Application of technology roadmaps to governmental innovation policy for promoting technology convergence

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

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

Application of technology roadmaps to governmental innovation policy forpromoting technology convergence

Yuko Yasunaga a, Masayoshi Watanabe b, Motoki Korenaga c,⁎a Gas Safety Division, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, 1-3-1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8901, Japanb Machine Parts and Tooling Industries Office, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, 1-3-1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8901, Japanc Industrial Machinery Division & Robot Industry Office, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, 1-3-1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8901, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (M. K

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

a b s t r a c t

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

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

© 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Technology roadmapRoadmappingTechnology convergence

1. Introduction

In the field of technology management, development and utilization of technology roadmap has been discussed in the recent20 years. After the introduction of the Motorola's attempt by Willyard and McClees [1] regarding the company's “product-technology roadmap” and “emerging technology roadmap”, technology roadmap is frequently referred and studied as a“management tool” in R&D, product development, and various communication process among wide range of stakeholders.

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

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

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

orenaga).

All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.06.004

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625

mailto:[email protected]

62 Y. Yasunaga et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 61–79

seems that the number of studies on governmental activities regarding technology roadmapping and its use are relatively small.The authors have been building an international network regarding governmental roadmapping activities in the United States(DOE, NIH, etc.) and European countries such as the United Kingdom andmade comparative study on the role and methodology ofdevelopment and usage of technology roadmap [9] in a preliminary phase.

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

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

2. Why did METI begin roadmapping?

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

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

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

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

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

2.2. Objectives of development of technology roadmaps by the government

The objectives of the STR and the objective of making STR should be identified in careful paraphrasing. METI defines theobjectives of the STR as follows:

1.) to enhance public understanding by providing an explanation of the perspectives, details, and future achievements of METI's(future & on-going) R&D investments with STR,

2.) to help people in the R&D community understand future market trends, prioritize critical technology, and build “commonunderstandings” for planning and implementing R&D projects, and

3.) to promote cross-sector (academia-industry, among different industries, etc.) alliances, to stimulate interdisciplinarytechnology convergences and to call for coordinating other relevant policies.

These objectives are expected to collectively work different economic agents such as academia, industry and public sector toenhance Japan's competitiveness.

As defined by Galvin [10], the authors find that the process of making STR is a highly valuable tool for nurturing communicationin various ways: 1) among researchers, 2) between researchers and businesspersons, 3) among different players in value chains,and 4) between scientists and engineers, etc. We also found that STR is often referred in the discussion process of actual R&Dprojects in many ways, not only for evaluating the progress of specific projects (“ahead” or “behind”), but also for discussing futureexpansion of applications, etc.

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

63Y. Yasunaga et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 61–79

2.3. Differences in objectives compared to private sector roadmaps

The authors also conducted intensive discussions with colleagues and with industry people on the differences in objectives oftechnology roadmaps. Typical FAQs (frequently asked questions) and our relevant answers concerning these discussions aredepicted below. We expect that these points might also be argued about in other governments and other entities if they were toconduct similar activities and we of course would like to receive such feedback.

[Q1] In the case of “governmental” roadmaps, the goal (or final product) cannot be clearly defined since we are not engaged inactual business nor manufacturing activities. How can METI define its own goals of our roadmaps?

[A1] We may set our own goal by formulating the “common understanding (or common visions)” through intensive discussionswith business people and researchers in academia. That shall function as goals even if a concrete product image is notillustrated.

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

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

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

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

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

[A4] Simply, we must challenge that. We may know the variety of methodologies can be applied if type of technology changes.That is also worth discussing in the context of MOT (Management of Technology).

[Q5] Technology roadmaps are generally applicable for incremental innovations but not suitable for disruptive innovations. Howcan METI promote both types of innovations with developing and using roadmaps?

[A5] We must not jeopardize the potential of Japan's R&D community for disruptive innovation. Correctly developed roadmapsreveal the limitation of a specific technology and necessity of breakthrough based on scientific data and insights. Suchroadmaps can rather push the development new research methodologies and disruptive innovations. We must know theadvantages and disadvantages of roadmaps and corresponding types of innovations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.1. Basic structure of METI's STR

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

An ordinary prototype has a “market”, “product”, “technology” and a “resource” layer and it seems to have been commonly usedsince Phaal et al. [7] and other analysts' proposals. METI's STR has three layers; the top is a “dissemination scenario”, the second isthe “technology overview (technology map)”, which does not have a time horizon, and the third is the “technology roadmap”. The

Fig.

1.Structureof

MET

I'sstrategictech

nology

road

map

(3-lay

erstructure).


Fig.

2.Ex

ampleof

the3-laye

rstructure(rob

otics).


Fig.

3.Ex

ampleof

dissem

inationscen

ario

(3R—

recycle,

reus

e,redu

ce).



reasonwhywe have adopted this structure is because this roadmap is a governmental one to fulfill our policy objectivesmentionedearlier. Fig. 2 is an example of the 3-layer structure of robotics.

METI develops STRs in 25 areas including: 1) semiconductors, 2) storage and solid-state memories, 3) computers, 4) networks,5) IT usability (displays and human interfaces), 6) software, 7) drug discovery and medicine, 8) medical equipment, 9) recoverymedicine, 10) cancer cures, 11) CO2 fixation and utilization, 12) countermeasures to chlorofluorocarbon emissions that damage theozone layer, 13) chemical product management and countermeasures for toxic chemicals, 14) reduce, reuse and recycle, 15) energy(including energy conservation, renewable energy, fossil fuel utilization, hydrogen and fuel cells, nuclear energy, etc.),16) nanotechnology and materials, 17) robotics, 18) aeronautical and avionics, 19) space, 20) superconductivity, 21) MEMS(Micro Electronic Mechanical System), 22) green biotechnology, 23) human life, 24) manufacturing of components, and 25) fibers.

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

3.2. Characteristics of each layer of the STR

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

between R&Dpolicy and other policymeasures, as shown in Fig. 3. For example, the actionplan of the deregulation program is definedin this layer to allow possible fruits fromR&D (i.e., newgenome-orientedmedicines) to be tested and commercially sold in themarketwithin a reasonable time. In caseof IT, thepolicy for broadband infrastructuredevelopment is defined. In the case of CO2 reductions, thepolicy for economic instruments to implement the Kyoto Protocol ismentioned. In case of robotics, the policy for demonstrating state-of-the-art technology in everyday life and policy devices for the dissemination of robot technologies (such as safety codes of conduct,and a new business model combining insurance and lease businesses, etc.) are illustrated in this layer together with a time horizon.

Of course, bureaucracy does not everywhere allow the R&D side to define the time horizon of other policy measures, however,METI believes this layer can be a tool for promoting policy dialogues with relevant counterparts to disseminate new technologiesdeveloped from our R&D programs.

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

marked if prioritized. This layer is prepared to portray the importance, urgency, application and relationships between differenttechnology options.

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

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

Fig. 4 shows the case for nanotechnology.

3.2.3. How to define the time horizon and required level of specification — the third layer: technology roadmapHow to define the time horizon of roadmaps is a crucial issue. As pointed out by Yasunaga [11] for the case of semiconductors,

the “top runner” of a given industry or sector is tempted to go faster than the average player in the same industry. The time horizonof METI's roadmap reflects the “reference” case of industries, since it is defined from intensive discussions between industry,academia and other relevant people. In line with the Branscomb's [2] popular definition of a technology roadmap, METI's STRreflects the reference “vision” based on “consensus” views from the observations of stakeholders that are “scientifically” organized.

3.3. Difference in technologies and methodologies

Among the authors, when METI decided to develop its technology roadmaps, Yasunaga was a Director of NEDO (New Energyand Industrial Technology Development Organization), which is a R&D funding and project management organization, and one ofhis roles was organizing proper task forces for developing roadmaps. He and his colleagues have experiencedmany practical Q&Asand he reached his hypothesis empirically that different types of methodologies must be applied to different types of technologies.

Fig. 5 illustrates this idea. For the first category, represented by IT and robotics, the primary flow of the roadmapping ideadescends from the market, to the product and then to technology. We call this a “top-down” process.

For the second category, represented bymaterials technologyandnanotechnology, the primaryflowof the roadmapping idea is a“mixture” of ascending (from technology, to function, and then to value in themarket) and descending (fromvalue, to function, andthen to technology). For this category, contrary to the first case, technology is a means to realize new products or services and is notlimited for use in a couple of specific applications. For example, carbon nanotubes (hereinafter, CNTs) is one of the most promisingnano-materials due to its wide range of potential applications. These include: large thermal conductivity, which is good for thermaldissipation components, high electron emission characteristics, which are good for flat panel displays, and a large surface/volumeratio, which is suitable for catalyst supporting devices, etc. One technology has many applications and one application requires anumber of technologies. In such a case, going up-and-down (or, back-and-forth) would be appropriate way of thinking.

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

Fig.

4.Ex

ampleof

tech

nology

overview

(nan

otechn

olog

y).


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


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

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

4. How does METI develop roadmaps?

4.1. “Engagement” system

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

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

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

4.2. “Rolling (updating)” scheme

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

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

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

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

Fig. 7. Annual policy planning procedure and STR.


4.3. “Council” to supervise roadmapping methodology

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

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

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


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

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

5.1. Dialogue with industry

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

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

5.2. Dialogue with academia — communication via Academic Roadmaps

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

The authors hypothetically expect that, even in such areas close to science, technology roadmaps may work as a tool for findingnew topics, for organizing new teams composed of cross-boundary researchers, and for exploring new applications of specifictechnologies. METI and a couple of academic associations including the Japan Society of Applied Physics, the Chemical Society ofJapan, the Robotics Society of Japan, etc. have started cooperative activities to develop “Academic Roadmaps”. The characteristics ofthose roadmaps are quite different from METI's STR in the following ways:

1.) Academic Roadmaps have longer time horizons, typically more than 20 years,2.) Academic Roadmaps have more flexibility in the direction of technology, in many cases, where many alternatives are

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

topics based on their curiosity, and

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

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


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

In a sense, if Academic Roadmaps are completed, Japan's R&D community can refer to three different types of technologyroadmaps: 1) the roadmaps of private companies that typically have 3–5-year time horizons that typically target productdevelopment; 2) METI's STRs whose time horizon is 10–15 years covering pre-competitive technologies for the next generation,and 3) Academic Roadmaps whose time horizon is 20–30 years and is closely related to scientific progress.

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

5.3. Communication tool for private sectors

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

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

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


companies compare the STR with their own roadmaps. In addition, some private companies have begun communicating usingSTRs as their reference. In addition, we have heard that some researchers use STRs to persuade their headquarterswhen requestingR&D resource allocations.

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

continuingly becoming widespread.

5.4. Roadmaps as R&D management tools at NEDO

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

The Information Technology Department of NEDO regularly holds an annual roadmapping committee to accomplish thefollowing objectives:

1.) to update the latest technology & research trends,2.) to review the current situation of R&D projects that NEDO manages,3.) to evaluate the necessity for amending the goals/memberships/schedules of R&D projects (i.e. altering targets, adding/cutting

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

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

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

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


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

The New Energy Technology Department has its originality in the linkage between their roadmap and some policy targets (i.e.powergeneration costs, etc.) innumerical terms in thedissemination scenario in close communicationwithMETI andbusiness sectors.

The Biotechnology and Medical Technology Department takes a different approach to exploit the roadmaps. The sectionmaintains a dialogue with hospitals, potential users and beneficiaries of developed technology to update its strategy not only forR&D but also so that its voice is reflected in relevant legal regulations. The Environmental Technology Department is going to take asimilar path with regard to its 3R (recycle, reuse and reduce) policy.

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

6.1. “C-Plan” for promoting technology convergence

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

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

After the authors acknowledge that roadmapping procedure (NOT roadmaps) may be helpful in sharing knowledge amongresearchers with different academic backgrounds, METI has begun an experimental session to “converge” different technologyareas. The experiment is conducted by the following procedure:

1.) define a topic for the convergence (only broadly),2.) call a couple of researchers with different backgrounds for the session,3.) exchange research papers of each researcher before the session,4.) assign a “coordinator” to lead and guide the discussion,

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


5.) begin a session with a preliminary discussion about the “future wants” of consumers related to a specified topic (and not getinvolved in a technology talk directly),

6.) summarize the “future wants” discussion and define the essential and needed function of the system (in some cases, also abusiness model) to be developed,

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

10.) conclude the session.

The authors conducted the experiments for three cases in line with the abovementioned procedure and the implications andmaterials from the sessions are summarized in a form of manual called “C-Plan” Guidebook (ver.2.0) edited by Watanabe (Crepresents “convergence”) which is downloadable [15]. While it has yet to gain widespread popularity, the authors haveintroduced this methodology to various research sectors. Fig. 14 illustrates the overall concept of the methodology.

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

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

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

We call the “IS-Plan (IS represents “innovation strategy”)” and applied it to a regional cluster discussion. Regional clustersinvolve a number of small and medium-scale enterprises which have specific and unique competences and technologies in themarkets they operate in. Such enterprises often seek new applications for their technologies. We employed a technology managerin the cluster as a key coordinator. The experiment was conducted in the following way:

1.) assign a “coordinator” who has experience and know-how in collaboration and private company alliances,2.) call for a couple of small and medium enterprises who are interested in collaboration and alliances to create a new business,3.) exchange information about the companies before sessions,

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


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

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

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

This session will be followed by the participating companies' business-based coordination to define their action plan for col-laborative R&D, finance, investment, production and marketing. We have not seen yet that this methodology really works for creatingbusinesses; howeverwehave conducted this experiment several times.Weneedmore time to seewhether this experimentwill succeedornot, andweneed to collect feedback fromtheparticipating companies toupdate this scheme.Asmentionedabove, this schemeseemsto be more appropriate for a regional cluster policy since large companies in Japan equipped with a broad range of internal compe-tencies are not so aggressive about collaboratingor allianceswith other companies, and are even rather reluctant in some cases (Fig.15).

6.3. Seeking “off-road” technology

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

CurrentNEDOreviewers includeuniversity researchers, R&Dmanagers in corporate laboratories of largeprivate companies andstaffin public research organizations, whichmeans that no other people are eligible. However, we feel there is further room for elaboration.In this sense, the issue is disparate from roadmap/roadmapping, but an important challenge for the promotion of innovation.

Fig. 15. Regional business creation and roadmapping.

Fig.

16.V

isua

lillu

stration

ofou

r“futurelife”

basedon

STRs

.



6.4. Promoting public acceptance of technology policy

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

7. Conclusion

The authors have stated their objectives, structures, development methodologies and application methodology for METI'sStrategic Technology Roadmaps. As stated in this article, METI's actions are formulated based on our hypotheses:

1.) Technology roadmaps made by the Government's initiatives can work effectively as the “reference” scenario and vision forprivate companies and universities,

2.) Technology roadmaps can work to elaborate governmental R&D policy and can improve governmental R&D projectmanagement if properly used,

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

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

business models.

These hypotheses are not yet proven and the authors want to explore these in deeper ways so as to further elaborate ourGovernment's innovation policy. We welcome any feedback from any stakeholders anywhere in the world.

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technology Convergence with the Methodology of Technology Roadmapping, Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering andTechnology in Portland, Aug. 2007.

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

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

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


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

Documents

Application of technology roadmaps to governmental innovation policy for promoting technology convergence