Technology Readiness Model for Enterprises Ercan Oztemel and Tulay Korkusuz Polat Sakarya University, Engineering Faculty, Dept. of Industrial Engineering, 54187, Sakarya, TURKEY
[email protected],
[email protected]
Abstract This paper presents an innovative technology management model for the enterprises. It provides an overview of existing technology assessment models and introduces TRM (Technology Readiness Model). The proposed model assesses the technology from operational, tactical, and strategic aspects.
1. Introduction The speed of technological developments are increasing rapidly everyday. The enterprises need to follow new innovations and new technologies to preserve the competitive advantages. There are various aspects of technology to be taken into account. At each level of the enterprise there are technology related decisions as well as the use of technologies with different characteristics in nature. Technology management and technology transfer are the subject of various studies [See for example, 1-3]. There have been some studies on defining the level of technological readiness in enterprises. Technology and Process maturity model called CE which is developed by Karandikar et.al [4]. This study was later extended to include collaborative Technologies and called CERC [5]. In these models, technology maturity and process maturity is considered as the key elements of technology management. Technological maturity is evaluated in terms of information sharing coordination and communication. Process maturity on the other hand is evaluated with respect to leadership, team formation, management systems, products and agility. 5 process maturity levels, 3 technology maturity levels are defined and enterprises evaluated using these levels. Most of the later studies are based on this study.
Similar to CERC, Khalfan [6] introduced a model called CERAM which was developed for assessing the engineering readiness for construction type of business. This model evaluates the concurrent engineering activities of a construction company with regard to process and technologic readiness. It brings the idea of taking strategy dissemination as well as customer focus and project standards into account. Seeking for technology readiness in construction industry continued with BEACON (Benchmarking and Readiness Assessment for Concurrent Engineering) which was introduced by Centre for Innovative Construction Engineering (CICE) and SERVQ of Loughborough University in 2002. This model also checks out the concurrent engineering activities and measures the performance of mainly supply chain of particular company. The novelty of this approach was to introduce performance measurement in addition to process readiness (maturity). This obviously extended the previous models taking the human being and project issues into account. Technology assessment is enriched in this model with task and integrity support [7]. Capability maturity model (CMM) was also introduced for assessing the maturity of the software systems developed for Ministry of Defense in USA [8]. It defines various level of
technological readiness starting from ad-hoc use of technology and follows the stages given below. • Applied technology, • Standard and consistent technology, • Reliable technology • Continuously improving technology. Although there is not much implementation this model could be extended to other areas.
on information focused analysis. Some basic issues such as technology portfolio, technology forecasting, technology requirements analysis, technology change rates, technology innovation etc. seem not to be explicitly evaluated. Technology assessment module which is proposed here is developed to fill this gap. This model can be called as TRM.
Business Process Maturity Model (BPMM) which was introduced by Fisher [9] evaluates technology as part of the complete assessment of the business. Although the focus of their model is not the technology readiness assessment, it evaluates information Technologies and infrastructure. However, the complete technological background of enterprises seems to be limited only to information Technologies which is only a small set of the total technological issues.
Note that the proposed technology readiness model is a part of Strategic Enterprise Resource Management (SERM) methodology [10]. The TRM checks the technology in 3 different levels mainly, strategic, tactical and operational. At each level, the technological elements have different values weighted in an overall scale. Figure 1 shows the technological readiness area with respect to these levels. The shaded area shows the technology readiness area of a particular enterprise. Sectoral possibilities of technological readiness are also shown in the figure where the outer triangle shows the ideal case.
One of the main deficiencies of these models was that, technology assessment was mainly based
Strategic 100
Ideal Technological Area
80
Sectoral Technological Area
Enterprise Technological Readiness Area 80
80
Tactical 100
100
Operational
Figure 1: Technology readiness area
To be able to measure each level some technology elements is introduced. These are; • Knowledge and information baseline where the following capabilities of the enterprise is evaluated. They can be considered as sub components. o Management Information System And Data Processing o Agent Based Applications o Return of Investment o Enterprise Resource Planning Databases Software o Technology Knowledge Management
Technology Identification and Selection Technologic Infrastructure where the following is evaluated. o Technologic Suitability and Position Map o Automation o Communication Networks o Information Networks o Services o Machine park Strategic Baseline where the following is evaluated. o Strategy Development o Technology Portfolio o
•
•
Technology Prospect /Forecasting Technology Transfer And Adoption o Technology Change Rates o Technology Innovation o Technology Scenarios And Roadmaps o Technology Creation o Disruptive Technologies Management Baseline where the following is assessed. o Technology Categorization and Planning o Technology Risk Management o Human Resource Planning o Technology Requirement Handling o Technological Investment and Capital Management o Cost Management o Quality Management o o
•
Technologic Competitors Analysis
o
The relationship weights of these components and organizational technology levels as described above is given in Table 1. Note that the weights are defined through several session of discussion with manufacturing people both operational and managerial. Besides an extensive questionnaire is designed and sent out to all scientific and manufacturing community to establish a more concrete baseline for weighting. Table 1 will be revised after some new knowledge arises. Note that these elements and weigh factors were defined through analysis of the technology management process and a series of consultation together with technology experts. However, the technology elements and weights values can be aligned in accordance with the related sector when it needs to be set up for a specific sector. This also depends upon the implementation of the model for SMEs or big companies.
Table 1 Weighted values of each technology assessment element Strategic Tactic
Operational
Technology Infrastructure
10
15
40
Technology Knowledge and Information Management Technology Strategy Baseline Technology Management Baseline Total
30
30
30
50
30
10
10
25
20
100
100
100
Each sub component of technology assessment element is evaluated using several criteria. Table 2 shows an example of a subcomponent and its
assessment criteria. The weights of Table 2 are defined through the same procedure of applied for Table 1.
Table 2 Technology infrastructure Assessment matrix
Machine life cycle Technologic suitability (position map) Automation level Intelligent machining Humanless Factories Application Tools
Weight s 10
Emerging (strong need) 0
Sufficient enough
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
2.4
4.8
7.2
9.6
12
10
0
2
4
6
8
10
11
0
2.2
4.4
6.6
8.8
11
8
0
1.6
3.2
4.8
6.4
8
8
0
1.6
3.2
4.8
6.4
8
In need
Good
Very Good
Excellent
Integration services Coordination services Communication services AGVs
10
0
2
4
6
8
10
7
0
1.4
2.8
4.2
5.6
7
9
0
1.8
3.6
5.4
7.2
9
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
Prototype development Pilot production TOTAL
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
5
0
1
2
3
4
5 100
100
Technology readiness assessment matrix for each component of TRM is designed as similar to the one described in Table 2. During the technology assessment process, the enterprise is evaluated taking all technology related issues into account based on the components and criteria as described above. 2. A Case study The proposed Technology Readiness Model is applied to a hypothetical company for the proof of concept. The implementation in a real company is
yet to be organized. The work along this line continues. The company in question is evaluated with respect to each technology, elements, related components and criteria. Table 3 indicates the results of evaluation on technology infrastructure. Similar tables were defined for the other components as well. Underlined numbers in each row of the matrix in Table 3 indicates the technological level of particular components possess by the company. For example, the company has a machine park which is sufficient enough regarding the machine life cycle.
Table 3 Assessment of technology infrastructure for a specific company Weight s Machine life cycle
10
Emerging (strong need) 0
Sufficient enough
Good
Very Good
Excellent
2
4
6
8
10
Technologic suitability (position map) Automation level Intelligent machining Humanless Factories Application Tools Integration services Coordination services Communication services AGVs
12
0
2.4
4.8
7.2
9.6
12
10
0
2
4
6
8
10
11
0
2.2
4.4
6.6
8.8
11
8
0
1.6
3.2
4.8
6.4
8
8
0
1.6
3.2
4.8
6.4
8
10
0
2
4
6
8
10
7
0
1.4
2.8
4.2
5.6
7
9
0
1.8
3.6
5.4
7.2
9
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
Prototype development Pilot production TOTAL
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
5.4
15.2
12
6.4
7
In need
TOTAL
46
Similar to the technological infrastructure, other components were also assessed for the Table 4 The overall technology assessment Weight
company specified. Table 4 shows the over all results of the assessment.
Strategic
Tactic
Operational
Technology Infrastructure Technology Knowledge and Information Management Technology Strategy Baseline
46
4.60
6.90
18.40
55
16.50
16.50
16.50
25
12.50
7.50
2.50
Technology Management Baseline
35
3.50
8.75
7.00
37.10
39.65
44.40
TOTAL Based on the results presented in Table 4, the technology readiness area of this particular company can be given as in Figure 2.
Strategic Ideal Technological Area
100 80
Sectoral Technological Area
37.10 Enterprise Technological 39.65 Readiness Area 80 Tactical
44.40
80
100
100
Operational
Figure 2: Technology Readiness Area of the particular company
3. Conclusion Measuring the technological assessment is one of the main concerns in technology management activities of the enterprises. The technology readiness model proposed in this study is intended to provide a systematic approach to measure the level of technological readiness of the enterprises. The proof of concept study produced encouraging results. The study continues in seeking the right weight values and applying the model in a real company. Note that the model can be implemented in both Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) and big companies provided that business specific modifications can be made. These modifications
can be done using artificial intelligence techniques such as expert systems. However neural networks can be used to define the weight factors. The technological readiness levels can be calculated and some remedies can be provided sing expert systems as well. Agent technology can be utilized along this line. The study will be extended for creating intelligent technology readiness and technology managements.
Acknowledgements
Sakarya University is a partner of the Innovative Production Machines and Systems (I*PROMS) Network of Excellence funded by the European Commission under the Sixth Framework
Programme (Contract www.iproms.org
No.
500273).
References [1] Levin D.Z., Barnard H., “Technology Management Routines That Matter to Technology Managers”, International Journal of Technology Management, Special issue on Flexibility, Learning and Innovation, June 2005. [2] Jassawalla, A.R., Sashittal, H.C., “Accelerating Technology Transfer: Thinking about Organizational pronoia”, J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 15, page 153-177, 1998. [3] Phaal R., Farrukh C.J.P., Probert D.R., “Technology management tools: concept, development and application”, Technovation 26, page 336-344, 2006 [4] Karandikar, H.M., Wood, R.T., Byrd, J. Jr., “Process and Technology Readiness Assessment for Implementing Concurrent Engineering”, Proceedings of the Second Annual International Symposium of the National Council on Systems Engineering (NCOSE), Seattle, WA, July 2022, 1992. [5] Karandikar, H.M., Fotta, M.E., Lawson, M., Wood, R.T., “Assessing Organizational Readiness for Implementing Concurrent Engineering Practices and Collaborative Technologies”, Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, April 20-22, 1993, Morgantown, WV, pp. 83-93. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1993 [6] Khalfan, M.M.A., Anumba, C.J., Siemieniuch, C.E., Sinclair, M.A., “Readiness Assessment of the Construction Supply Chain for Concurrent Engineering”, European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, page 141-153, 2001. [7] ServQ 2003 http://www.servq.info/Servqweb/ServQ%20Brochure%2 0Oct03.pdf (available on February 2006) [8] Aouad, G., Cooper, R., Kagioglou, M., Hinks, J., Sexton, M., “A Synchronised Process/IT Model to Support the Co-Maturation of Process and IT in the Construction Sector”, Construction Informatics Digital Library, paper w78-9.content, 1998, http://itc.scix.net/ (available on February 2006) [9] Fisher, D., “The Business Process Maturity Model a Practical Approach for Identifying Opportunities for Optimization”, September, 2004, http://www.bptrends.com/publicationfiles/10%2D04%20 ART%20BP%20Maturity%20Model%20%2D%20Fisher %2Epdf (available on February 2006) [10] Oztemel E., Korkusuz Polat T., “A General Framework for SERM (Strategic Enterprise Resource Management)”, 4th International Symposium on Intelligent Manufacturing Systems, IMS’2004, 6-8 September 2004
