging Biodiesel Technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conclusions (TRMs) </li></ul></ul>PICMET 2009
    15. 15. Literature-Bibliometric Review <ul><li>To achieve sustainable biodiesel production </li></ul><ul><ul><li>TRM should be used to: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>improve coordination between regionally focused partnerships </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>overcome economic and environmental constraints </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>NEB for a quantitative measure of sustainability </li></ul><ul><li>Current production process=transesterification </li></ul><ul><li>Greatest Feedstock Potential=Algae </li></ul><ul><li>Types of appropriate analysis: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>HDM, SWOT, Gap, DSM, RDM  ”TDE” </li></ul></ul>PICMET 2009
    16. 16. LR highlight – NEB (sustainability metric) <ul><li>Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior and Applied Economics – University of Minnesota [22] </li></ul>PICMET 2009
    17. 17. Major Technology Drivers <ul><li>As deduced from literature/bibliometric review: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Production process improvement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increasing Production Capacity/Efficiency </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increasing and Maintaining Fuel Quality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Feedstock Suitability </li></ul></ul>PICMET 2009
    18. 18. Regional Market Drivers <ul><li>Increasing Fuel Switching Capacity (EIA – MECS) </li></ul><ul><li>Peak Oil/Oil Independence  prevailing consumer att. </li></ul><ul><li>Proximity to California, Arizona, Nevada </li></ul><ul><li>Proven Regional Market Segments </li></ul><ul><li>Market Drivers </li></ul><ul><ul><li><CO2 emissions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Carbon Neutral </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Compares favorably to ethanol production </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Low NEB </li></ul></ul>PICMET 2009
    19. 19. Regional Market Drivers - Proximity PICMET 2009
    20. 20. Regional Market Drivers – the need to increase power plant switching capacity PICMET 2009
    21. 21. Emerging Biodiesel Technology <ul><li>Algae=most promising feedstock </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cultivation Technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>PBR versus ponds </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Bioengineering </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Increasing Yield </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Oil Extraction Methods>$$ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Expeller/Press </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Solvents </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Enzymes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Other.. </li></ul></ul></ul>PICMET 2009 <ul><ul><li>Algae Oil to Biodiesel Tech </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Dilution </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Micro-emulsification </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Pyrolysis </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Transesterification </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Centrifuge </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Thermal Decomp. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>3 major T-categories deduced from LR </li></ul><ul><li>says nothing about which are: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More sustainable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More economically feasible </li></ul></ul>
    22. 22. Emerging Biodiesel Technology PICMET 2009 Currently: Open Ponds>>PBR
    23. 23. <ul><li>Organizations Involved </li></ul><ul><ul><li>… .. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>It should be noted that microalgae ponds are extensively used for wastewater treatment and that algal biomass is rarely is used. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>One exception is in Sunnyvale, California that has 440 acres of algal oxidation ponds which converts harvested biomass to methane fuel by anaerobic digestion and then generates electricity from the gas. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cyanotech, Inc. of Kona, Hawaii operates a small power plant on biodiesel produced from algal cultures, then uses the CO2 to produce more algae. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>NOT biodiesel versus ethanol!!!!!! </li></ul>PICMET 2009 Emerging Biodiesel Technology facts:
    24. 24. Sustainable Biodiesel TRM <ul><li>“ First Cut” has very broad scope (inductive approach </li></ul><ul><li>Critical to address: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Feedstock variation over time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Yield Optimization in Production Processes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proximity to markets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Customer values & quality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Eminent Technological Change </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Organizational attributes which max profit AND sustainability </li></ul></ul>PICMET 2009
    25. 25. Preliminary Northwest Biodiesel Technology Roadmaps PICMET 2009
    26. 26. Optimizing Feedstock PICMET 2009
    27. 27. Biodiesel Technologies PICMET 2009
    28. 28. Critique… <ul><li>Dry run… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Never get it right the first time” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A necessary first step… </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Process too linear, team of experts still req’d </li></ul><ul><li>Not enough time or resources </li></ul><ul><li>Difficult to use for commercialization purposes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Scope in this case is too broad </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need to revise and refocus TRM efforts for more specific real world purposes, but first must identify needs…. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Solution  Do it again!!!!! (better) </li></ul>PICMET 2009
    29. 29. Preliminary TRM Feedback <ul><li>TBK Biodiesel, Janos Thesz </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Enthusiastic about TRM </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>selected technology for commercialization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>process used=Interestification  improved fuel properties=biofuel </li></ul></ul><ul><li>biofuelsdigest.com, Jim Lane </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ good stuff!” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NOT biodiesel versus ethanol </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Literature reviews are obsolete  academic publications years behind industry  >>>TK </li></ul></ul><ul><li>… .the beginning of Round 2 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Try again! </li></ul></ul>PICMET 2009
    30. 30. Working toward a sustainable TRM process…”B-Plan” PICMET 2009 <ul><li>expert tacit knowledge for </li></ul><ul><li>improving sustainable strategy </li></ul><ul><li>competitive advantage  ”ETs” </li></ul>Consensus around how to become “ sustainable” while adding value thru Technology util. Methods: HDM, SWOT, DSM, RDM, Options TT-_
    31. 31. Explicit (individual) Knowledge to Shared Tacit Knowledge
    32. 32. Sustainable Biodiesel Technology Roadmaping continued…: TBK Biodiesel, Weyerhaeuser, Chevron Davy ProTech ?... Who, What, Why, How, When
    33. 33. TRM Team (Who) <ul><li>TBK Biodiesel </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Janos Thesz </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bela Boros </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Zoltan Kiraly </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Catalyst Law Group </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Timothy Fitzwilliam </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Davy ProTech </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Brian Jolly </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mike Ashley </li></ul></ul><ul><li>University of Cambridge Centre for Technology Management </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Robert Phaal </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Catchlight Energy, LLC (Chevron-Weyerhaeuser JV) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>W. Densmore Hunter, CTO </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Feedstock Development Program (ORNL) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Anne Ehrenshaft,Bioenergy </li></ul></ul>PICMET 2009 Sequential Biofuel DOE EERE GM Biofuelsdigest.com, Wieden + Kennedy
    34. 34. TRM Objectives (What) <ul><li>Commercialize improved biodiesel that is produced more sustainably </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Selected Production Tech: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>TBK Biodiesel, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Davy Process </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Find Regional TRM Partners </li></ul><ul><li>Develop consensus around TRM Strategy </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Combine technologies for scaling up production </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Get Buy-in into a TRM process </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Use TRM to help commercialize TBK Biodiesel </li></ul><ul><li>Incorporate TT process  Form JV </li></ul>PICMET 2009
    35. 35. Production Costs w/ Algae too high (Why) <ul><li>Algae growing systems, water mgmt, harvesting=75% of total production costs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>GMO’s may not be feasible for 15 years or more…. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Opportunity for proprietary chemical pathways which seek to accomplish a “greener” work around in the interim </li></ul></ul></ul>PICMET 2009
    36. 36. Transesterification  Not so “green” (Why) PICMET 2009
    37. 37. Biodiesel from Transesterification (Why) <ul><li>Problems(today’s biodiesel isn’t “green:!!!!): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Uses methanol/ethanol as reagent </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Less sustainable (uses fossil fuels) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Requires more energy </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li><100% conversion of feedstock </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Produces fuel with a high gelling temp </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Wasted fuel </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Can’t use during winter months </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Hard to adopt </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Glycerol waste </li></ul></ul>PICMET 2009
    38. 38. TBK process uses Partial Interestification (Why) <ul><li>Improved fuel properties: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Higher oxygen content </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fewer emissions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Makes production more carbon neutral </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No Methane </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Uses Ethyl Acetate (EA) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Low gelling temp. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No cold weather issues </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Greater efficiency </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No Glycerol by-product </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>> 1:1.2 conversion of feedstock:fuel </li></ul></ul>PICMET 2009 TBK Biodiesel Process Needs To Be Scaled Up
    39. 39. TBK Process (How) PICMET 2009 CH2- OCO-L O N G CH2-OCO - CH3 I I CH - OCO-L O N G + CH3-COO-CH2-CH3  CH - OCO-L O N G + LONG-COO-CH2-CH3 I I CH2-OCO-L O N G CH2-OCO-L O N G BIOMASS TRIGLYCERIDE + ETHYL ACETATE  MODIFIED TRIGLYCERIDE + &quot; FAEE&quot; HIGH VISCOSITY, HIGH GELLING P.  REDUCED MOLECULAR MASS  REDUCED VISCOSITY, LOW GELLING P. T B K - B I O D I E S E L (100% green, ALWAYS with lower iodine number, etc.)
    40. 40. Ethanol  Ethyl Acetate (How) PICMET 2009 “ cellulosic” ethanol Davy Dehydrogenation Process = Best Choice
    41. 41. Bio-Ethanol+Davy  H2+Biodiesel (How) PICMET 2009 <ul><li>Davy took < 10 years to commercialize tech </li></ul><ul><li>Accounts for 15% of global ethyl acetate production capacity today </li></ul><ul><li>Ethyl Acetate is increasingly preferred as an industrial solvent over other VOCs </li></ul><ul><li>“ Carbon Neutral” </li></ul>Catchlight Energy LLC (Weyerhaeuser-Chevron JV) TBK Biodiesel Davy Process Technology “ GM”(?)
    42. 42. TRM? (When) <ul><li>Now!!!!!!!!! </li></ul>PICMET 2009
    43. 43. TBK-Davy-Catchlight JV PICMET 2009 “ Technology Push” “ Market Pull” 1 st Press Release TRM TT JV Product Launch (P1)
    44. 44. Preliminary TBK Biodiesel-Davy-Catchlight TRM for Ecollaboration T 1 (interestification) JV1 TBK Biodiesel TBK Biodiesel Davy Protech (Dehydrogenation) Catchlight feedstock Algae feedstock Cellulosic Ethanol T 2 (interestification) TBK Biofuel 1 (P1) TBK Biofuel 2 (P2) Algae Feedstock TT2 T 3 Algae Biofuel JV2 TT1 TT1 TT2
    45. 45. Emerging Biodiesel Technology PICMET 2009
    46. 46. Time of entry for T1, T2, T3 with Advancing Processes <ul><li>Now (1-2 years): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>T1=Cellulosic Ethanol (Catchlight, LLC) + Dehydrogenation (Davy Protech)  TBK Biodiesel (biofuel) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Near Future (5-10 years): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>T2=Algal Oil  Davy ProTech  TBK Biodiesel </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Future (15-30 years) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>T3= Algal Biofuel made from algae alone! </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Disruptive technology which will make TBK Biodiesel obsolete, but until then… </li></ul></ul></ul>PICMET 2009
    47. 47. Discussion <ul><li>Questions? </li></ul><ul><li>Comments? </li></ul>PICMET 2009
    48. 48. Backup 1 – Tacit KM <ul><li>Morris, Jason C., Inoculating Against The Productivity Paradox , Portland State University, Engineering Technology Management, Course: Innovation Management, Professor Dr. C. Weber, PhD, Fall, 2005. </li></ul>PICMET 2009
    49. 49. Knowledge Workers <ul><li>The term “knowledge worker” was first developed in the book “Landmarks of Tomorrow” by Peter Druker, 1959 [17]. </li></ul>PICMET 2009
    50. 50. Pyramid of Knowled j e How do you increase organizational knowledge?
    51. 51. New Tacit Knowledge
    52. 52. Back Up 2- TRM examples PICMET 2009
    53. 53. DOE H 2 PICMET 2009
    54. 54. “ __-Plan” – modified generalized process PICMET 2009
    55. 55. PICMET 2009
    56. 56. Related DOE TRM PICMET 2009
    57. 57. T-Plan (Technology Specific TRM) PICMET 2009
    58. 58. Backup 3 – TRM issues PICMET 2009
    59. 59. HFC Vehicles?... PICMET 2009
    60. 60. TRM roadblocks… <ul><li>More Questions than Answers at outset </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires iteration to resolve issues </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Incumbent Firms & New Tricks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Can be slow to move and slow to learn </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Senior Management Motivation for continuation of TRM may be low </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Disclosure between organizations/divisions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fear of competition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of trust </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Fuzzy Implications/Low Impact </li></ul><ul><li>No Experts </li></ul><ul><li>No Team </li></ul>PICMET 2009
    61. 61. Backup 4 – KM, TT, Strategy Theory PICMET 2009
    62. 62. KT versus TT and TRM <ul><li>“ B”-Plan is more KT oriented, TT is later and may also apply TRM (TDE?) </li></ul>PICMET 2009
    63. 63. TT and KT defined PICMET 2009

    ×