NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 1 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
NMP-2009-1.2-5 Best practices to lower the barriers for commercialisation of
nanotechnology research
NanoCom
Lowering Barriers for Nanotechnology Commercialisation
Barriers and Success Factors; Commercialisation Readiness Scale
Start date of Project: 01 December 2009 Duration: 36 months
Revision: v1.1 Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Seventh Framework Programme (2009-2012)
Dissemination level
PU Public X
PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)
RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)
CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (excluding the Commission Services)
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 2 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
0 DOCUMENT INFO
0.1 Author
Authors Company E-mail
Denis Duret CEA [email protected]
Laurent Thibaudeau CEA
Bertrand Fillon CEA [email protected]
Holger Egger Bayer BTS [email protected]
Jose Vera Agullo Acciona [email protected]
0.2 Document Control
Document version #
Date Change
V01 12/07/2012
0.3 Document Data
Keywords
Point of Contact Name: Denis Duret Partner: CEA Address: 17, rue des Martyrs F-38054 Grenoble Cedex 9 Phone: +33 438 784 996 Fax: +33 438 785 118 E-mail: [email protected]
Delivery Date
0.4 Distribution List
Date Issue Group
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 3 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
Table of Contents
0 DOCUMENT INFO ...................................................................................... 2
0.1 Author ....................................................................................... 2
0.2 Document Control.................................................................... 2
0.3 Document Data ........................................................................ 2
0.4 Distribution List ....................................................................... 2
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................. 6
1.1 Analysis of barriers, success factors and common challenges for nanotechnology commercialization............. 6
1.2 Analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats ...................................................................................... 9
1.3 The commercialisation readiness scale .............................. 11
2 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 13
3 SURVEYS ................................................................................................. 14
3.1 Methodology .......................................................................... 14
3.2 Institutionally funded projects .............................................. 15
3.3 Industrial companies ............................................................. 17
3.4 Barriers: a synthetic view from the two surveys ................ 20
3.5 Success factors and challenges .......................................... 23
4 CLUSTERS ............................................................................................... 27
4.1 Methodology .......................................................................... 27
4.2 Results .................................................................................... 28
5 SWOT ANALYSES ................................................................................... 29
5.1 Methodology .......................................................................... 29
5.2 Results .................................................................................... 29
5.3 Recommendations ................................................................. 33
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 4 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
6 THE COMMERCIALISATION READINESS SCALE ................................ 34
6.1 The TRL (technology readiness levels) scale ..................... 35
6.2 The manufacturing readiness scale (MRL) .......................... 37
6.3 The marketing readiness scale and barriers ....................... 39
6.4 The organisation and investment readiness scale and barriers .................................................................................. 40
6.5 The global nanotechnology commercialisation readiness scale....................................................................................... 41
6.6 Case study: Photocatalytic additive (from Acciona Infrastructure) ....................................................................... 45
7 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 49
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 5 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
Figure Captions
Figure 1: Distribution of addressed institutionally funded projects ............................... 15 Figure 2: Distribution of success factors ..................................................................... 16 Figure 3: Ranking of categories by Technology Readiness Level ............................... 16 Figure 4: Distribution of answers over country groups. ............................................... 17 Figure 5: Distribution of companies with regard to headcounts ................................... 18 Figure 6: Distribution of Companies‟ Core Business ................................................... 18 Figure 7: distribution of product maturity level ............................................................ 19 Figure 8: Average Impact Factor as a function of TRL for each category ................... 19 Figure 9: Synthetic view of main barriers .................................................................... 20 Figure 10: Evolution of the importance of building blocks barriers as a function of TRLs ................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 11: Final ranking of the barriers per building block (domain) and associated criteria (detailed barriers)............................................................................................ 22 Figure 12: Key factors for successful commercialisation of nanotechnologies ............ 23 Figure 13: Challenges for entrepreneurs for the commercialization of nanotechnologies ................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 14: Investors' concerns and decision criteria ................................................... 25 Figure 15: Key success factors for nanotechnology companies ................................. 26 Figure 16: List of clusters and localisation .................................................................. 27 Figure 17: Clusters‟ membership ................................................................................ 28 Figure 18: Clusters‟ application markets ..................................................................... 28 Figure 19: Differentiating features per industrial sector ............................................... 29 Figure 20: Differentiating strengths per country .......................................................... 30 Figure 21: Global SWOT chart for the commercialisation of nanotechnologies in Europe ....................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 22: Global recommendations ........................................................................... 33 Figure 23: The TRL scale (from the Nanocom DoW) .................................................. 35 Figure 24: Technological readiness scale, steps and barriers .................................... 36 Figure 25: The MRL scale (from ref.10) ....................................................................... 37 Figure 26: Manufacturing readiness scale and barriers .............................................. 38 Figure 27: Marketing and communication readiness scale and barriers ...................... 39 Figure 28: Organisation and investment readiness scale and barriers ........................ 40 Figure 29: Schematics of the Global Nanotechnology Commercialisation Readiness Scale .......................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 30: Global scale: Steps to pass in any nanotechnology commercialisation process ...................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 31: Specific barriers in the global nanotechnology commercialisation readiness scale .......................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 32: 3D representation of the roadmap process ................................................ 44 Figure 33: Interaction of the particles with the support ................................................ 45 Figure 34: Determinant factors in the Technology and Manufacturing scales ............. 46 Figure 35: Key points in the marketing scale .............................................................. 47 Figure 36: Organisation and investment key points .................................................... 48 Figure 37: Determinant factors encountered before the market launch of photocatalytic additives from Acciona Infrastructure.......................................................................... 48
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 6 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
1 Executive Summary
1.1 Analysis of barriers, success factors and common challenges for nanotechnology commercialization
The evolution of barriers‟ perception was studied in relation with the readiness levels of
the TRL (Technology Readiness Levels) scale.
The methodology for the analysis of barriers relied on a set of building blocks grouped
into the following two main categories:
i) Commercial Development Parameters
Technology
Manufacturing
Marketing and strategy
Investment and organisation
ii) Innovation Management & Business Support Policies
Innovation management
Open innovation
Funding policies
Local support
Two surveys (30 answers from institutionally funded projects and 214 records from the
industry) allowed evaluating the evolution of the barrier importance for the two main
categories and building blocks as a function of TRL (technology readiness level), as
shown below.
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 7 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
Evolution of the importance of barriers as a function of technological readiness level (TRL)
To go further in details, the main criteria responsible of the barriers were ranked as
“detailed barriers” in the following table. The column “domain” ranks the building blocks
from 1 (extremely important) to 4 (moderately important).
Detailed barriers to commercialisation of technologies per domain (building block) importance
Success factors for the nanotechnology commercialisation and common challenges
faced by the companies were also extracted from the surveys. The tables below
present the main results.
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 8 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
KEY SUCCESS FACTORS
Strong focus on business point of view
Good R&D project management and organised in-house innovation activity
Funding
Collaboration and open innovation
Production establishment
Inclusion of services
Regulations knowledge
Implementation of successful business models
Key success factors for nanotechnology companies
COMMON CHALLENGES
Scientific Background Nanotechnology is strongly science-driven
R&D Cost
Applications Companies (at low TRL) consider finding applications a challenge
Finding the right Team
Time-to-market (often underestimated)
Establishing Partnerships Finding the right partners
Collaborations Working with large companies that have ever-lengthening decision-making cycles
Common challenges for nanotechnology companies
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 9 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
1.2 Analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
From the cluster survey, 3 main results have been identified and are presented below:
differentiating strengths per country, a SWOT analysis chart, and global
recommendations (see the three following figures)
Differentiating strengths per country
Global SWOT chart for the commercialisation of nanotechnologies in Europe
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 10 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
Global recommendations
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 11 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
1.3 The commercialisation readiness scale
The goal of this work has been to set up a nanotechnology commercialisation
readiness scale integrating the 4 building blocks (or domains) which were already used
in the surveys in the commercial development parameters categories:
i) Technology,
ii) Manufacturing,
iii) Marketing and strategy,
iv) Investment and organisation
The four building blocks have been time divided into 7 steps (see figure below), the
market introduction occurring between steps 4 and 5. The commercialisation readiness
scale details the 4 building blocks progress along the time, giving a tool to reduce the
time to market. The approach presented here considers all of the building blocks
simultaneously on a same graph as seen below:
Schematics of the Global Nanotechnology Commercialisation Readiness Scale This approach is a consolidation of well-known tools, such as Technology Readiness Levels (TRL scale), Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRL scale), Product Life Cycle, etc. and includes the results of thorough discussions with the NanoCom industrial partners. For any of the commercial parameter listed above, the commercialisation process has to progress step by step. The barriers identified by the NanoCom project appear as specific difficulties between some steps, before the market introduction. The market cannot be launched before each step becomes ready. The two following figures give the details of the steps (figure a) and where the specific barriers identified from the NanoCom study are encountered (figure b).
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 12 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
The Global Nanotechnology Commercialisation Readiness Scale with detailed step description
for each building block (Technology, Manufacturing, Marketing, Organisation)
The Global Nanotechnology Commercialisation Readiness Scale and the main barriers to face
in order to reduce the time to market.
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 13 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
2 Introduction
This document is a compendium of the main results coming from WP1 and WP2 of the
NanoCom project.
This work package relied on two surveys, the first one covering institutional projects,
the second one addressed to industrial activities. A benchmarking of European
clusters, including interviews, and an analysis of available reports on the subject were
also carried out.
Two main results were then extracted: i) the analysis of barriers, success factors and
common challenges for nanotechnology commercialisation, ii) an analysis of the
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, per country, per industrial sector,
and at a global level.
Another interesting result concerns the proposition of a new “Commercialisation
Readiness Scale”, thanks to which any project can be situated with respect to the
commercialisation objective, and the efforts to be made quantified in all their aspects.
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 14 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
3 Surveys
3.1 Methodology
An extensive study of the barriers to the commercialisation of nanotechnologies in
Europe was performed. The study was based on:
i) The interviews of coordinators of 30 institutionally funded projects, and
ii) The answers to a web-based questionnaire addressed to more than 250
European companies involved in nanotechnologies and leading to a
database of 214 answers after checking the relevance of all answers.
The evolution of barriers‟ perception was studied in relation with the readiness levels of
the TRL (Technology Readiness Levels) scale. Section 5 gives more details on it.
The methodology for the analysis of barriers relied on a set of building blocks grouped
into the following two main categories:
iii) Commercial Development Parameters
Technology
Manufacturing
Marketing and strategy
Investment and organisation
iv) Innovation Management & Business Support Policies
Innovation management
Open innovation
Funding policies
Local support
Each of the eight main building blocks included four or five criteria allowing a more
precise determination of the barrier by the interviewed individuals.
Based on the second survey, WP2 (Open innovation model and world best practices)
gave input on success factors and common challenges.
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 15 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
3.2 Institutionally funded projects
The choice of the projects was made according to their representativeness: having a
good geographic distribution, with a good balance between academic and industrial
management (two thirds/one third), and at a relatively high level of technological
maturity (TRL ≥ 7)1.
Figure 1: Distribution of addressed institutionally funded projects
3.2.1 Success factors All key success factors identified / cited by coordinators can be grouped into four key
categories:
Good representation of the value chain inside the consortium, Disruptive technology /
innovation, Market opportunities identified, and Competitive advantage.
“Achieving to identify market opportunities” is the most common Key Success Factor
identified between all projects analysed (cited 9 times on 10 projects):
1 See part 6.1 for a detailed introduction of TRLs
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 16 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
Figure 2: Distribution of success factors
3.2.2 Barriers
The ranking of the main categories of barriers as a function of the products or projects
maturity is presented below.
Figure 3: Ranking of categories by Technology Readiness Level
At low TRL (<6) technology and manufacturing are the main barriers, at high TRL (>8)
the marketing is the main barrier. This could be summarized by the two following
comments:
i) The barrier of technology decreases when the project matures,
ii) The marketing and strategy aspects grow in importance at high levels.
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 17 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
3.3 Industrial companies
3.3.1 Raw data The first task was to filter the raw data in order to yield a usable database. As usual
with web surveys, a portion of non-relevant recorded lines were removed (lack of data,
non-industrial companies …). This operation resulted in a database of 214 records.
Companies were then classified with regard to their “Core business” or “Core activity”,
regardless of their “End market” or “Served market”. As an example, all producers of
nanotubes, nanopowders, nanofibers, etc… were put under “Chemical Industry”.
The obtained company distribution is fairly well balanced across Europe, as shown
below:
Scandinavia; 34
United Kingdom; 14
German Speaking; 37
Benelux; 13France; 21
Iberian Peninsula; 28
Italy; 38
Eastern Europe; 29
Figure 4: Distribution of answers over country groups.
Most companies which answered the questionnaire are SMEs, and half of them are
Small Enterprises (1 to 49 employees, in accordance with the 2003 EU definition).
Only a quarter of the total is composed of big industrial groups. Actually a large
proportion of companies involved in the upstream part of the value chain (nano-
materials, nano-intermediates) are small companies.
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 18 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
Number of employees
104
49%
43
20%
17
8%
50
23%
1 to 49
50 to 249
250 to 1000
More than 1000
Figure 5: Distribution of companies with regard to headcounts
Figure 6 shows the distribution of companies‟ core business. Most of the companies
who answered the questionnaire are either in the Instrumentation / Manufacturing
sector or in the Chemical Industry.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Information & Communication
Transportation
Energy
Environment
Construction & Building
Security and Defence
Healthcare & Biochemistry
Chemical Industry
Instrumentation & Manufacturing
Consumer goods
Food
Number of companies
Figure 6: Distribution of Companies’ Core Business
The product maturity levels mentioned are fairly high: most of the companies have
industrial products on the market, as shown below.
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 19 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
Figure 7: distribution of product maturity level
3.3.2 Results An impact factor was defined as a function of the category ranking in the
questionnaire, and positioned per TRL groups.
Figure 8: Average Impact Factor as a function of TRL for each category
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 20 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
Figure 8 confirms the same tendency obtained with the institutional projects: at low
TRLs, technology and manufacturing are the main barriers and at high TRLs marketing
is the main barrier, which is statistically significant.
To go further in the analysis, the criteria were studied, giving the following table, where
the most important criteria are in bold and ranked per category.
Low
TR
L
Technological domain
Fundamental understanding
Reproducibility
Reliability
Manufacturing domain Efficiency
Costs
Hig
h T
RL
Technological domain
Fundamental understanding
Reproducibility
Reliability
Marketing and strategy domain Acceptability
Competition
Figure 9: Synthetic view of main barriers
3.4 Barriers: a synthetic view from the two surveys
The results from the interviews of projects‟ coordinators are in accordance with the
results from the large panel of industrial companies which answered the questionnaire.
In Fig. 10, the main trends are indicated by the arrows: As the products or projects
become more mature (i.e. increasing in the TRL level), the importance of technological
barriers decreases and the importance of barriers in the marketing and strategy
domains increase. Manufacturing issues remain always important, whereas investment
and organization domains are less perceived as barriers. Innovation practices
(including open innovation patterns) and funding policies are also important barriers,
whereas local support initiatives (development agencies, clusters, incubators…) are
not perceived as barriers.
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 21 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
Figure 10: Evolution of the importance of building blocks barriers as a function of TRLs
These main trends emphasize both the high level of technical challenges of
nanotechnologies and the “technology push” characteristics of current nanotechnology
developments: Only when the products or projects become closer to commercialisation
are the issues linked with marketing and strategy rising as most important barriers.
This is often referred to as a weakness for the commercialisation of nanotechnologies.
In contrast, market-pull approaches and market focused developments have been
identified as key success factors for the commercialisation of nanotechnologies. An
investigation of the impact of companies‟ sizes was carried out in order to look for
potential discrepancies between SMEs and large companies regarding the ranking of
the main categories of barriers. No major difference was found between SMEs and
large companies.
The table below gives in a snapshot the overall barrier ranking which emerged from
the study. The main criteria responsible of the barriers were ranked as “detailed
barriers”. The column “domain” ranks the building blocks from 1 (extremely important)
to 4 (moderately important).
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 22 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
Figure 11: Final ranking of the barriers per building block (domain) and associated criteria (detailed barriers)
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 23 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
3.5 Success factors and challenges
WP2 (Open innovation model and world best practices) gave inputs to this work, by
processing the industrial questionnaire.
3.5.1 Best Practices and Key Success Factors in Investment and Commercialisation of Nanotechnology
Analysis of the success factor data input by companies into the NanoCom
questionnaire indicates varying priorities across the spectrum. However, a set of
commonly shared factors that seemed critical to success was identified. The same
success factors were also derived from examining the national nanotechnology
commercialisation efforts of several leading countries. Although there is no universal or
„one size fits all‟ solution, all interviews mentioned common factors that can allow
companies to keep sustainable competitive advantages. The list of key success factors
is presented below:
Key Success Factor Comment / Specific focus on…
1. Strong focus on business Attention to marketing and strategy issues
Networking with customers
Inclusion of services in the business model
Emphasis on product added value (not on technology)
2. Organised in-house innovation activities
Specific focus to be paid towards R&D project management
3. Utilisation of local support as a competitive advantage
Incubators, clusters, networks, R&D facilities, development agencies
4. Collaboration and open innovation
At all phases in the product development cycle
5. Establishment of production mechanisms
Focus on product reliability and reproducibility
6. Funding mechanisms No underestimation of funding issues
7. Strong activity around standards and regulations
Investigation of current standards to avoid a situation where commercialisation would be hindered by regulation or safety issues
Participate in the creation of new standards
8. IP protection IP protection as a means to decrease commercialization risk
Figure 12: Key factors for successful commercialisation of nanotechnologies
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 24 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
3.5.2 Challenges for entrepreneurs in commercialising nanotechnology funded research
Entrepreneurship patterns in different strategic industrial sectors were analysed to
identify common features for the successful commercialisation of technology
developed in large collaborative public funded projects.
A total of 41 interviews were conducted across a wide spectrum of technical interest
and expertise areas, organisation and/or investment fund size and target markets.
The results illustrate that researchers and entrepreneurs do see value in publicly
funded projects. Common challenges across the interview responses are mapped
according to the three key life cycle phases associated with a project. Some of the
findings are summarised below:
Project’s phase Challenges for entrepreneurs
1. Project conceptualisation & design
Entrepreneurs struggle to design a project to fit the topics outlined by the EC
Funding is necessary but is not a sufficient driver for participation. Opportunity for collaboration in areas of interest and with key players in the field is of utmost importance
Finding the right partner is key
Preventative measures around the protection of IP ownership are necessary
2. Project execution Overcome administrative barriers
Researchers and entrepreneurs struggle to meet present EC goals and rigid milestones
3. Activity following project completion
Public agency support is not specifically designed to aid commercialisation
Entrepreneurs also require more flexible funding over a period of time to bridge the gaps between „research‟ and „development‟
Figure 13: Challenges for entrepreneurs for the commercialization of nanotechnologies
3.5.3 Investors’ concerns and key decision criteria Analysis of the investor interviews highlights the fact that investors are ambivalent
about value-added from publicly funded projects. The participation of a start-up in a
publicly funded project is not viewed as a decision criterion for deciding to invest. The
key elements extracted from the investor interviews indicate:
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 25 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
Investors’ concerns and decision criteria
Comment
1. Management team and Business Model
Investors are drawn to companies with a strong management team and strong business model.
2. Risk mitigation The risks of market acceptance and longer time to market are associated with nanotechnologies.
3. Market potential Interest is in the market potential of the product, not in the technology. Investors have the same expectations for start-ups in nanotechnology as for any other start-up.
4. Expectations from public funding
Start-ups participating in a publicly funded project are expected to use the opportunity to increase their market value. Investors feel disconnected from the EC process in determining the research focus areas that will receive funding.
Figure 14: Investors' concerns and decision criteria
3.5.4 Open Innovation Model for Rapid Commercialisation of Nanotechnology
How open innovation practices and mechanisms can be applied to nanotechnology in
order to improve the efficiency of commercialisation was analysed. It is determined that
in order to tackle the barrier of commercialisation, the broadcast search mechanism is
the most suitable open innovation method to overcome this. Broadcast search aims
towards more directed, target oriented research and also helps to improve matching
between supply and demand of research. Nanotechnology is a platform industry and
thus matching is a crucial element in improving commercialisation.
The key finding from both the questionnaire and success stories is that finding the right
partner to cooperate with is the most crucial element in realising a successful open
innovation strategy. Intermediaries, in particular technology transfer offices and
innovation intermediaries can help to overcome these barriers by acting as a trusted
third party, thus providing standard and easy to use contracts and linking between
partners. However, collaboration is only useful (and will be exercised) if it is mutually
beneficial and this requires (complementary) knowledge and allocation of resources
from partners.
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 26 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
3.5.5 Summary of results Figure 15 & 16 highlight the key success factors identified within D2.3 - D2.5, as well
as the issues and challenges faced by nanotechnology companies.
KEY SUCCESS FACTORS
Strong focus on business point of view
Good R&D project management and organised in-house innovation activity
Funding
Collaboration and open innovation
Production establishment
Inclusion of services
Regulations knowledge
Implementation of successful business models
Figure 15: Key success factors for nanotechnology companies
COMMON CHALLENGES
Scientific Background Nanotechnology is strongly science-driven
R&D Cost
Applications Companies (at low TRL) consider finding applications a challenge
Finding the right Team
Time-to-market (often underestimated)
Establishing Partnerships Finding the right partners
Collaborations Working with large companies that have ever-lengthening decision-making cycles
Figure 16: Common challenges for nanotechnology companies
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 27 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
4 Clusters
4.1 Methodology
The classification is based on the analysis of individual interviews of clusters‟
representatives. In order to interview the most significant clusters in Nanotechnology, a
first selection was done. A list of 31 European clusters dedicated to nanotechnology
was first established thanks to NanoCom consortium relationships. Then a selection of
a short list of 12 clusters was done, according to their representativeness and
localisation.
Figure 16: List of clusters and localisation
Interviews of these clusters were based on a specific interview guide, enquiring about
their activities, their markets, and their policies for nanotechnologies. Thanks to this
questionnaire significant information about activities and policies of the clusters
allowed to describe the global position of European clusters concerning
nanotechnology commercialisation.
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 28 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
4.2 Results
Figure 17 shows that the clusters are really dedicated to industry. A further analysis
shows that SMEs represent the main part of industrial members, with more than 70%.
Figure 17: Clusters’ membership
The application markets addressed by these clusters are various, as presented in
Figure 18, but three of them dominate: Energy, Healthcare & Biochemistry, and
Instrumentation & Manufacturing (with more than 70% of interviewed clusters working
on each of these markets).
Figure 18: Clusters’ application markets
The clusters‟ principal activity is to provide access to development platforms in order to
help their members to develop their technologies and their products. The second one
concerns open innovation, which allows interaction between cluster members and
external partners. Start-up incubation is also a common practice for clusters.
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 29 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
5 SWOT analyses
5.1 Methodology
The SWOT analyses presented in this section are based on four main inputs:
i. Results from previous work “analysis of barriers” and “success factors and best
practices” respectively chapters 3.2 and 3.3
ii. Further analysis of the NanoCom questionnaire on success indicators in
chapter 3.5
iii. Classification of clusters and their specificities in chapter 4
iv. Recent reports from research companies and governmental institutions.
For each country, recent reports were exploited. Often based on interviews of referent
experts in the country, those reports were instrumental for our study. The main
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of nanotechnologies identified in the
reports were compared to our findings and analysed through the filter of the
questionnaire‟s results.
5.2 Results
The original deliverable contains detailed SWOT charts per country and industrial
sectors. We will only present here some differentiating features per country, per
industrial sector, and global results. The sectors were chosen according to their
relevance given by the Cluster study.
5.2.1 Differentiating features per industrial sector
Figure 19: Differentiating features per industrial sector
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 30 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
Based on all the SWOTs, Figure 19 highlights the differences between sectors and the
specificities of each sector. One of the reasons for the specificity of a particular sector
is its position along the nanotechnology value chain. This position is recalled in the first
column of the table.
5.2.2 Differentiating strengths per country
Figure 20: Differentiating strengths per country
Figure 20 gives the differentiating strengths obtained by a differential analysis of all the
SWOT charts.
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 31 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
5.2.3 Global SWOT chart A global picture can be drawn for the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
of nanotechnologies in Europe. It is presented in Figure 21.
Figure 21: Global SWOT chart for the commercialisation of nanotechnologies in Europe
Factors contributing to the strengths of Europe in nanotechnologies include:
i. The high level of activity in research, relying on recognized infrastructures and
very diverse collaborations between research and industry fostered by the
activity of European. A good support from public funding (EU, national,
regional) that is steadily growing
ii. The ability of European firms to enter new markets, launch new products and
increase sales revenues, thanks to a successful integration of
nanotechnologies, A high level of awareness on the risks and EHS impacts of
nanotechnologies, addressed by an important number of nanosafety programs.
Currently 30 European nanosafety projects are running, representing a total
112 M€ total funding.
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 32 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
The main identified weaknesses of Europe are:
i. The lack of market driven vision in nanotechnology developments and
research, a general trend highlighted in a number of reports2, and confirmed by
the important score for the “Marketing and Strategy” domain in the NanoCom
questionnaire, both as barriers and as success factors,
ii. Insufficient provision of private investment, with a low percentage of global
nanotechnology venture capital invested in Europe.3
iii. Low patent application to publication ratio as compared with USA and Japan.
Although Europe exhibits high quality research results assessed by a strong
publication activity, it is less efficient than USA and Japan in converting
research into commercial products.4
Opportunities for European nanotechnology include:
i. A large number of potential applications. Nanotechnology is an enabling
technology with applications in most sectors of the European economy
(chemical industry, electronics, energy, transportation, healthcare, textile,
construction).5
ii. Opportunities for cross-sector and interdisciplinary approaches (see deliverable
D2.4, section 3.2)
iii. Active standardisation working groups as led by the ISO Technical Committee
in Nanotechnologies (TC 229).6
2 Lux Research, “Nanomaterials State of the Market Q1 2009: Cleantech's Dollar Investments,
Penny Returns” 3 See “Commercialisation of Nanotechnology – Key Challenges”, Tom Crawley, 2007,
Spinverse,http://www.spinverse.com/documents/NanotechCommercialisation_Helsinki_March07.pdf 4 See ObservatoryNANO (http://www.observatorynano.eu/) “Report 2010 on Statistical Patent
Analysis” “ObservatoryNANO Factsheets - March 2011”, and also M. Morrison, “Innovation in nanotechnology research” http://www.innovationeu.org/news/innovation-eu-vol2-1/0268-innovation-in-nanotechnology-research.html (accessed on Oct 11, 2011) 5 See High Level Group Key Enabling Technologies Working Document and Final Report,
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/ict/key_technologies/kets_high_level_group_en.htm, accessed on Oct 10, 2011. 6 ISO Working Group TC229, http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_technical_committee?commid=381983
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 33 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
5.3 Recommendations
Based on the SWOT analysis performed in the previous section, the following
recommendations can be made in order to emphasize strengths and opportunities and
to address weaknesses and threats for the commercialization of nanotechnologies in
Europe:
Figure 22: Global recommendations
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 34 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
6 The Commercialisation Readiness Scale
The goal of this work has been to set up a nanotechnology commercialisation
readiness scale integrating the 4 building blocks, or domains which were already used
in the surveys (see Section 2.1).
i. Technology readiness
ii. Manufacturing capability,
iii. Marketing, sales and communication
iv. Organization & investment
It has included and used all NanoCom survey results, coming from the institutionally
founded projects, the industrial companies, the clusters, and bibliographic data.
At the end, the results are tentatively used to propose a simple diagnosis and
assessment tool: the involved companies can use it to make an evaluation of how far
from the market a nanotechnology is, and therefore focus their remediation actions to
decrease the time to market.
The commercialization process can be traced on a time scale, which is partly
superimposed with the well-known product life cycle7.The most important point is the
market introduction.
Four scales corresponding to the four building blocks are then introduced and detailed
before their integration in the global commercialisation readiness scale.
The commercialisation readiness scale details the 4 building blocks (maturity of
technology, manufacturing, marketing, organisation and investment) progress along
the time, giving a tool to reduce the time to market.
7 Levitt, T. (1965) Exploit the product life cycle, Harvard Business Review, vol 43, November-
December 1965, pp 81-94.
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 35 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
6.1 The TRL (technology readiness levels) scale
Already mentioned in part 3 the TRL scale is a reference for the technological maturity
of a product. It has been first introduced by NASA in 19958. It was presented as below
in the NanoCom DoW:
Figure 23: The TRL scale (from the Nanocom DoW)
Level 1 corresponds to a concept, and 9 to a product ready to be commercialised.
Three main domains can be distinguished:
i. Technology assessment & proving (research projects) (from TRL 1 to 4),
ii. Pre-production (from TRL 5 to 6), and
iii. Production implementation (from TRL 7 to 9).
To position the results coming from the NanoCom survey, the TRL scale has been
reduced at the low end to start at level 4, condensed in 4 levels, and extended after the
level 9 to take into account the product life cycle.
Three new levels were added, after a thorough discussion with involved industrials:
i. Expertise acquisition, preparation of 2nd generation
ii. Incremental R&D, definition of 2nd generation
iii. Disruptive or incremental innovation (or exit)
8 John C. Mankins, TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVELS, A White Paper, April 6, 1995
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 36 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
At the end, a seven steps scale has been implemented, including the main identified
barriers from the survey.
As illustrated in Fig. 24, fundamental understanding is considered as a major issue at
low maturity levels (TRL<6), well before the market introduction; then, reproducibility
and reliability become important matters at high maturity levels (TRL>6).
Figure 24: Technological readiness scale, steps and barriers
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 37 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
6.2 The manufacturing readiness scale (MRL)
The manufacturing readiness scale was first introduced by the US department of
Defence9.
Figure 25: The MRL scale (from ref.10
)
It is a complement of the TRL scale, the output of both being a product on the market.
As previously done in section 6.1, this scale has been reduced at low end, condensed
in four levels, and extended after the market introduction in three more levels:
i. Ramp-up management, Optimisation of supply chain
ii. Monitoring yield, Increase production efficiency
iii. Production line termination (recycle or dismantle)
On the final scale, the main barriers identified from the NanoCom study was positioned
at TRL 7/8 as shown by the yellow box in figure 26.
As can be seen, costs and efficiency concerns are the main barrier and approximately
at the same level. These two criteria are important during the pilot line implementation
phase.
9 Manufacturing Readiness Guide, Prepared by the Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology
Panel Manufacturing Readiness Level Working Group, February 2007, http://www.dodmrl.com/
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 38 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
Figure 26: Manufacturing readiness scale and barriers
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 39 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
6.3 The marketing readiness scale and barriers
Taking into account the NanoCom results, and following some previous studies10, a
marketing readiness scale has been proposed, in which the post market introduction
phases are superimposed with the well-known product life cycle. The communication
aspects were introduced in the same scale. Once again, the identified barriers were
positioned from the NanoCom study. As before, the content of the different phases
were discussed with industrials involved in the nanotechnology business.
The main identified barriers, almost at the same level of importance, are the
competition and acceptability (yellow box illustrated on figure 27), having to be
overcome one step before the introduction on the market, that means at the ramp-up
forecast steps.
Figure 27: Marketing and communication readiness scale and barriers
10
Lan Tao, David Probert and Rob Phaal, Towards an integrated framework for managing the process of innovation, R&D Management 40, 1, 2010.
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 40 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
6.4 The organisation and investment readiness scale and barriers
As a final scale to be used in the nanotechnology process of commercialisation, the
NanoCom study has proposed to take into account both the organization and
investment matters. As before, four steps before the market introduction and three
steps after were considered, defined from other studies11 and discussions with
involved industrials. The identified barriers obtained from the survey were positioned.
The organisation and innovation activities, together with project management can
generate important bottlenecks in the overall commercialisation process (figure 28)
Figure 28: Organisation and investment readiness scale and barriers
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 41 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
6.5 The global nanotechnology commercialisation readiness scale
This scale is a tool to settle a roadmap for any project in nanotechnologies.
The 4 building blocks, or commercial development parameters, are:
i. Technology,
ii. Manufacturing,
iii. Marketing and strategy,
iv. Investment and organisation.
They have been all previously time divided into 7 steps, the market introduction
occurring between steps 4 and 5. The approach presented here considers all of them
simultaneously on a same graph (see Fig. 29). It includes the results of thorough
discussions with the NanoCom industrial partners.
Figure 29: Schematics of the Global Nanotechnology Commercialisation Readiness Scale
For any of the commercial parameter listed above, the commercialisation process has
to progress step by step. The barriers identified by the NanoCom project appear as
specific difficulties to overcome between some steps, before the market introduction.
The steps described in paragraphs 6.1 to 6.4 are all gathered in Fig. 30, which is the
final and global Nanotechnology Commercialisation Readiness Scale.
The NanoCom project has identified specific barriers, which can be superimposed on
the global scale (see Fig. 31).
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 42 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
Figure 30: Global scale: Steps to pass in any nanotechnology commercialisation process
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 43 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
Figure 31: Specific barriers in the global nanotechnology commercialisation readiness scale
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 44 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
The market cannot be launched before each building block, or commercial
development parameter becomes ready.
This tool then can thus be used to
i. Make a status of any nano-commercialisation process
ii. Evaluate the remaining difficulties to overcome
iii. Update the remaining time to market
This is similar to a checkers game, in which the tokens are positioned to make the
status, and barriers are obstacles over the game (see Fig.32 ).
Figure 32: 3D representation of the roadmap process
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 45 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
6.6 Case study: Photocatalytic additive (from Acciona Infrastructure)
ACCIONA, together with the technological partner TOLSA, has developed its own
additive to make self-cleaning building and infrastructures, with an improved
performance with respect to the commercially available products. The aim is to reduce
the final cost of the photocatalytic materials compared to commercial ones. It will
confer to the construction materials new added value functionalities: self-cleaning, air
depollution and biocide effects. The final applications could be: façades, pavements
(asphalt or precast bricks), concrete urban furniture, network of sanitary and storm
drains, hospitals, etc.
6.6.1 Technology and manufacturing These two aspects were quite coupled in the R&D process, so it is convenient to have
them considered together.
The technology uses Nano-TiO2 particles on Sepiolites support, and it was very
important to get a good understanding of how the pollutants diffuse on the support (it
acts as an absorbent). Then, the pollutants must be placed close to the photocatalytic
particles, and the catalysis steps have to be facilitated.
1a. Difusion of the pollutants to the catalyst or/and to
the support (sepiolites); 1b. Difusion of the pollutants
from the support to the catalyst (close)
2. Decomposition reactions.
3. Difusion of the products (CO2, H2O, SO2 y NO-3).
1. Difusion of the pollutants to the catalyst.
2. Decomposition reactions.
3. Difusion of the products (CO2, H2O, SO2 y NO-3).
Figure 33: Interaction of the particles with the support
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 46 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
Those aspects emphasize the fact that it was very important to have a good
fundamental understanding.
Further in the maturity level, several aspects were considered to be of high
importance:
i. Reproducibility (lab scale, <kg/day)
ii. Nano-production, pilot line, kg/day
iii. Scale-up investment
iv. Full rate production line, tons/day
v. Real scale application
Safety issues were also considered: nanomaterial from the point of view of activity and
micromaterial from the point of view of H&S issues
The identified key issues are positioned in the technology and manufacturing scales
below:
Figure 34: Determinant factors in the Technology and Manufacturing scales
6.6.2 Market & communication ACCIONA and TOLSA have developed its own additive with an improved performance
with respect to the commercial available products. The aim is to reduce the final cost of
the photocatalytic materials compared to commercial ones. A detailed market analysis
has been done.
Nanotechnology is a reply to a real problem: Municipalities need to reduce NOx
pollution. This aspect needed identification of the customers and meetings with them.
Moreover, the existing competitors were identified, in order to get a good positioning,
and to apply for a good intellectual property.
Just before the market launch, the three following matters were important:
i. Pre-announcement
ii. External communication/trademark
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 47 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
iii. Broad communication
All these key points are summarized in Fig. 35:
Figure 35: Key points in the marketing scale
6.6.3 Organisation and investment The R&D was developed within a National Funded Project: “Development and
production of innovative materials based on nanotechnology” (Acronym: DOMINO),
involving 15 Spanish companies (large and SMEs).
The total budget was more than 25M € (50% funded).
Several public technological center subcontracted.
At the end of the Project, two large companies were able to produce nanomaterials:
TOLSA SA (a mining company) produces sepiolites (fibrilar clays), knows how to
produce nanosepiolites (top-down process) and knows how to modify them by adding
nanoparticles on their surface.
GRUPO ANTOLÍN INGENIERÍA SA (an automative company) produces carbon
nanofibers (GANF).
Both companies are searching for applications with their nanomaterials. The rest of the
consortium is multisectorial, composed of companies from different industrial sectors
(ACCIONA as a construction company) and they try to use these nanomaterials.
This process led to:
i. Evaluate pilot line investment
ii. Increase, find and involve key competencies
iii. Organise the innovation activities
iv. Take care of the R&D project management
v. Get national funding
Fig. 36 summarises the organisation and investment key points:
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 48 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
Figure 36: Organisation and investment key points
6.6.4 Conclusions from the case study As shown below, this R&D was completely in phase with the Commercialisation
readiness Scale approach, since it had to go through all the major steps and barriers
identified previously.
Figure 37: Determinant factors encountered before the market launch of photocatalytic
additives from Acciona Infrastructure.
NanoCom
NMP-2009-1.2-5
Page 49 of 49
© NanoCom Consortium
7 Conclusion
This study summarizes some of the main results of the EU Nanocom project. It has
benefited of several large scale surveys in three communities: institutional researchers,
industrial, and regional actors. The presented results are thus a snapshot of their
expression. They include barriers and success factors.
It has allowed to make a SWOT analysis concerning the commercialization of
nanotechnologies in Europe, and to deduce some recommendations.
Then, based on the approach which was chosen at the beginning of the project by
making a segmentation of the commercialization activity in four building blocks
(Technology readiness, Manufacturing capability, Marketing, Sales and
communication, Organization & investment), a global commercialization readiness
scale has been proposed. It can be used as a “tableau de bord” to decrease the time
to market in the nanotechnology commercialization process. This meta-scale has been
implemented using extensive discussions, especially with the project industrial
partners. It includes the barriers which were quantified thanks to the surveys.