Using Scenarios for Road Mapping the Case of Clean Production

8/8/2019 Using Scenarios for Road Mapping the Case of Clean Production

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/using-scenarios-for-road-mapping-the-case-of-clean-production 1/15

Using scenarios for roadmapping: The case of clean productionOzcan Saritas, Jonathan Aylen⁎Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK

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

Article history:

Received 9 April 2009Received in revised form 6 March 2010Accepted 8 March 2010

Roadmapping and scenarios are twowidely used futures techniques which help R&Dmanagersset priorities for research. These techniques are combined in a Foresight exercise assessingdevelopment of clean production in metal manufacturing, drawing on the EuropeanCLEANPROD project. The aim of the project is to develop a set of roadmaps for metalprocessing R&D to achieve breakthrough sustainability— “ clean production” .Scenarios, a frequently used Foresight method, are used to set the context for the exercise,inform the design of technology roadmaps and in uence the wider policy context. Roadmapsare developed for three process areas of metal manufacture– surface preparation, machiningand coating – on four levels including long run visions up to 2020, interim targets up to 2015,key R&D areas and speci c project topics. Roadmaps are appraised in the light of alternativescenarios on the future of manufacturing. Promoting sustainability highlights gaps in a“ business as usual” roadmap, suggesting a different portfolio of research projects. A revisedoverall scenario is used to shape public policy.R&D teams usually adopt one particular methodology to support resource allocation. However joint use of futures techniques helps if there is uncertainty over competing alternative

technologies. Roadmapping often focuses on a single future. Scenario building as a Foresighttechnique introduces “ multiple futures” thinking.© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:ScenariosRoadmappingForesightClean productionSustainabilityManufacturingDry machining

1. Introduction

A variety of futures techniques have been developed to help R&D managers to set priorities for research. These range fromgeneral Foresight approaches which give a broad overview of the future through to speci c numerical forecasting methods. Thispaper suggests combining techniques to give more accurate predictions. In particular, the contribution of scenario methods toroadmapping is explored in the context of clean manufacturing at a European scale.

This approach reinforces growing use of roadmapping andother technology management techniques for planning research on

environmental issues [1,2]. A futures perspective is needed for making policy on environmental change since

rms innovate in‘green’ ways largely in response to regulatory pressures[3]. For example, anticipation of regulation stimulated solutions to curbsulphur dioxide emissions from US power stations[4]anddevelopment of catalytic converters for vehicle exhausts[5]. So forwardlooking policy is required to generate the necessary incentives and regulations to steer rms along promising technologicaltrajectories toward ‘eco-friendly’ manufacture.

The futures literature encompasses a wide range of methods for anticipating what might happen[6]. Traditional Foresightmethods focus on scenarios. Roadmapping of particular technologies is popular among technologists[7]. Backcasting offers analternative approach to the same issues, particularly where normative policy choices are being evaluated[8– 10]. Futurestechniques then narrow down to ‘hard’ numerical forecasts for speci c product developments [11].

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 77 (2010) 1061– 1075

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 44 161 275 5931; fax: +44 161 275 0923.E-mail addresses: [email protected](O. Saritas),[email protected](J. Aylen).

0040-1625/$–

see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2010.03.003

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

mailto:[email protected]


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.03.003

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

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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.03.003





R&D teams usually chose one particular approach to support their resource allocation, preferring the“ predictable” over the“ uncertain” [12]orthe “ numerical” over the “ descriptive” [13,14]. There areorganisational pressures to build consensusandso theprecision of a roadmap is often preferred as a support for resource allocation. A roadmap acts as a focal point for subsequent R&Deffort. Roadmaps often contain an element of advocacy for a particular technical solution.

Evidence from quantitative forecasting suggests combining techniques gives more accurate forecasts[15]. Accuracy isimproved by combining forecasts derived either from different methods, or different sources of information. In the same vein, weargue combined use of futures techniques can offer clearer insights, especially if there is uncertainty across a range of competingalternative technologies, or across broader social, political and economic outcomes[16].

Technology Foresight and technology roadmapping have much in common: both activities are highly“ participative” andinteractive and both are “ policy and action orientated” and so ideally suited to a management context[17,18]. The apparentprecision of roadmapping makes it popular and widely used. But roadmapping tends to focus on a single future. Foresighttechniques can support roadmapping by introducing “ multiple futures” thinking.

This paper demonstrates a case where scenarios– a frequently used Foresight method– are used to test the robustness of proposed technology roadmaps. The combination of approaches highlights areas of uncertainty surrounding the future evolutionof alternative technologies. Scenarios assume the future is uncertain. They can allow for disruptive innovations and the remotechance of outlier “ black swan” events [19]. Above all, the active process of scenario development through informed discussiondraws attention to the undue precision inherent in roadmaps.

Thecase of clean production in metalmanufacturing is presented, drawing on theEuropean CLEANPROD project. Theaim of theproject is to develop a set of roadmaps for particular areas of metal processing towards achieving breakthrough sustainability—

“ clean production” . The concept of clean production focuses on minimising the environmental impact of manufacture using lowemission technologies designed to reduce pollution and waste. There are alternative technical solutions for achieving thisobjective and it is not evident which route should be pursued. The exercise was developed in a European policy context, but thetechniques are applicable at rm level.

Taking just one example, there is a wide variety of emerging metal shaping technologies that might be recommended fordevelopment as part of a technology roadmap. A recent survey identi es 26 novel processes for machining metals[20]. Theseinclude mechanical, chemical, electrochemical, thermal andhybridprocesses. Yet it is clear that some of these areenvironmentallyhazardous, or at best energy intensive [21]. For instance, electromechanical shaping processes are 100 times more energyintensive than drilling as a way of nishing steel. In addition, there is a problem of disposal of slurries and solutions of electrolytes[21]. A sustainability scenario would highlight that it is not worth pursuing research on the more environmentally damagingalternatives among this wide range of novel technologies if clean production is a key priority over the next decade. On the otherhand, a business as usual scenario would focus on metal forming techniques showing most pro t potential.

Roadmaps have been developed for three process areas of metal manufacture– surface preparation, machining and coating–

on four levels includinglongrun visions upto 2020, interim targets up to 2015, key R&D areas and speci c project topics. However,these roadmaps are negotiated and tested against broad megatrends and particular drivers in the social, technological, economic,ecological andpolitical systems. In addition, the roadmapsare appraised in the light of scenarios developed by earlier projects andplatforms on the future of manufacturing (FuTMaN), manufacturing visions (MANVIS) and technology platforms for futuremanufacturing technology (MANUFUTURE).

Foresight techniques enhance the roadmapping process by focussing on alternative futures. Foresight comes to terms with thecentral paradox of innovation expressed by Metcalfe and De Liso[22] that innovations are discoveries which entail the growth of knowledge, so how can you have prior knowledge of something which is yet to be discovered? Seen in this light, roadmappingseems too precise taken by itself.

Foresight weighs the likelihood of different technical solutions in the face of con icting social, economic and environmentalpressures. It uses participatory techniques to draw on varied skills and knowledge from the communities of practice involved inthese areas. Courses of action are proposed in the light of these judgements. In effect, technological roadmapping– requiredanyway for R&D resource allocation– becomes a component of the Foresight process. In this fashion, R&D managers areencouraged to focus on engineering solutions likely to be selected in the face of one or other scenario. Use of wider Foresight

techniques also responds to the criticism of Berkhout and Green that focuses on a speci

c technology or product is inappropriatewhen managing innovation for sustainability, where there is often a wide range of technological trajectories with differing long-term environmental consequences [23]. In practice, rms often pursue competing research programmes on alternative promisingtechnical solutions, precisely because there is uncertainty about future sustainable regimes. Current twin track approaches todeveloping both hydrogen fuel cells and battery power by leading car manufacturers are a case in point[24,25].

Various attempts have been made to integratescenariosandroadmaps [1,26,27]. Scenarioshavebeen usedto set visions for theroadmapping process by considering futureoptions. However, the roadmapping exercise usually follows a prior scenario planningexercise, meaning scenarios have not been truly embedded in the roadmapping process. The methodological approach presentedin this paper suggests the use of scenarios from the beginning of the roadmapping exercise to the end by means of (i) settingvisions for roadmaps by considering alternative futures, which adds an exploratory feature to the process, (ii) portrayingalternative pathways for roadmaps, (iii) enhancing the explanatory power of roadmaps, and (iv) testing the robustness of roadmaps against scenarios.

The paper rst presents a brief overview of roadmapping and scenario methods in the second and third sections respectively.

The fourth section presents ways of using scenarios throughout the roadmapping process. The

fth section demonstrates the usesof roadmaps through the example of the CLEANPROD project. Finally, the sixth section draws conclusions.

1062 O. Saritas, J. Aylen / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 77 (2010) 1061 – 1075



2. A brief overview of roadmapping

2.1. De nition of a roadmap

A spatial roadmap is a layout of paths or routes that exists (or could exist) in some particular geographical space. It is used bytravellers to decide among alternative routes towards a physical destination. Roadmaps provide essential understanding of proximity, direction and some degree of certainty in travel planning. As a frequently used metaphor within the industry,roadmapping has proved to be a useful tool for technology management, strategic and operational decision making and actionplanning. It is a normative and goal oriented method, where attempts are made to achieve a desired future state of development.

Technological forecasting has a long history as a management technique[28,29]. Early attempts predicted time lines of futuredevelopments in technology, ofteninsomedetail[30].Thespeci c methodof technologyroadmapping wasbrought to prominencebyMotorola in the beginning of the 1980s[31] as a way of anticipating technology needs alongside future product developments. Thecentral idea was to chart future technological trends against potential market evolution. Since then roadmapping has been used in avariety of contexts, particularly in the industry at corporate level (e.g. BP[32], Philips Electronics[33]) and sectoral level (e.g. USAluminum[34]), as well as in Government Laboratories (e.g. Sandia Labs[35]). Roadmapping has become typecast: as Walsh acutelyobserves, “ most roadmaps today focus on high-tech, dynamic sustaining technologies with a mature sales base” [36].

Robert Galvin, former Motorola chairman, de nes a roadmap as “ an extended look at the future of a chosen eld of inquirycomposed from the collective knowledge andimagination of thebrightestdrivers of thechange” . Roadmapscommunicate visions,attract resources from business and government, stimulate investigations and monitor progress. They became the inventory of possibility for a particular eld. Although roadmaps are deceptively simple tools in terms of format, their development posessigni cant challenges, particularly if the scope is broad and covers a number of complex conceptual and human interactions[37].

As a decision aid, roadmaps are useful tools for (i) portraying structural relationships among science, technology andapplications, thus (ii) improvingcoordinationof activitiesandresources in increasingly complex anduncertainenvironments, (iii)identifying, evaluating, andselecting strategic alternatives that can be used to achieve desired S&T objectives, (iv) communicatingvisions to attract resources, (v) stimulating investigations, and (vi) monitoring progress. A number of applications have been seenfor product planning, service/capability planning, strategic planning, long-range planning, knowledge and asset planning,programme planning, process planning and integration planning [37, Section 3]. In recent years roadmapping has become a verypopular tool for Foresight exercises.

Due to a high number of application areas, types of roadmaps have varied. Some examples include science/research roadmaps,cross-industry roadmaps, industry roadmaps, technology roadmaps, product roadmaps, product-technology roadmaps andproject/issue roadmaps. As a result of these diverse applications, roadmaps have been presented in different formats. Phaal et al.[37] identify no less than 16 different broad formats. However, the main elements of roadmaps, which are nodes and links, arealways maintained. Construction of a roadmap requires identi cation of nodes and their attributes, connection of the nodes withlinks, and speci cation of the link attributes. Using those elements, roadmaps can be represented in various formats based onobjectives of the exercise, its intended use and roadmapping tools selected. Typical roadmap formats include:

1. Multiple layers2. Bars3. Network diagrams4. Flow charts

Besides these formats, roadmaps can be organised as tables, graphs, pictorial representations, a single layer, and texts.However, the text format is not commonly used since the main strength of a roadmap lies in the way it represents a total picture,including the normative vision, alternative ways of reaching there and connections between different activities and nodes, all in asingle gure. This makes it easier to understand and easier to communicate. However, it is not uncommon to present roadmapsalongside a report discussing the underlying logic and describing the process.

The architecture of a roadmap typically includes four or ve layers. All layers can have different attributions based on the

objectives, contents and orientations of the roadmaps. For instance a market oriented roadmap, which considers creating a newmarket or capturing an existing market by developing products and technologies through R&D programmes may have ve layersincluding (i) market, (ii) product, (iii) technology, (iv) R&D programmes, and (v) resources, showing capital investment, supplychain and staff/skills requirements on a timeline. Another combination is suggested by Zurcher and Kostoff [38], where the layersof the roadmap are named differently. Starting from the top the names of the layers are:“ requirements” , “ capabilities” ,“ development” and “ research” . Different combinations of the layers can be generated based on the focus and objectives of theroadmap [e.g.39].

2.2. Roadmapping process

The essence of roadmapping is asking three questions:• Where do we want to go?•

What are the ways of getting there?• What should we do from now on?

1063O. Saritas, J. Aylen / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 77 (2010) 1061 – 1075



In any roadmapping exercise these questions are raised at certain phases of the process. A systematic roadmapping processconsists of three main phases:

1. Preliminary activity2. Development of the roadmap3. Follow-up activity

The preliminary phase covers preparatory work for the roadmapping process. This work includes collection of information forthe roadmapping exercise, ensuring participation of experts and stakeholders, and organising necessary infrastructure such ashardware and software used to facilitate the roadmapping process. Then, the scope and boundaries of the roadmap are de ned.This phase can be informed by other methods. For instance, scenario planning or visioning might precede roadmapping for thecreation and speci cation of future markets, products and technologies. The discussions during the development phase of theroadmap are organised around the visions, needs and problems identi ed.

During the second phase, the focus of the roadmap is de ned: what to include andwhat not to include. At this stage it is usefulto identify measurable capability levels, which will then be used to assess whether the target levels have been achieved.Subsequently, importantgaps in market, product andtechnology intelligenceare identi ed. Alternative productsand technologiesare discussed along with their timelines. Then, the type of R&D work required for developing those technologies and products isde ned. Following construction of the roadmap, a roadmappingreport is producedwhich leads on to the developmentof strategicand operational level strategies and resource planning for securing funding, planning human resources and equipment andorganising supply chains.

As a practical approach, Phaal[40] suggests four consecutive workshops for a roadmapping process. Following the preliminaryphase, the rst workshop considers future markets. To begin, performance dimensions, and market and business drivers arede nedandgrouped.Following theprioritisation, Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities andThreats arediscussed. Then, product,technology and knowledge gaps are identi ed. The second workshop is more product-oriented. Creation of product featureconcepts, grouping, impact ranking and analysing gaps are the main activities of this phase. In the third workshop, technologysolutions are produced and grouped. Following an impact ranking, gaps are identi ed. The nal workshop covers setting of milestones, product and technology charting, resource identi cation, analysis of gaps and lastly plans for the way forward.

The roadmapping process does not end with the roadmap itself. Various follow-up steps are taken to critique and validate theroadmap.A roadmap is usually presentedwith a report, which explains its logic. This reportalso coversstrategies andactions to betaken along with an implementation plan. This report needs to be disseminated to relevant parties. Following implementation of these actions, a reviewandevaluation procedureis useful, not only to monitorprogress, butalso to update the roadmap andderivelessons for future roadmapping activities.

Shortcomings of roadmaps include:

• They are normative, rather than exploratory;• They encourage linear and isolated thinking; there is little scope for creativity, communication and collaboration, although this

has been addressed by greater stakeholder involvement[41,42]and recognition of the potential for disruptive innovation[43];• Dissemination is dif cult; only experts can understand the output, especially if it is couched in technical terms.

We suggest some of these shortcomings of roadmaps might be assuaged by use of scenarios in the roadmapping process.

3. Scenario method

Scenarios are stories that anticipate the future. They are narratives created by researchers, or by participants in a workshop.Like many other early forecasting techniques, the scenario method is a post-war planning concept[44– 49]. Following the work of Herman Kahn and others at RAND and the Hudson Institute in the 1960s, scenarios reached a new dimension with the work of Pierre Wack in Royal Dutch/Shell. In 1984, Wack[50] de ned scenario planning as:

“ a discipline for rediscovering the original entrepreneurial power of creative foresight in contexts of accelerated change,greater complexity and genuine uncertainty”

Scenarios help direct attention to driving forces, possible avenues of evolution, and the span of contingencies that may beconfronted. They are particularly useful when many factors need to be considered, and the degree of uncertainty about the futureis high [51]. They may also foster or accommodate change within an organisation[52].

According to Van der Heijden[53], well-written scenarios are:

1. Internally consistent,2. Link historical and present events with hypothetical events in the future,3. Carry storylines that can be expressed in simple diagrams,4. Plausible,

5. Re

ect predetermined elements,6. Identify signposts or indicators that a given story is occurring.




Following the identi cation of a focal issue or decision, a scenario development process can start. Loveridge[54] describes thegeneric process of scenario development, analysis and use as follows:• Step 1: set up a preliminary objective for the scenario planning exercise including a time horizon;• Step 2: establish a broad learning programme underSTEEPV (Social, Technology, Economic, Ecology, Politics, Values) guidelines

to establish boundaries appropriate to the objective and broad trends that in uence the objective to be identi ed. By asking‘who?’ and ‘what? ’ is important to the objective, map out driving forces for the organisation in creating its future;

• Step 3: through directed learning, clarify the assumptions that will be used in writing the scenarios; examine these assumptionsfor their relevance, reasonableness and robustness in relation to the assumed objective; and modify these until convergence isachieved through iteration;

• Step 4: assemble a framework of alternative event strings and trends that are the skeletons for the scenarios;• Step 5: write the scenarios using whatever presentational technique aresuitable for theobjectiveand theorganisation's culture;• Step 6: analyse the scenarios with particular reference to turning or branch points that may constitute a crisis;• Step 7: derive from the analysis policies within which the organisation ought to work (or, in effect, the limits of actions the

organisation ought not to exceed in seeking to achieve its objective). Identify instruments of policy over which the organisationhas control and those that are beyond its control;

• Step 8: using the instruments of policy, derive alternative strategies that are robust:a. They will probably be able to withstand the impact of inevitable future disturbances,b. They will be comprehended by, and acceptable to, society,c. They will be relatively insensitive to delay.

• Step 9: using some form of computable model, evaluate these strategic alternatives over the chosen timescale, paying particularattention to the strategic allocation of resources, including nancing, and the best routes to achieving the desired nancial returns.

A scenario workshop brings together a range of knowledge and experience in an environment where views can be exchanged

and insights developed. It is useful to have both experts and practitioners among the participants. Diversity of experience inworkshops is an asset for an institutional Foresight exercise.Scenarios can be presented in different formats including[55]:

• Scenario: covers a wide range of features of the future and provides a multidimensional overview;• Vignette: illustrates one element of the scenario in detail, usually through a narrative and focus on one dimension;• Pro le: a skeletal description of the future in terms of key parameters.

Scenarios can describe[56]:

1. Images of the future: description of a future set of circumstances, a portrait of the state of affairs (at a more or less tightlyspeci ed date or period, or after a particular set of developments);

2. Future history: description of a future course of events, sequence of developments, often highlighting key events, decisions, orturning points.

Scenarioscanbe both exploratory andnormative. Exploratory scenariosstart from thepresent andaskquestionssuch as“ Whatnext?” and “ What if?” Particularly interesting trends or uncertainties can be selected (e.g. locating areas of high importance andhigh uncertainty) for the development of explorative scenarios. Normative, or inward scenarios, involve backcasting, typicallystarting with the most desirable future. The main questions are“ Where to?” and “ How to?” .

Various typologies have been suggested for the development of scenarios. The following typologies are used commonly:

1. Pro le scenarios (usually developed around a 2×2 matrix) with the cross-fertilization of the extremes of two key issues ordrivers of change;

2. Archetypes (α , β and δ scenarios)1 ;3. Success scenario (one single normative scenario).

The next section discusses the synergies which can be achieved by integrating these types of scenarios into roadmapping.

1

Typically Alpha (α ) scenarios represent a‘

business as usual’

future. Beta ( β ) scenarios consider, in particular, some of the many things go wrong in the future.Finally, Delta (δ) scenarios represent potential changes in direction[56].

Table 1Five mental acts of Foresight.Source: Saritas[57].

1. Systemic understanding aims to gain a shared understanding and mutual appreciation of topics and in uencing factors as systems in their own contexts byscanning

2. Systems synthesis and modelling when the input from scanning is synthesised into conceptual models of the situations involved in the real world3. Systemic analysis and selection analyse the alternative models of the future and‘prioritise’ them through intensive negotiations among system actors and

stakeholders to create an agreed model of the future4. System transformation establishes the relationship between the future and the present to initiate a change programme5.Systemic action concerns thecreationof plans to informpresent daydecisions forimmediatechange to providestructural andbehaviouraltransformations


http://-/?-

http://-/?-



4. Using scenarios for roadmapping

4.1. The nature of Foresight exercises

Before suggesting ways of using scenarios for roadmaps, these two methods need to be put into a wider context of Foresight.Saritas[57] suggests ve mental acts (stages) of Systemic Foresight Methodology (SFM) which guide a“ systemic” framework forthe design of the Foresight methodology (Table 1). Each mental act has certain functions as outlined in the table. The role of Foresight methods in this process is related to gathering and interpreting speci c types of information to enable its synthesis aspart of the process of creating alternative models of the future and characterising them for policy and strategy purposes. Thus,various Foresight methods can be selected and integrated in order to ful l those speci c functions as illustrated inFig. 1.

Both scenario planning and roadmapping play an important role in the process described above. As one of the most frequentlyused methods in Foresight, scenarios typicallyexplain multiple normativeand/or explorative statesof thefuture. As scenarios helpto explore alternative courses for development, it is bene cial to use them in the ‘modelling’ phase following the analysis of systems in their own contexts.

Roadmapping is another frequently used technique in Foresight. This is mainly because the concept of roadmapping isconsistent with the key characteristics of Foresight, namely:

1. Creating multiple futures2. Linking the future with the present3. Providing participation.

Both methods have certain advantages and disadvantages, which make it more desirable to integrate them. A comparison of them would make the wide scope for their integration more visible (Table 2). As the table shows, the disadvantages of scenarioscan be addressed by roadmaps and vice-versa.

Various ways have been suggested to overcome the shortcomings of individual methods such as development of more exibleand exploratory roadmaps. For instance, Beeton et al.[58] describes ways of developing an exploratory roadmapping process bydiscussing how roadmapping may be applied for knowledge exploration. Saunders[59] provides ways of developing visualizedscenarios to help communication of the scenarios developed. However each method has a certain role in the overall Foresightactivity.These compromises maynot be able to address all expectationsof Foresight such as suggesting multiple trajectories of thefuture, whilst being inclusive and action oriented in a creative process. Therefore a multi-method approach is considered to bemore appropriate.

In the Foresight process, roadmapping can be integrated to other methods as part of the overall methodology. It is the‘transformation’ phase, linking the future with the present, where roadmapping proves a very useful method in the overallForesight methodology. In the Foresight process, roadmapsgenerate options and alternatives on how to reach the most desirablestate of the future, which is determined in theprevious stages. Thus, they guide decisions on research,development and innovation

Fig. 1. The place and function of scenarios and roadmapping in the overall Foresight methodology.




by providing information in a manner that is easily understood by all parties involved and helping ensure discussions areinformed, open and objective. Roadmaps effectively integratetechnology push with market pull .

As one of the products of a Foresight exercise, roadmapsrepresent the information obtained throughout the Foresight process , and present it to a wide range of participants to elicit their responses, andobtain their participation for consensus generation on actions.The roadmapping process enables sometimes con icting and perhaps qualitatively different views, priorities and concerns of theparticipants to be compared , merged and synthesised into a coherent set of outcomes. Roadmaps are then used to (i) provide amechanism to forecast developments in targeted areas, (ii) present a framework to help plan and coordinate (S&T) developmentsat any level such as within an organisation or company; throughout an entire discipline, industry or cross industry; even atnational or international levels and (iii) provide information to help make better informed and targeted decisions.

Because roadmapping is a participative process, it generatesnot only product, butalso importantprocess outcomes.During theprocess, roadmapping facilitates a structured dialogue and aids communication , essential to the Foresight process. Roadmappinghelps to develop consensus among decision makers. Thus, it provides better alignment of organisational decision making. Theexercise brings together disparate teams: sales, engineers and nance, say. In this way, roadmapping provides multidisciplinarycross-functional working which is required to give common guidance to the whole organisation.

4.2. Combining scenarios and roadmapping

The integration of scenarios and roadmapping is bene cial in a policy and strategy making process. Both methods have

desirable properties and are complementary. In this respect, use of scenarios in the roadmapping process helps overcome some of the criticisms directed against roadmapping as a foresight method.With the introduction of scenarios, the roadmapping process is not only normative, but also becomes exploratory by

considering a set of probable futures. The linearity and isolation of roadmaps are eliminated with the application of a creative,interactive and collaborative scenario planning process. As Scranton emphasises, the history of technology shows developmentprogrammes are often messy, contingent and complex, involving multiple-technologies and much trial and error, with“ dead-ends, side-tracks, and instructive failures” [60, p. 205]. Finally, scenarios help present internally consistent narratives of possible,plausible and desirable futures, which can be understood easily not only by experts, but also by wider constituents of the society.Scenarios tell an accessible story.

We suggest that scenarios can be used at the three phases of the roadmapping process:

1. Before the roadmapping exercise2. During the roadmapping exercise

3. After the roadmapping exercise.

4.2.1. Using scenarios ‘ before ’ the roadmapping exerciseWe suggest use of scenarios as part of the preparatory activities for roadmapping. Here the‘baseline’ scenarios help cover the

certainties and uncertainties relating to the issue at hand. Scenarios help to anticipate possible and plausible futures.‘Before’

scenarios help identify what Constant [61, pp.15– 16] has called presumptive anomalies where science indicates a conventionalapproach mayfail badly in the future, or a radically differentapproach will do a much better job. Theconventional technology maybe working well and a straightforward roadmap might suggest incremental improvement. But a‘before’ scenario might indicate aradical change of approach.

4.2.2. Using scenarios ‘ during ’ the roadmapping exerciseIf we consider a roadmap as a‘skeleton’, scenarios constitute the ‘meat’ around it, which give it a life, by representing

alternative routes in the form of internally consistent narratives, or vignettes. In particular, they can highlight“

branch points”

where one trajectory should be followed rather than another.

Table 2Comparison of scenarios and roadmaps— advantages (A) and disadvantages (D).

Scenarios Roadmaps

A: Exploratory and Normative— can both serve to explore alternative trajectories of thefuture and to describe the most desirable future

D: Normative— more target oriented, therefore, focuses merely onthe desirable future

A: Allow open and creative thinking D: Suggest linear and isolated thinkingA: Highly participative and interactive D: More dif cult to communicate with non-participants of the

process as results too technicalD: Frequently used to describe one or a set of future circumstance(s). Do not necessarily

give a pathway into the future. Therefore may not ful ll the expectations of Foresight,which is an action-oriented activity, alone

A: Connect the future with the present and inform long, mediumand short term policies and actions

D: Take longer to grasp particularly when presented in textual format A: Provide high information content in one single gureD: More open ended and may lead to multiple interpretations A: More precise and clear in terms of actions and how they lead to

the development of technologies, products and markets




4.2.3. Using scenarios ‘ after ’ the roadmapping exerciseHere scenarios are tools to both test the robustness of roadmaps and develop an overall picture of the way ahead.Fig. 2illustrates the types and suggested uses of scenarios in the roadmapping process.“ B” — or “ before” scenarios are used before the actual roadmapping exercise starts. These are mainly the baseline scenarios

which provide context for the roadmap. They inform roadmaps about the future developments in the Social, Technological,Economic, Ecological and Technological developments and Values (STEEPV). They may contain“ weak signals” of change and“ wildcards” . InFig. 2, three alternative ‘before’ scenarios encompass a wide range of possibilities. Thesemay overlap. For example,in the context of vehicles this might include all propulsion technologies, diesel, petrol and electric propulsion and their associatedeconomic and environmental context.

“ D” — or “ during” scenarios are developed during the roadmapping exercise. These might be in the form of “ vignettes” , whichillustrate one or more components of the roadmap in detail. There are usually more than one“ D” scenario involved in theroadmapping exercise. As depicted inFig. 2, they cover a fairlynarrow range of technical possibilities, perhaps a speci c trajectoryof development linking technology“ T” to the market “ M” . So, in an environmental context this might relate to, say, a scenarioaround development of fuel cell powered cars.

“ R ” is the “ overall” scenario of the roadmap. It brings together a range of D scenarios/vignettes in an internally consistent wayand provides an overview of the overall roadmap. R scenario constitutes the body of the roadmap (Fig. 3). For example, this mightembrace thefutureoutlook for lowcarbonvehicles.“ A” or “ after” scenariosareused to benchmarkthe “ R ” scenario and sometimesto test the robustness of the “ R ” scenario. “ A” scenarios can be scenarios developed on other related or partially related sectors orthemes. Pursuing ourexample, one“ A” scenario might be quite a speci c line of development in say, developing hydrogen fuel cellpowered vehicles with all the related environmental and economic consequences.

5. Developing clean production

Our focus here is the interaction between scenarios and roadmapping of clean production in metal manufacturing, drawing onthe European CLEANPROD project. The preliminary objective of the project was to develop a set of roadmaps for research directedtowards achieving breakthrough sustainability— “ clean production” in the areas of machining, coating and surface preparation.

5.1. Metal processing

Three main production processes are considered by the CLEANPROD project: 1) surface cleaning and surface treatment; 2)machining and forming; 3) coating. Here we focus on the example of machining which involves cutting and shaping metal toprovide a precision component, typically using a sequence of processes anda combination of tools on a singlecomputercontrolledmachine — a multi-axis “ machining centre” . These machine tools are either automatically fed with metal, or handle components xed on pre-prepared, interchangeable pallets. These types of manufacturing systems are designed with a range of objectives,including minimum cost, optimal quality, short turn round times and exibility of output[62,63]. Environmental considerationsmay be an afterthought.

Metal processing is a small but signi cant source of industrial pollution. Obvious sources of pollution have now beencontrolled. Key R&D challenges now relate to reduction of minor sources of pollution, elimination of toxic and hazardoussubstances, and recycling and re-use of waste material. There are alternative research paths towards achieving the objective of “ clean production” and it is not evident which route should be pursued.

Fig. 2. The types and suggested uses of various scenarios in the roadmapping process.




Here scenarios are used to set the context for the exercise; inform the design of the roadmaps; test the robustness of theseproposed technology roadmaps; and in uence the wider policy context.

Roadmaps are developed for these process areas on four levels including long run visions up to 2020, interim targets up to2015, key R&D areas and speci c project topics. The road maps are appraised in the light of two alternative scenarios on the futureof manufacturing. Promoting sustainability highlights gaps in a“ business as usual” roadmap and suggests a different portfolio of research projects. One outcome is that the revised scenarios are used to in uence the wider policy context.

This example is describedin a linearwayfrom preparatorywork to conclusion.In truth,pathwaysbetween scienceandtechnologyandtheir eventual applicationaremany, theprocessis notnecessarily linear or unidirectional[64], while scenarios show theneedforsigni cant amounts and new types of data to complete a roadmap. Scenarios may also suggest jumps in technology, or changes of direction. In practice, roadmapping is often an iterative process with later insights modifying earlier assumptions. This ambiguity isinevitable because advancing technologies are complex and overlap. Taking one instance, improved surface treatments of toolsdrawing on widerprogress in nanotechnology maybeneeded if polluting coolants are to be removed when machininghard materials[65]. So, progress in clean manufacture hinges on evolution of an emerging technology elsewhere— in this case, nano surfacetreatments.An emerging scenario on thesocial, technical,political andenvironmental acceptability of nano technology might suggesta shift in direction in research on clean cutting and shaping processes.

Fig. 3. Roadmap and scenario (R).

Fig. 4. “ Before” scenarios set the context for roadmaps.




Cryogeniccoolingduringmachining is a further example where the pathwaysbetween science andpractical technologieshaveyet to be clari ed. Heat generated during metal turning needs to be conveyed away from the cutting tool. This is especially true of titanium alloys which have low thermal conductivity. A switch to dry machining to reduce ef uent implies some other coolingmethod must be used. Cryogenic cooling of the cutting face offers considerable promise and research programmes have beenproposed [66]. However, the overall process may be more energy intensive. Use of cryogenic liquid nitrogen as a cooling mediumimplies considerable energy use in air separation and liquefaction of the resulting nitrogen[67]. So inclusion of cryogenic coolingin an interim roadmap on the grounds that it is a promising green technology does not imply that it would survive in the light of a nal scenario that chose to emphasise“ low carbon emissions” , say for 2020, although the technology might be ideally suited to“ business as usual” asapro table approach to high productivity machining of tough materialswhile permitting long tool lives andless cutting force. Similar objections apply to lubricants delivered in supercritical carbon dioxide where energy is required tocompress the CO2 towards 72.8 atm [68].

5.2. Setting the context with “ before ” scenarios

A“ before” scenario sets thecontext for these roadmaps ( Fig. 4). Note that social pressures such as“ shopping and sharing” – thedevelopment of ethical consumerism– are likely to add to pressures towards clean production through mechanisms such as eco-labelling of products and distributed, local production to reduce carbon footprints from transport[69]. Developments in nano-manufacture facilitate multilayer coating of cutting tools which are more suited to environmentally friendly dry machining,although not without some setbacks[65].

Against this background a set of R&D roadmaps were prepared with the help of expert consensus.Fig. 5outlines the roadmapfor the area of machining research. These roadmaps are built up in layers from a distant time horizon back towards the present:

a) First level: orientations for 2020b) Second level, targets for 2015c) R&D Projects from present to 2012.

Impact rankings for individual R&D projects were obtained by an on-line survey across the research partners.

Fig. 5. CLEANPROD roadmaps.




Taking one example from the machining roadmap (Fig. 5), research project 4 aims to reduce or eliminate coolants, cutting uids, lubricants or metal-working uids (as they are variously known) when machining titanium and other aerospace alloys.Titanium andsuper-alloys are light but tough materials that ordinarily require considerable lubrication andcooling during cutting[70,71]. A single modern high-speed machining centre might deliver 600 l a minute of coolant at high pressure.

Coolants are expensive, so there is already a cost incentive for near dry machining or minimum quantity lubrication. Use of cooling lubricants is estimated to account for 16.9% of total manufacturing costs of an automotive camshaft in Europe, the precise gure depending upon the work and material involved[72,73]. But coolants are also an environmental problem. Each machineshop maintains a coolant treatment plant to recover lubricant and clean the oily water produced. The mist generated by coolantsduring the cutting process is hazardous to the workforce and a local atmospheric pollutant[74,75].

The overall orientation is to reduce or eliminate all such lubricants by 2020. In this instance, the target is to produce“ clean” ,dryswarf by 2015. Otherwise waste turnings, borings or chippings (as they are variously known) have to be cleaned before recycling.Recovery of chippings from titanium is a particular problem. Titanium is an expensive metal. Heating to drive off the moistlubricating oil from titanium turnings brings yield losses, fume, possibility of ignition and, above all, the danger that the titaniumwill dissolve into a friable mass of worthless oxides and nitrides above a critical temperature[76]. Washing with detergent torecover theoil leaveswaterborne residues.Both techniques arecostlyanddif cult ways to treat titanium swarf contaminatedwithcoolant and help explain why the price of titanium turnings is well below that of new material.

However, dry machining is not simply a matter of switching off cooling lubricant supply[77,78]. The main functions of coolantare to reduce friction, dissipate heat and transport chips away from the work site. In addition, the coolant cleans and lubricatestools, work pieces and xtures, and helps regulate temperature in the work piece to ensure dimensional accuracy and materialstability.So an R&Droadmap which highlights drymachining forenvironmental reasons implies a number of keydevelopments inmachining centre design: wear and heat resistant cutting tools; provision of exhausting systems for chip; heat removal from thecutting zone; and minimisation of explosion risks when processing light metal alloys.

A conventional technology roadmap fordrymachiningwould begin developmentwith a soft andductilematerial, such as brassor magnesium alloy or grey cast iron and then move on to progressively tougher materials such as cast or wrought alloys of aluminium, followed by research on carbon steels and then nally titanium and super-alloys. However, a‘before scenario’

Fig. 5 (continued ).




focussingon clean productionfor leading European sectors, such as aerospace, requires research on the toughest material rst. Thebroader social scenario shifts the roadmap by prioritising the most technically dif cult processes for environmental reasons.

Developing these roadmaps shows there are disconnections between targets and orientations and targets and projects whichhighlight gapsin the R&D programmeaswellas shortcomingsin theinitial target settingexercise. New targets needto beset and newprojects selectedif theinitialscenario is to berealised.Forinstance, a targetforlubricantquality remains unde ned(project3).Settingsimple quality targets is problematic when lubricants are called upon to perform a number of roles during themachining process andthere area range of alternative criteria including cost, toolwear, longevity of lubricant, toxicity, disposalandso on[79]. Workingwithminimum quantity lubricants, (or “ near dry machining” as it is also known) adds another layer of complexity.

Scenarios form part of the roadmapping exercise itself. These are the“ D” or “ during” scenarios (Fig. 2). For instance, a shift tofuel cell electric vehicles while maintaining high levels of private car ownership[80] would switch machining requirements fromengine and gearbox components to electric motor assemblies, while choice of hybrid petrol-electric vehicles require bothtechnologies to remain in use. Here other roadmapping exercises are informative on likely transition dates, with hybrid andbattery powered electric vehicles preceding widespread useof “ alternatively fuelled vehicles” according to vehicle roadmaps[81].

5.3. Testing robustness with “ after ” scenarios

Road maps are then appraised in the light of earlier projects and platforms on the future of manufacturing technology[82]. Asan illustration we select twocontrasting A— or “ after” scenarios to test therobustness of the roadmaps ( Fig.6). These scenariosarenot predictions, but identify common features European manufacturing is likely to display, in the event of a variety of possiblefutures coming to pass.

In order to test robustness of the roadmap, two individual scenarios were picked out, based on the extent to which socio-economic attitudes and governance become either more individual or more collective.Global Economy — Business as Usual is themost individualised, ungoverned scenario: here global competition is cost-driven, with R&D helping to sustain leading-edgeproducts. But the uptake of nanotechnology disappoints and progress on sustainability and the environment is incremental. TheSustainable Times — Integrated Breakthrough scenario assumes both a high degree of acceptance by individuals of the need forsustainability and sophisticated public pricing mechanisms to cope with“ externalities” .

It is clear that some of the incremental improvements selected for technical development under the“ Business as Usual”scenario are not worth funding under the “ Sustainable Times” outlook: for example, why conduct research to mitigate the impactof useof hexavalent chromein corrosionresistant steel coatings by incremental improvement, if thesustainable approach is to banuse of chrome 6 as a coating element altogether? Again, why improve the performance of cutting oils, or develop geneticallymodi ed vegetable oils, or develop condition monitoring for lubricant quality if the orientation is to eliminate the use of coolantsaltogether? So, confronting the R&D roadmap with an alternative scenario alters thepath to be taken and the projects selected. Ona wider view, the business as usual scenario calls into question the whole drive to clean production. Dry machining is notnecessarily cost competitive for tougher materials such as aerospace titanium, for instance. It also brings other technical problems,such as localised phase changes induced in materials by a very hot tool tip.

5.4. “ Overall ” scenarios and policy proposals

Appreciation of the impact of “ Sustainable Times” on the precise portfolio chosen for the associated roadmap interacts with the nal or “ R ” , or “ overall” scenario which wraps up the whole project (Fig. 2). The example chosen here, CLEANPROD is part of anexercise in public policy formation. So, at this point, roadmapping feeds in to overall policy formation: Development of environmentally conscious technologies require public intervention to overcome market failure. For example, the nal overarching“ R ” scenario includes adoption of universal“ eco-labelling” to certifyclean procedures were used at eachstage in the manufacture of

Fig. 6. “ After” scenarios for testing the robustness of the“ business as usual” roadmap — alternative scenarios for European manufacturing.




certi edproducts.Eco-labelling acts as a signal that thewhole supplychain has responded to environmentalpriorities. In thisrespect,the nal “ R ” scenario is a normative outcome from a more dispassionate analytic exercise.

In the context of a privately owned rm, the “ overall” scenario would be part of business strategy formation, looking towardsdevelopment of new products or adoption of new processes involving functions such as marketing, nance and engineering. Thishighlights that to be effective, roadmapping and other management decision aids need to be fully integrated into strategicplanning, operations and supply chain of the organisation[83]. Evidence from the UK shows successful policy implementation inclean production also requires close links between regulators and rms and strong participation of the workforce[84] as well asinnovative users [85]. Starting any environmental initiative requires clear, consistent and credible messages for all interestedparties. In the same way that Walsh argues a roadmap for a disruptive technology must encompass a wide range of stakeholdersand in a more active manner than roadmapping efforts which focus on business as usual [36,p.180], we argue here that integrationof scenarios and roadmapping requires a wider range of stakeholders too— the green movement as well as the producers of technology, for instance.

6. Conclusions and quali cations

We propose an integrated approach, using roadmaps and scenarios together from the beginning to the end of the exercise. Byembodying roadmaps, scenarios help overcome the weaknesses of roadmaps taken in isolation. The example of clean productionshows that incomplete roadmaps portray a fragmented and isolated picture. For instance, there is little point in pursuingincremental research to improve a process which is likely to become obsolete under another“ breakthrough” scenario. Roadmapsdirected towards a single targetare likely to be inappropriate where policy intervention maydirect technology towards a different

trajectory altogether. Roadmaps need to respond to scenarios generatedduring the time period of analysis as related technologiesemerge and research is shaped by new social priorities.There have been earlier limited attempts to integrate roadmapping and scenarios. Here we use scenarios at three different

phases in the roadmapping process: to set the context for roadmapping before we start; to ll out aspects of a road map while it isunderway; to put ‘ esh on the bones ’ of a nal roadmap and to check the robustness of the resultingroadmap to different outlooksahead of strategy formation, or as part of public policy advice.

Theexample chosenhere suggests integrationof scenarios with roadmapping is especially appropriate when evaluating longerterm environmental research projects. In particular, alternative scenarios allow the exploration of new socio-technical regimesbrought by radical shifts in attitudes towards environmental protection. They accommodate the uncertainty surroundingemergent technologies and begin to allow for the messy and contingent way that science and technology co-evolves.

References

[1] L. Erdmann, S. Behrendt, From technology-driven roadmapping towardssustainability-orientedroadmapping: development and application of an integratedmethod, Second International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis, Seville, 28– 29 September 2006 (at http://forera.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/papers/FTA%20Seville%20Seminar%20-%20submitted%20paper.pdf, last visited November 5, 2009).

[2] S. Paramanathan, C. Farrukh, R. Phaal, D. Probert, Implementing industrial sustainability: the research issues in technology management, R&D Management34 (5) (2004) 527– 537.

[3] K. Green, A. McMeekin, A. Irwin, Technological trajectories and R&D for environmental innovation in UK rms, Futures 26 (10) (1994) 1047– 1059.[4] M.R. Taylor, E.S. Rubin, D.A. Hounshell, Control of SO2 emissions from power plants: a case of induced technological innovation in the U.S. Technological

Forecasting & Social Change 72 (6) (2005) 697– 718.[5] L. Tao, E. Garnsey, D. Probert, T. Ridgman, Innovation as response to emissions legislation: revisiting the automotive catalytic converter at Johnson Matthey,

R&D Management 40 (2) (2010) 154– 168.[6] W. McDowall, M. Eames, Forecasts, scenarios, visions, backcasts and roadmaps to the hydrogen economy: a review of the hydrogen futures literature, Energy

Policy 34 (11) (2006) 1236– 1250.[7] R.N. Kostoff, R. Boylan, G.R. Simons, Disruptive technology roadmaps, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 71 (1-2) (2004) 141– 159.[8] J.B. Robinson, Energy backcasting: a proposed method of policy analysis, Energy Policy 10 (4) (1982) 337– 344.[9] J.B. Robinson, Unlearning and backcasting: rethinking some of the questions we ask about the future, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 33 (4)

(1988) 325– 338.[10] K.H. Dreborg, Essence of backcasting, Futures 28 (9) (1996) 813– 828.

[11] N. Meade, T. Islam, Modelling and forecasting the diffusion of innovation—

A 25-year review, International Journal of Forecasting 22 (3) (2006) 519–

545.[12] K. Van der Heijden, Scenarios and forecasting: two perspectives, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 65 (1) (2000) 31– 36.[13] T.M. Porter, Trust in Numbers: the Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life, Princeton UP, New Jersey, 1995.[14] M. Amsteus, Managerial foresight: concept and measurement, Foresight 10 (1) (2008) 53– 66.[15] J.S. Armstrong, Combining forecasts, in: J.S. Armstrong (Ed.), Principles of Forecasting: a Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners, Kluwer, Boston, 2001,

pp. 417– 440.[16] F.-M. Tseng,A.-C. Cheng, Y.-N. Peng, Assessing market penetration combining scenario analysis, Delphi, and the technological substitution model: the case of

the OLED TV market, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76 (7) (2009) 897– 909.[17] J.B. Quinn, Technological forecasting, Harvard Business Review (March– April) (1967) 89– 106.[18] O. Saritas, M.A. Oner, Systemic analysis of UK Foresight results: joint application of integrated management model and roadmapping, Technological

Forecasting & Social Change 71 (1-2) (2004) 27– 65.[19] N. Teleb, The Black Swan: the Impact of the Highly Improbable, Allen Lane, London, 2007.[20] H. El-Hofy, Advanced Machining Processes: Nontraditional and Hybrid Machining Processes, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2005.[21] K. Tönshof, R. Egger, F. Klocke, Environmental and safety aspects of electrophysical and electrochemical processes, CIRP Annals— Manufacturing Technology

45 (2) (1996) 553– 568.[22] J.S. Metcalfe, N. De Liso, Innovation, capabilitiesand knowledge:the epistemic connection, in:R. Coombs, K. Green, A. Richards, V. Walsh (Eds.), Technological

Change and Organization, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 1998.

[23] F. Berkhout, K. Green, Managing innovation for sustainability: the challenge of integration and scale, International Journal of Innovation Management 6 (3)(2002) 227– 232.




[24] K. Frenken, M. Hekkert, P. Godfroij, R&D portfolios in environmentally friendly automotive propulsion: variety, competition and policy implications,Technological Forecasting & Social Change 71 (5) (2004) 485– 507.

[25] M. Åhman, L.J. Nilsson, Path dependency and the future of advanced vehicles and biofuels, Utilities Policy 16 (2) (2008) 80– 89.[26] F. Lizaso, G.Reger, Linking roadmapping and scenarios as an approach for strategic technology planning, International Journal of Technology Intelligence and

Planning 1 (1) (2004) 68– 86.[27] S.A.W. Drew, Building technology foresight: using scenarios to embrace innovation, European Journal of Innovation Management 9 (3) (2006) 241– 257.[28] S.P. Schnaars, S.L. Chia, C.M. Maloles, Five modern lessons from a 55-year-old technological forecast, Journal of Product Innovation Management 10 (1)

(1993) 66– 74.[29] E. Jantsch, Technological Forecasting in Perspective, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 1967.[30] H. Aujac, A new approach to technological forecasting in French national planning, in: B.R. Williams (Ed.), Science and Technology in Economic Growth,

Macmillan, London, 1973, pp. 96– 115.[31] C.H. Willyard, C.W. McClees, Motorola's technology roadmap process, Research Management 30 (5) (1987) 13– 19.[32] D. Barker, D.J.H. Smith, Technology foresight using roadmaps, Long Range Planning 28 (2) (1995) 21– 28.[33] P. Groenveld, Roadmapping integrates business and technology, Research Technology Management 40 (5) (1997) 48– 55.[34] H.S.Kenchington, J.L. Eisenhauer,J.A.S.Green,Innovations in aluminum, partII: a technology roadmap forthe U.S.aluminum industry, Journal of theMinerals

Metals and Materials Society 49 (8) (1997) 18– 21.[35] O.H. Bray, M.L. Garcia, Technology roadmapping: the integration of strategic and technology planning for competitiveness, Innovation in Technology

Management— The Key to Global Leadership. PICMET '97: Portland International Conference on Management and Technology, 1997, pp. 25– 28, [IEEE].[36] S. Walsh, Roadmapping a disruptive technology: a case study the emerging microsystems and top-down nanosystems industry, Technological Forecasting

and Social Change 71 (1) (2004) 161– 185.[37] R. Phaal,C.J.P.Farrukh,D.R. Probert, Technology roadmapping— a planning frameworkfor evolution and revolution, Technology Forecasting & Social Change

46 (7– 8) (2004) 1071– 1080.[38] R. Zurcher, R.N. Kostoff, Modelling technology roadmaps, Journal of Technology Transfer 22 (3) (1997) 73– 80.[39] D. Probert, N. Shehabuddeen, Technology road mapping: the issues of managing technology change, International Journal of Technology Management 17 (6)

(1999) 646– 661.[40] R. Phaal, Technology Roadmapping, UNIDO Technology Foresight Manual, Volume 1, UNIDO, Vienna, 2005.[41] T. Könnölä, T. Ahlqvist, A. Eerola, S. Kivisaari, R. Koivisto, Management of foresight portfolio: analysis of modular foresight projects at contract research

organisation, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 21 (3) (2009) 381– 405.[42] D. Loveridge, O. Saritas, Reducing the democratic de cit in institutional foresight programmes: a case for critical systems thinking in nanotechnology,Technological Forecasting & Social Change 76 (9) (2009) 1208– 1221.

[43] R.N. Kostoff, R. Boylan, G.R. Simons, Disruptive technology roadmaps, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 71 (1– 2) (2004) 141– 159.[44] H. Kahn, On Alternative World Futures: Issues and Themes, Martin Company, Hudson Institute, Harmon-on-Hudson, New York, 1965.[45] H. Kahn, A. Wiener, The Year 2000, A Framework for Speculation on the Next Thirty-Three Years, Macmillan, New York, 1967.[46] R.H. Becker, L.M. Speltz, Scenarios: a tool of growingimportanceto policy analysts in governmentand industry, Technological Forecasting& Social Change 23

(1983) 95– 120.[47] A.L. Porter, A.T. Roper, T.W. Mason, F.A. Rossini, J. Banks, Forecasting and Management of Technology, Wiley Interscience, New York, 1991.[48] J. Ogilvy, Future studies and the human sciences: the case for normative scenarios, Futures Research Quarterly 8 (2) (1992) 5– 65.[49] P. Bishop, A. Hines, T. Collins, The current state of scenario development: an overview of techniques, Foresight 9 (1) (2007) 5– 25.[50] P. Wack, Scenarios: shooting the rapids, Harvard Business Review 63 (6) (1985) 139– 150.[51] I. Miles, M. Keenan, Practical Guide to Regional Foresight in the UK, Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2002.[52] W.L. Gregory, A. Duran, Scenarios and acceptance of forecasts, in: J.S. Armstrong (Ed.) Principles of Forecasting ,op.cit., pp. 519– 540.[53] K. Van der Heijden, Scenarios: the Art of Strategic Conversation, Wiley, New York, 1996.[54] D. Loveridge, Foresight: the Art and Science of Anticipating the Future, Routledge, Abingdon, 2008.[55] I. Miles, Scenarios and Foresight, A theoretical background paper for UNIDO Technology Foresight Course for Organizers, Gebze, Turkey, 2007.

[56] IAF, Patient-centered care 2015: Scenarios, vision, goals and next steps, Report produced by the Institute of Alternative Futures on behalf of the PickerInstitute, 2004 (available at: http://www.pickerinstitute.org/publications.html, last visited on: November 5, 2009).[57] O. Saritas, Systems Thinking for Foresight, PhD thesis for PREST, The University of Manchester, 2006.[58] D.A. Beeton, R. Phaal, D.R. Probert, Exploratory roadmapping for foresight, International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning 4 (4) (2008)

398– 412.[59] S.G. Saunders, Scenario planning: a college construction approach, Foresight 11 (2) (2009) 19– 28.[60] P. Scranton,Technology, science andamerican innovation, Momigliano Lecture2005, in:F. Amatori, M. Amendola (Eds.), Ricercaavanzatae alta divulgazione,

Le Momigliano Lectures 1997– 2008, ICSIM, Terni, Italy, 2008, pp. 193– 220.[61] E.W. Constant, The Origins of the Turbojet Revolution, John Hopkins, Baltimore, 1980.[62] K.K.B. Hon, Performance and evaluation of manufacturing systems, CIRP Annals— Manufacturing Technology 54 (2) (2005) 139– 154.[63] On the role of modern machining see“ manufacture and assembly” in: Rolls-Royce Technical Publications, The Jet Engine, Rolls-Royce, London, 6th Edition,

2005.[64] P. Scranton, Technology-led innovation: the non-linearity of US jet propulsion development, History and Technology 22 (4) (2006) 337– 367.[65] N.M. Renevier, N. Lobiondo, V.C. Fox, D.G. Teer, J. Hampshire, Performance of MoS2 /metal composite coatings used for dry machining and other industrial

applications, Surface and Coatings Technology 123 (1) (2000) 84– 91.[66] V.S. Sharma, M. Dogra, N.M. Suri, Review article: cooling techniques for improved productivity in turning, International Journal of Machine Tools &

Manufacture 49 (6) (2009) 435– 453.

[67] F. Pusavec, P. Krajnik, J. Kopac, Transitioning to sustainable production—

part I: application on machining technologies, Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2)(2010) 174– 184.[68] A.F. Clarens, J.B. Zimmerman, G.A. Keoleian, K.F. Hayes, S.J. Skerlos, Comparison of life cycle emissions and energy consumption for environmentally adapted

metalworking uid systems, Environmental Science & Technology 42 (22) (2008) 8534– 8540.[69] M. Bleda, M. Valente, Graded eco-labels:a demand-orientedapproach to reduce pollution, Technological Forecasting & Social Change76 (4)(2009)512– 524.[70] T. Mang, C. Freiler, D. Hörner, Metalworking Fluids, in: T. Mang, W. Dresel (Eds.), Lubricants and Lubrication, second edition, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2007,

pp. 384– 521.[71] M.J. Donachie, Titanium: a Technical Guide, ASM International, Metals Park, Ohio, 1988, pp. 75– 85.[72] T. Brockhoff, A. Walter, Fluid minimization in cutting and grinding, Abrasives Magazine (October– November) (1998) 38– 42.[73] K. Weinert, F.-J. Adams, D. Thamke, Was kostet die Kühlschmierung? Technica 44 (7) (1995) 19– 23.[74] K.L. Gunter, J.W. Sutherland, An experimental investigation into the effect of process conditions on the mass concentration of cutting uid mist in turning,

Journal of Cleaner Production 7 (5) (1999) 341– 350.[75] H. Cohen, E.M. White, Metalworking uid mist occupational exposure limits— discussion of alternative methods, Journal of Occupational and Environmental

Hygiene 3 (9) (2006) 501– 507.[76] C.Q. Hughes, P.J. Bridges, P.S. Bate, Manufacture of titanium alloy components for aerospace applications, in: M. Ward-Close (Ed.), Cost-effective Titanium

Component Technology for Leading-edge Performance, Professional Engineering Publishing for the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Bury St. Edmunds,2000, pp. 39– 46.

[77] K. Weinert, I. Inasaki, J.W. Sutherland, T. Wakabayashi, Dry machining and minimum quantity lubrication, CIRP Annals—

Manufacturing Technology 53 (2)(2004) 511– 537.




[78] P.W. Marksberry, I.S. Jawahir, A comprehensive tool-wear/tool-life performance model in the evaluation of NDM(near dry machining) for sustainablemanufacture, International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 48 (7– 8) (2008) 878– 886.

[79] A.R. Lansdown, Lubrication and Lubricant Selection: a Practical Guide, third edition, Professional Engineering Publishing Limited, London, 2004.[80] J. King, The King Review of Low-carbon Cars, Part I: the Potential for CO2 reduction, HM Treasury, London, October 2007 and J. King, The King Review of low-

carbon cars, Part II: recommendations for action, HM Treasury, London, March 2008.[81] Foresight Vehicle Technology Roadmap: Technology and Research Directions for Future Road Vehicles, Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, London,

version 2, 2004, (downloaded from http://www.foresightvehicle.org.uk/public/info_/FV/TRMV2.pdf, last accessed 8 August 2008).[82] FuTMaN, The Future Of Manufacturing In Europe 2015– 2020 The Challenge For Sustainability Final Report, Brussels: March 2003, mimeo, Figure 8, http://

www.manufuture.org/documents/manufuture_vision_en[1].pdf last downloaded 15th May 2008.[83] I.J. Petrick, A.E. Echols, Technology roadmapping in review: a tool for making sustainable new product development decisions, Technological Forecasting &

Social Change 71 (1-2) (2004) 81– 100.[84] I. Vickers, M. Cordey-Hayes, Cleaner production and organizational learning, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 11 (1) (1999) 75– 94.[85] C. Foster, K. Green, Greening the innovation process, Business Strategy and the Environment 9 (5) (2000) 287– 303.

Ozcan Saritas is a Research Fellow at Manchester Institute of Innovation Research (MIoIR) in Manchester Business School, United Kingdom. His research activityhasfocused uponlong-termpolicyand strategymaking withparticularemphasis uponForesightmethodologiesand their implementation in S&T and social elds.

Jonathan Aylen is a Senior Lecturer at Manchester Institute of Innovation Research (MIoIR) in Manchester Business School, United Kingdom. Recent publicationsfocus on the history of technology, econometrics of seasonality, and forecasting wild res.


Documents

Using Scenarios for Road Mapping the Case of Clean Production