Sustainable Value Roadmapping Framework for Additive Manufacturing

This is the final version of the article. Available from Elsevier via the DOI in this record.24th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, 8-10 May 2017, Kamakura, JapanRecent developments around the use of additive manufacturing (AM) for making components and end-products is radically changing the way manufacturing activities are organized. Many researchers are now turning their attention to AM technology and its potential benefits for boosting economic, social, and environmental sustainability. However, there is still much uncertainty on the full impact from a life cycle perspective. Previous work has reviewed the implications of AM from a sustainability and life cycle point of view, but it is unclear whether the technology can fully realize the potential benefits identified, and whether it will lead to unintended consequences such as increased material consumption, thereby further straining the planet's carrying capacity and pushing society towards unsustainable, more materialistic values. This research builds on previous work to customize a tool, the Sustainable Value Roadmapping Tool (SVRT), which combines the strategic roadmapping technique with the sustainable value analysis tool. Roadmapping is a well-established approach for businesses to strategically plan activities for the short-, medium- and long-term; combined with the value analysis tools, it can identify opportunities for sustainable value creation for all stakeholders, including society and the planet. While SVRT has been developed and tested in a more generic context (i.e. not technology-specific), it also has good promises to help companies to explore the potential benefits and challenges of AM adoption across products’ life cycle and the associated business model implications. This paper will present the prototype version of SVRT for AM. The findings consolidate and expand the opportunities and challenges already identified in the literature. Further work will conduct case studies to use the SVRT with companies adopting AM technology and better understand the sustainability impacts from a business perspective.This work was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [grant number EP/K039598/1] and the STIM consortium

Setting the three-stage R&D shared portfolio methodology: an innovative approach to industry–university collaboration

Purpose – The purpose is to present an approach to start industry-university (I-U) collaboration through a phased process aimed at building a portfolio of Research and Development (R&D) projects. Design/methodology/approach – It devises from an 18-month action-research program held between a multinational automotive manufacturer and a top-ranked Brazilian university. Findings – The 3-Stage RSP methodology results from a combined application of QFD-like (Quality Function Deployment) correlation matrices and Roadmapping. The first matrix tackles industry interests and correlates product performance dimensions and components to reveal broad research areas of interest. A second matrix correlates research areas and engineering competences, highlighting the types of required know-how from the university standpoint. Thirdly, academic experts help to fill a roadmap-like layer with possible collaborative R&D deliverables over time. Research limitations/implications – As the study lies on a single experience, extensions to other contexts should be made with caution. However, the proposal offers a robust rationale and a set of supporting tools to nurture new applications. Practical implications – Theoretical and methodological reflections help managers tackle the long-standing problem of setting a shared R&D agenda. Originality/value – Literature on industry-university collaboration tends to over-emphasize the role of Technology Transfer Offices in promoting the partnerships, or to seek implications for public policy. This research offers a valuable approach to building a shared R&D project portfolio from a managerial viewpoint, filling an academic gap and offering guidance for managers on both sides

The Extended Map methodology: Technology roadmapping for SMES clusters

For small medium enterprises, customization of roadmapping is required. Although the phases of its process are solid and shared in the literature, the sub-phases and specific activities to be undertaken are only mentioned and do not provide sufficient guidance for implementation. The paper proposes a new methodology for the implementation of technology roadmapping. The research strategy is based on action research with two cycles of action. The first cycle (Opportunity profile) simplifies the traditional methodology. The second cycle (Extended Map) relies on collaboration of small medium enterprises coordinated by an intermediary and adds an ecosystem view to the methodology. \ua9 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

Technology Roadmapping for mission-led agile hardware development: a case study of a commercial fusion energy start-up

Despite several decades of dedicated R&D, fusion, a potentially world-changing energy source, remains decades away from commercialisation. The majority of development thus far has been via publicly-funded programmes led by government laboratories focused on scientific research and in which commercialisation strategy and innovation play a minor role. Generally, such programmes follow a linear model of innovation in which commercial aspects are not considered until later in development. In consequence and without intention, devices not well-suited for commercial application are being pursued. In recent years, however, privately funded fusion start-ups have emerged with the goal of accelerating the commercialisation of fusion. Fusion start-ups are, by necessity, operating on a fundamentally different model of innovation: agile innovation, whereby technology is developed flexibly and iteratively towards an explicit commercial goal. Technology Roadmapping is a method that has been effective for supporting agile innovation but thus far has had limited application to mission-led hardware development. We characterise the key features of the fusion innovation approach and create a novel Technology Roadmapping process for fusion start-ups, which is developed via a case study with Tokamak Energy Ltd. The main elements of the developed process, the resulting Technology Roadmap, and its impact are presented

To Frame or Reframe: Where Might Design Thinking Research Go Next?

Design thinking is gaining widespread attention in the practitioner and academic literature. Successful implementation has been documented, and its value shown in empirical studies. There is little examination, however, of how design thinking practices fit with other approaches from which firms might choose to frame and solve problems such as agile, lean startup, scientific method, Six Sigma, critical thinking, and systems thinking. By digging into the basic capabilities underlying design thinking, academic researchers might better understand problem framing and solving in general and provide insight for practitioners as to where alternative approaches might be applied

Manoeuvring between Networks to Lead – A Longitudinal Case Study in the Semiconductor Industry

How organizations exert leadership in interorganizational, predominantly hierarchical networks is well researched. However, there are also networks that are not hierarchical, but heterarchical in nature, i.e. where no organizational actor formally presides over the other member organizations and where leadership is nevertheless practised and accepted by network members. But how exactly is an organization able to lead under these structural conditions and, in particular, to capitalize – in the leadership process – on its membership in more than one network? Informed by structuration theory, we investigate this practice of ‘network manoeuvring’, that is, how an organization skilfully takes advantage of the reciprocal influences between two different forms of networks. In particular, we study Intel de facto leading the SEMATECH consortium (i.e. a heterarchical network) and guiding technology development along its supply chain (i.e. a hierarchical network). Network manoeuvring is enabled in this case by two mutually reinforming practices (i.e. roadmapping and roadmap gap filling) centred around a key resource (i.e. a roadmap as an artefact). Based upon our findings, we provide practical guidance and theoretical insights on how and under what circumstances this kind of manoeuvring in and across two (different types of) networks substitutes for formally legitimated leadership

Corporate Foresight : A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research trajectories

Peer reviewedPublisher PD