managing the new technology exploitation process: operating between new product development and pure science, nte has the characteristics of each along with some important differences.
New product development (NPD) Scientific research is two scattered areas of activity, each with its own mode of operation. Development of new technologies (NTE) On the other hand, the gray zone between NPD and pure science, borrowing the former\'s intention, produces useful things while taking advantage of the basic principles not covered by the latter. In this article, after a brief discussion of the tools and methods specific to NPD and basic research, respectively, I will define what I mean by NTE, review recent publications related to it and further explore the uniqueness of this particular activity and how it can be managed effectively. New product development and basic research phase Gate model for new product development, initially by Cooper (1) It has now been widely adopted. It consists of six stages. Conception, preliminary investigation, detailed investigation, development, testing and verification, final production and release) Separate by gates or review and decision points. As a product from creative to commercial, Gate model implements two main functions: it provides parallel processing of all elements of product development ( Technology, manufacturing, market, etc. ) While ensuring that the likelihood of project success is gradually increasing as the project enters the later stage and invests more money. The Stage- Gate\'s Gate method is essentially one time Through the linear process with the well Rationally decide to continue or abandon a project based on pre-defined paths and specific points Standards can be defined. Although technology has an impact on NPD projects, especially during the preliminary investigation and development phase, the results of this process are generally predictable. The original product idea was simple and sometimes very obvious and we thought, \"Why didn\'t I think about it! \"The example of this idea is to allow people to remove small labels of aluminum foil that seal the opening of the container, or to integrate child seats in the rear of the car. At another extreme, the idea of a new product may be complex and may require the interaction of multiple electronic components or complex computer programming techniques. But in all cases, the result is usually direct and predictable because it is based on Known performance features of the elements involved. Most of the uncertainty associated with these projects does not lie in the technology being able to provide a given level of performance, but in the acceptance of the product in the market. In some ways, scientific methods are the opposite of this process. First of all, the expected result of the exercise is not a physical product, not even an improvement in performance, but a better understanding of the basic rules of controlling a process. So, unlike what happened during the NPD process, an experiment that \"failed --- That is to say, based on the current working assumption, the result is not the expected experiment --- As valuable as \"success. In the latter case, the hypothesis is confirmed; In the former, it needs to be modified to describe the real world, but in any case, the theoretical description of a phenomenon has made progress. In other words, basic research runs in iterative mode by assuming continuous loops of development, testing, and correction. When the theory accurately predicts all known things in real time, the process is over --- When new observations that do not conform to the model appear, start again. Therefore, the concept of \"success\" has different meanings in dealing with NPD or scientific research. Once again, from a technical point of view- Contrary to the business view --- The successful development of new products is through the realization of pre- Performance level in a certain period of time. There is an end point for the NPD project, and reaching this end point is the reason for the project\'s success. In addition, if the relationship between operating technology/performance is well understood, then the possibility of achieving technical success will be high. On the other hand, in scientific research, although most experiments have expected results, there will always be a learning regardless of whether the expected results occur. Whether in the field of new product development or in the field of scientific research, brainstorming, genius flash and \"Eureka\" have taken place \". However, in the NPD, the result of these moments is the new product concept --- A new and better way to achieve a certain goal. In the basic research, the result is a new theory, a new model ( Principle of Archimedes) This makes all the results from the experimental world a reality. To sum up, the technical composition of new product development is a linear process, Define the end point ( A new product is obviously a performance level that cannot be achieved, a more efficient manufacturing process) Can be reached through a well Define the path with a reasonable probability of success within a predetermined time frame. On the other hand, scientific research is an ongoing cyclical learning process designed to generate knowledge from which there is no concept of success or failure because of any (well designed) A series of experiments produced new knowledge. The development of new technology, using the expression \"the development of new technology\" to describe the process of different scope. Some authors use it to focus on \"The process of converting it into a technical foundation or a technical platform \"(2) For others, it includes both the development of new technology platforms and the use of higher levels of performance (3-6). Technology is defined as \"using science- Basic knowledge to meet the needs \"(7). This definition perfectly describes the technical concept as a bridge between science and new products. It captures the fact that the development of new technologies draws on advances in basic science and uses the understanding of products and services to provide improved, useful performance. However, in order to avoid confusion with the slightly different process described above as \"New Technology Development\", I will refer specifically to the implementation of apre-Define results ( Target performance, cost reduction, etc. ) Development of new technology]NTE). \"This process is different from\" New technology assessment \", which is to explore what a new technology approach might bring, without any quantitative objectives, or from \"new technology development\" that is purely understood as creating new knowledge \". From the perspective of R & D Management, the latter two are more inclined to basic research, and if there is no specific goal, the concept of success or failure will be eliminated. Some examples of \"New Technology Development\" are the use of a basic understanding of the newly discovered polymerization mechanism to produce specific morphology in plastic materials, or the development of new biologically active molecules based on recently established structures Activity relationship. Just as the NTE process is between scientific research and the NPD process, so is the level of risk associated with this activity. Due to the complexity of the systems involved, they do not always respond as expected by the first principle and therefore do not immediately produce the desired level of performance. Sometimes multiple experiments are needed to determine how a particular system reacts to experimental conditions and ultimately whether or not to provide- Products with required attributes. In this sense, the NTE process, like scientific research, is iterative in nature. However, unlike basic studies where pure learning is the final result, NTE may \"fail \". \"Since the NTE process is in the middle, it is not surprising that managing the NTE process draws lessons from the methods used in NPD and scientific research. On the one hand, because the purpose of NTE is to provide improved product performance or a more efficient manufacturing process, all NPD activities aimed at determining customer needs, assessing market size, ensure acceptable manufacturing costs or a viable process in the environment, etc. , Related to the NTE process. These factors must be taken into account when deciding to start, continue or abandon a project, just as they are in a phase -- New product development process. On the other hand, from a technical point of view, the NTE process must be managed more like basic research, mainly because, as mentioned above, it may take some detail to translate the basic principles into product attributes Make adjustments before implementing the required properties. In other words, the project needs an iterative approach. The fact that new technology development and new product development projects must be managed in different ways has been recognized (2-6). It was pointed out that the \"New Technology Development Project\" was defined as converting new ideas into a technology platform, preferably managed by the \"learning cycle\" sequence, \"contrary to the review point of achievement based on any level of performance (2). This is very consistent with the knowledge generation concept of NTD specific definitions. Algorithm model byEldred and Mege of TRAC manage NT $ (3) In a broader sense ( Including developing new technologies to improve performance) It includes a series of stages designed to evaluate multiple technical options and narrow them down to reach the \"technical feasibility point. In this process, each stage is separated by the \"technical review\" representing \"important technical milestones and key assessment points (3, p. 45). According to the author. \"Due to the uncertainty of the experimental results at each stage, it makes no sense to outline the detailed plan of the experimental sequence at the future stage,\" but as in the regular stage -- During the door process, the level of uncertainty will decrease as the project progresses at each stage. The above process was recently discussed in more detail in the name of TechSG (4) , A name that illustrates the fact that it is based on the stage-Gate approach. Exxon\'s direct basic research project is managed by three new phases at the front end of the existing phase gate process, which address issues related to \"opportunity identification, R & D planning, \"Research Initiation, concept evaluation and detachment identification \"(5). Recently, another phase. Door process of technology development (StageGate-TD) Has been introduced for projects that \"direct delivery is not a new product or manufacturing process, but new knowledge or the ability to eventually produce a new product or process (6). Both of these processes seem to be more relevant to the basic research or technical assessment I defined, not to the technical development, and bothremain is basically linear, because they include adding several stages and doors before the traditional NPD phaseGate process. All the NTD models discussed so far, including technical utilization components, basically represent the expansion of the linear phase --Gate concept. Koen et al. , Pointed out that this method is not suitable for the new concept development process at the forefront of the NPD process, and described the iterative method to support the process (8). On the other hand, Alexander describes the use of scientific methods because it is applied to the development of new products through detailed branch experimental design (9) Very similar to what I recommend below. However, none of the authors have specifically linked these concepts to the development of new technologies. NTE\'s iterative approach, as demonstrated by a brief review of previous literature, has made many valuable suggestions on how to improve the front end of the new product development process. However, I do believe that by recognizing two facts, further improvements can be made to the management of projects dedicated to the development of new technologies: first, as mentioned above, the process is not linear, but iterative, this feature must be taken into account when designing research projects. Second, different from the traditional stage Gate process, in which the whole process will reduce risk as the project progresses, and commit to increasing funding, not only an iteration of the NTE process, but with each iteration, the probability of project success will be reduced. This is because when trying to reach a specific goal, the scientists in the project do (should) \"Give it the best picture first. \"If the attempt is successful, no problem. However, if it does not meet the desired goal ( Performance level) People find themselves going back to the drawing board and testing other methods that will be tried out first if they are considered to have a higher probability of success. Therefore, in each iteration, the expected performance improvement is reduced, and in order to achieve the expected performance level, it is usually necessary to combine multiple methods. This concept is stated in the chart on the next page. Note that the arrows representing Methods 1, 2, and 3 are getting shorter and shorter, which illustrates the fact that methods 1, 2, and 3 1, is considered the highest probability of success, try first. One can argue that if one believes in advance that the combination of technical methods will bring better performance than each of the methods applied separately, this combination should be tried out first, because it has the potential to produce the best possible product. If there is no negative performance advantage in the resulting process (which may be more complex and/or more costly (see below). In this case, how should the project be managed? I will start with a brainstorming exercise with the aim of identifying all potential technical methods that will affect the performance features that seek improvement, quantitatively assessing the performance improvements that each method will achieve and the probability of success All technicians who can bring value to the work should be involved, regardless of whether they will be involved in the implementation of the project in the future. The output of the brainstorming exercise is a series of experiments. The goal of each experiment is not to achieve the specified performance level, but to test the combination of technical methods or methods, and in the order in which performance and/or probability of success are reduced as expected. After all possible scenarios have been set up, one can even determine which should not be done before starting any experimental work. These decisions can be based on various criteria: the likelihood of success is too low, the number of technologies that need to be combined makes the process too complex for existing manufacturing capabilities, the cost is too high, and so on. I believe this- Unlike the previous proposal, the previous planning exercise allows (3. 4) Develop a detailed NTEproject plan. These may be better defined as the set of branches of the scene, which provides a complete picture of all possible paths that the project may follow ( Including success probability, cost and schedule) Although all these paths may not be explored in the end. Two different things may happen once the project starts. Some technical methods of testingthan- Expected results. This in turn has two consequences: 1) Achieve performance targets, successfully close the project, or 2) Did not reach the target level of performance, but better yetthan- Expected results may be again Open some options that were popped up in possiblescenarios\'s original \"thinking. On the contrary, some of the technical methods tested may not be able to achieve the expected performance improvement, and some downstream options may no longer be attractive, resulting in the early termination of the project. By using this method, while one may not know the exact experimental work of how the project will unfold, it can be referenced at least Based on the experimental results, make a reasonable decision on the steps to be taken in the future. The framework provides pictures of all the different paths the project may follow-- Based on what was found along the way-- Long term resources with the highest cost/lowest probability of success. However, because each path has a well defined end The point is that surprises can only be good (i. e. , Achieve target performance without resorting to all proposed ideas). The plan also prevents the real danger of the project going on forever: since the initial attempt failed to fully meet the performance goal, the idea after the idea was suggested and tested without any further re-attempt Check from the possibilities of their success, practicality from a manufacturing perspective, cost constraints, schedules, etc. In addition to the lack of detailed plans, a common problem associated with NTE project management is that they are considered NPD projects. There can be two reasons for this: either the fact that some technical demos need to reach a certain level of performance is not recognized at all, or more often, projects that started as NPD projects failed to achieve their goals. At this point, new ideas were put forward on how to achieve the target performance, and the NPD project entered the NTE model without anyone noticing it. This leads to unrealistic expectations. - Later setbacks- Interaction of schedule and probability of success. Therefore, as part of the entire R & D project portfolio management process, it is important to initially evaluate which category a project belongs to, manage accordingly, and repeat the evaluation on a regular basis. It is suggested that the development of new technologies is a unique process and must be considered as a unique one if it is to be managed effectively. To this end, my first recommendation is to review the R & D portfolio, identify which are the basic research projects, which are the nteproject, and which are the NPD projects, and ensure that these projects are managed accordingly. This seems obvious, but I have seen many cases where nteproject is managed as a NPD project, resulting in inefficiency and frustration. I also recommend that R & D projects be assigned to their appropriate categories on a regular basis, as npdproject has a tendency to go back to technology development and even development models. In the NTE category, the exact route the project may take may not be known in advance, I still think it is possible, by \"thinking\" all possible scenarios before starting the experimental project, develop a detailed action plan to complete go/no- Decision Points, costs, and schedules. When estimating the probability of success of the plan, it is important to remember that it is different from the stage Gate process for NPD, the probability of success of each step is usually reduced as the project progresses. Although all the options in these branch plans may not be able to execute, they represent a worst case scenario that provides a clear end point and a minimum probability of success. If positive results are obtained during the execution of the plan, the expected goals can be achieved without testing all the ideas captured in the plan, thus reducing expenditures and completing the project faster. References (1. )Cooper, R. G. The 2nd new product won the prize. AddisonWesley. New York. NY, 1993. (2. )Sheasley, W. D. \"Take a selective approach to the development of new technologies. November research * technical and technical management- Pp, December 2000. 37-43. (3. )Eldred, E. W. And McGrath, M, E. Commercialize new technologies-I. Research Technology Management in January-- February 1997, page. 41-47. (4. )Ajamian, G. M. and Koen, P. A. Technology stage-Gate[TM] : Manage the structured process of high risk new technology projects. \" In Belliveau. P. , Griffin, A. and Somermeyer. PDMA tool manual for new product development, Ch, USA. II J. Wiley &Sons. New York, NY. 2002. (5. )Cohen, L. Y. , Kamienski. P. W. and Espino, R. L. The Gates system focuses on basic industrial research. Research * Technology Management. July--Pp, August 1998. 34 37. (6. )Cooper, R. G. , Edgett, S. J. And E. Kleinschmidt. J. \"Optimize the stage -- Gate process: what\'s best- Internship company--I. Research * Technology Management. September--Pp, October 2002. 21-27. (7. )Paap, J. \"Manage technology as a strategic resource. California Institute of Technology Seminar1994. (8. )Koen. P. A. et. al. \"Fuzzy front end: effective methods, tools and techniques. \"In P. , Griffin, A. Andsommermeyer, reference. 4, Ch. 1,p. 7. (9. )Alexander. G. \"How to (Almost) Arrange innovation. Research * Technology Management, January- Pp, February 2002. 31-40. In paperback, 40 R & D Finance Management Research * technical management articles on this topic were reprinted. To order, see inside the back cover. 3000 original ideas = 1 business success! Linking R & D with growth and shareholder value traps, the trap and trap of evaluating technical value apply \"option thinking\" to the value of R & D value evaluation technology to obtain the option value of R & D why the project will increase when it accelerates. . . In 1995, Michael Bigwood set up an international technology information company in Orlando, Pennsylvania to help with technology Drive the company to develop R & D plans and technology strategies to maximize the return on intellectual assets and R & D investments. He has held various research, research management and corporate R & D Planning positions in Rohm and Haas. He received his B. S. PhD in chemistryD. Physical organic chemistry from the University of Brussels. Belgium. mpbigwood@aol.