National Center for Manufacturing Sciences by O58YLH


									M        T
    A         I   CONSORTIUM

                            MATI II
        (The Management of Accelerated Technology Insertion)

             Summary of Programs and Activities
               Michael Radnor, November 1999

         “Developing and Deploying
Technology Management Processes and Practices
            for the 21st Century”

                      For additional information contact:

                      1. MATI Board Chairman.

                      Michael Radnor, President
                      IBD Inc.
                      797 Willow Road
                      Winnetka, IL 60093
                      phone: 847-446-5279; fax: -9633

                      or to:

                      Professor Michael Radnor
                      Kellogg Graduate School of Management
                      Northwestern University
                      2001 Sheridan Road
                      Evanston, IL 60208
                      Phone: 847-491-5617; fax: -4251

                      2. NCMS/TRC Project Coordinator

                      Michael Gnam
                      National Center for Manufacturing Sciences
                      3025 Broadwalk
                      Ann Arbor MI 48108-3266
                      Phone: 734-995-4971; fax –1150

1. Program Description                                 The subsequent success of MATI I, determined by
                                                       participant satisfaction, led to the formation of
In 1997, five US industrial firms established a        MATI II. MATI I participants recognized that,
consortium to explore tools and techniques for         while the hard deliverables which resulted from
early identification and accelerated application of    that program were of significant value to their
new and emerging technologies. Named                   companies, the greatest value was the knowledge
“Management of Accelerated Technology                  creation processes that emerged from the MATI
Insertion” (MATI), the long-term intent of the         program. These processes were built on extensive
Consortium was to improve the efficiency and           participant involvement that generated a robust
effectiveness of United States companies by            information exchange and unusually beneficial
creating and leveraging a competency based on          benchmarking. The close working relationships
the management of technology. This objective           amongst the participants included a unique pattern
was a direct response to the challenges posed by       and level of industry-academic collaboration.
the changing nature of global strategic                Seeking to continue the MATI I process to
competition that evolved in the last twenty years.     explore and expand the range of issues and topics
Such competition and the concomitant emergence         in greater depth, they were joined by a more
of the lean production model has generated             extensive list of firms to launch MATI II.
pressures on both corporate and business unit
R&D budgets and the resulting technologies             Based entirely on publications, conference
available for deployment in both the defense and       presentations and word of mouth networking,
commercial sectors.                                    sixteen firms formed MATI II in a similar, follow-
                                                       on and continuing program. At this time, the
A planning and feasibility study was completed
                                                       members of the new Consortium are: Baxter, Coca
prior to the formation of the Consortium. It found
                                                       Cola, Ford, IBD Inc., Kellogg, Kraft, Lucent,
that while the motivation and technology
                                                       McDonald’s, Motorola, Redex, Roche,
acquisition and adoption processes used in
                                                       Rockwell, Rohm and Haas, Siemens-
American industry were generally documented,
                                                       Westinghouse, United Technologies and USG.
they remained inefficient and uncoordinated
                                                       Firms continue to contact the Consortium,
between the value chains. Paradigms and
                                                       exploring membership opportunities and up-to-date
knowledge available to improve focus,
                                                       membership lists can be obtained by contacting Dr.
coordination and alignment were essentially
                                                       Radnor at 847-491-5617 (
undeveloped or largely lacking. The inefficiencies
severely affect innovation (in terms of the time
                                                       2. Overview of MATI I Achievements
from concept to commercialization), investment
prioritization, product life cycle strategies and
                                                       MATI I focused its efforts to develop and improve
costs and return on technology investment.
                                                       practices and tool-sets on an integrated set of four
                                                       technology management processes identified as of
Consolidation with another NCMS consortium
                                                       central importance to the participating firms and
seeking to combine scenario planning and
                                                       to the strategic context within which they
technology roadmapping, provided the capacity
                                                       functioned. The processes were (in order of the
for contingency-specific technologies to be
                                                       emphasis given), technology and product
identified and transferred into product. The result
                                                       roadmapping, technology transfer, voice of the
was MATI, with the goal to identify, improve,
                                                       customer and portfolio management. The
deploy and disseminate best practices. The vision
                                                       integration among them and their link to strategic
was strategically driven and customer responsive
                                                       drivers was recognized to be as important as the
technology planning, disciplined as well as
                                                       processes themselves investigated. They became
integrated with the other strategic business, market
                                                       recognized as key knowledge and information
and product planning processes.
                                                       flow and integration “linchpin” processes within a
The MATI consortium was formed under the               network of 27, at the corporate, business unit and
auspices of the National Center for Manufacturing      R&D levels. This process network was contained
Sciences (NCMS), with Professor Radnor of the          in the proprietary MATI-defined “MOAD”
Kellogg School of Management and president of          analysis framework.
IBD acting as facilitative industry champion.          Studies were carried out by a combination of
                                                       internal company personnel and research teams

organized by IBD and primarily drawn from              When to Roadmap
Northwestern University and its Kellogg Graduate       Problem checklist
School of Management. Research teams consisted         Variety of Roadmapping approaches
of doctoral and masters students as well as faculty    Understanding Roadmapping "biases"
and staff personnel. Findings were discussed and       Implementation roadblocks
intensively analyzed at MATI meetings and via          What is Roadmapping, who should do it
Internet. The studies were further complemented       and how should it be applied?
by a dozen roundtable discussions of the topics,       Right information to assemble a
meetings attended by a score of firms in addition     roadmap and validation for completeness;
to core Consortium participants.                      downloading current information
                                                       Adjust Roadmapping to deal with
In addition to numerous internal documents (e.g.,     uncertainties & scenario planning?
a monograph containing the company
                                                       Integration with technology forecasting
roadmapping templates), MATI I produced over
30 papers (including the first ever doctoral
                                                       Roadmapping Taxonomy
dissertation on roadmapping), most by company
                                                       Product/technology and manufacturing
and academic co-authors. Companies engaged in a
                                                      and process technology Roadmapping
continuous pattern of improving their technology
management processes as they learned from the
                                                      Other Roadmapping issues:
studies and the company presentations. The
MATI team soon found itself in demand to               Involvement of "voice of the
keynote and lead programs on roadmapping, by          customer."
the Office of Naval Research (at a first ever          Linkages to other business processes.
workshop on the subject), by Industry Canada and       Deriving value from roadmaps.
others, in the US and abroad.                          Anticipate the value of technologies in
                                                      areas of rapid change.
Studies were also carried out on the needs of small    Integration with the supply chain.
and medium sized firms and an initiative launched
to apply roadmapping to life-science and              2. Technology Sourcing:
biotechnology-based sectors. International            Members:
linkages were established in the UK (at the           Baxter, Kraft, Kellogg, Redex, Rockwell
University of Cambridge which has a consortium        Agenda:
somewhat akin to MATI), in the Far East (with a        Make vs Buy, i.e., how to decide what to
grant from NSF) - players in this region are now      develop internally/externally.
creating a regional consortium designed to             How to deal with the intellectual property
collaborate with MATI, in Canada and Israel.          issues.
MATI also helped form a new technology                 How to identify technology needs and then
management society within the INFORMS                 source, domestically and globally.
professional management science society.               Benchmark best practices and recognize
                                                      technology gaps.
3. The MATI II Project Portfolio                       Develop questionnaire to understand and
Given MATI II’s size (c.f., MATI I), Task-            benchmark expertise in the area outside of the
forces were set based on the above topic              group, using a two-pronged approach: 1) Open
areas. Firms can be in one or more groups,            show and tell sessions, and 2) use of KGSM
as well as be members of the Consortium at            student research and internships.
1. Roadmapping                                        Roadmapping is expected to address questions of
Members:                                              causality, training, business management,
Coca Cola, Ford, Kellogg, Lucent,                     knowledge management and the composition and
McDonalds, Motorola, Roche, Rohm and                  activities of the technology team.
Haas, USG, United Technologies, USG                   3. Technology-product-innovation & Strategy;
Agenda:                                               Portfolio Management:
Develop a Roadmapping Manual or Toolkit               Members:

Coca Cola, Lucent, Motorola, Roche, Rohm and           location, technology transfer metrics, and having a
Haas, SWPC, United Technologies                        designated "receiver" and a senior "champion" in
Agenda:                                                the business unit. The impact of various other
1. Develop the "Technology Strategy" sub-              business practices on the technology transfer
module in MOAD. How does technology become             process within the supply chain is being
a meaningful part of the company? How does             investigated.
Roadmapping strengthens the Voice of
Technology (VoT). How to align technology              5. Inter-Organizational Technology Standards
strategy with the business plan. Survey what           Leader:
issues companies currently have with tech.             Rockwell
strategy in organizations. What works well in          Agenda:
addressing these issues and what doesn't; what         This topic is being worked on across the other
issues need special attention.                         MATI task-forces, with which it interacts, rather
2. Determine the "state of the art" practices in       than through a free-standing group. Issues being
portfolio management, particularly: What               explored include:
dimensions are used? What is the general               1. Considerations of technology development
approach? What works, what doesn’t? What is            and product design to smoothly cross national,
the influence of "industry clock speed" (product       industry, supply chain and corporate settings;
life cycles)? Do/should all industries handle          strategic implications of industry roadmaps and
portfolio management the same? Determine best          national and global standards affecting
practices for portfolio valuation. Cash flow, turns,   operations and related supply chains; influencing
option theory, strategic fit. Determine the            the development of roadmaps and standards to
interplay between portfolio management and other       maintain competitiveness.
practice areas. Other strategy areas under             2. Meeting, anticipating and influencing global
consideration:                                         and national standards, managing variations and
 Integrating MOAD technology management               gaps in standards; standards opportunities.
processes into business processes.                     3. Developing a standards strategy that
 Competitive Intelligence; Process gap                recognizes environmental concerns and balances
identification.                                        competitiveness and competitive edge factors
 Planning for disruptive technologies;                with awareness of the capabilities and potential
discontinuous ‘game-changing’ innovation.              of the supply chain and industry.
 ROI model for MATI tools.                            4. Assessing the implications of industry
                                                       roadmaps for corporate roadmapping and the
4. Technology Transfer:                                supply chain and interplay with standards.
Members:                                               5. Assessing the potential and operational impact
 Baxter, Ford, Kraft, Motorola, Roche, Rockwell,       of developing standard formats based on defining
Siemens-Westinghouse                                   application attributes.
Agenda:                                                6. Determining critical management processes.
The scope covers technology and knowledge
acquisition and transfer that is company-company,      6. Intra-organizational Issues
intra-company, R&D-Manufacturing and across            Members:
product lines. The central focus is on the transfer    Kellogg, Lucent, McDonald’s, Motorola, Roche
processes and on the lessons to be learned from        Agenda:
company experiences and studies. In many               This group focuses on intra-organizational issues
organizations this occurs when the R&D project         in technology that allow for in-depth study. The
team transfers ownership of a technology to the        topics under consideration are:
business unit; hence, a key issue involves the          Facilitating technology knowledge
relationship between R&D and the business unit.        management; organizational change; organization
For example, how early and to what extent does         structure/technology transfer issues; technology
(or should) the business unit get involved in an       management for different organization structures.
R&D project, and why? Other practices to                Enterprise integration issues for global
consider include: liaison positions, temporarily
transferring personnel from R&D, physical co-

Firms: how technology influences structure; the       focus of MATI-II membership, control of
relationship between international standards,         intellectual property;
markets and technology management.
 Increasing top management skill in                   have full electronic access to all MATI I and
technology management; achieving buy-in for           II working papers and other with MATI-specific
MATI processes from key managers.                     intellectual property, access to MATI proprietary
 Enhancing the "voices" of customers and             web sites;
technology within the organization (subsuming the
original "Voice of the Customer" Task Force).          fully participate in knowledge sharing and
 Defining, integrating and formalizing               creation between and amongst the Consortium
technology management processes and integrating       firms including experience sharing, lessons
with strategic, marketing and other processes.        learned, benchmarking, metrics, processes, etc.;
 Developing, achieving internal organizational
standards including dealing with such changes as       receive individual/corporate access to
acquisitions/mergers, defining the role and           participating MATI-II members expertise on
position of a "standards unit" and integrating        issues of general consortium concern; feedback
standards thinking with other management              and advice with respect to internal technology
processes.                                            management projects;
 Developing a taxonomy of variables in
organization cultures and structures (culture,         participate in analysis of research findings
structure, knowledge) significantly impacting         and have first access to results and both interim
technology management processes in general (e.g.,     and final reports;
on roadmapping, product development,
innovation, etc.).                                     participate and/or have right of first refusal in
                                                      selection and guidance of Management of
7. Biotechnology Roadmapping                          Technology research projects to be undertaken by
(with possible sub groups in health & food)           selected student and IBD staff teams;
Kellogg, Kraft, Motorola, McDonald’s,                  participate in all MATI II Roundtable
Northwestern Biotech Center, Redex, Roche             discussions, workshops, conferences, etc. and
Agenda                                                receipt of all reports;
Development and application of industry
roadmaps in various life-science fields, all so far    have opportunities to co-author and/or review
neglected in this regard. Particular attention is     papers/books based on MATI-II programs;
being paid to value adding changes, impediments
and evolving field patterns found in different         use MATI-II participation to leverage
industry sectors.                                     corporate and professional leadership positioning
                                                      in Technology Management professional
MATI-II Entitlements and Benefits                     societies/journal activities (currently at
Consortium companies:                                 INFORMS, PDMA, ONR, PICMET, IAMOT,
 participate as members of Consortium Board          and expanding);
of Directors with equal vote and full participation
and decision making powers regarding scope and
                                                       have opportunities for co-participation in
 access opportunities to participate in              government supported MATI II proposals as
Management of Technology international                appropriate (e.g., NSF, NIST);
programs (currently with South East Asia, China,
Canada, UK and Israel); enhanced linkage to            receive first priority for low cost company
leading edge technology management research           specific projects by IBD (e.g., custom in-company
groups both domestically and globally;                and multi-company training programs, and
                                                      implementation of MATI-I technology transfer,
 occupy a leadership role in planned                 technology sourcing, scenario planning, etc);
research/training programs and institutes;
 tools and techniques as roadmapping, become         RM 5. “An Industry Roadmap: Integrated
closely acquainted with selected Kellogg and          Manufacturing", INFORMS, Tel Aviv, June 1998,
other school faculty, masters and doctoral            (Dudley W. Caswell, Enterprise Innovations)
graduate students and other persons involved in
Management of Technology projects – with              RM 6. “Managing Technology Using the
consequential short (project specific/internships)    ‘Roadmapping Tools: Emerging Lessons from the
and long term hiring potential.                       NCMS ‘MATI’ Project.” Proceedings of PICMET
                                                      ’98 Conference (John Peterson and Michael
Appendix II contains a summary of obligations.        Radnor)

For new participants the above mentioned              RM 7. “How to Recognize a Mature Technology
company-specific projects can ensure a rapid ramp     Roadmap: A Field Guide for Technology Planning
up and integration into MATI and help such            and Management” MATI Draft, July 1998 (John
companies internalize its approach. Where several     Thompson, Lucent Technologies)
firms indicate a common project interest, such as a
training seminar, this may be carried out as a        RM 8. “Corporate Technology and Product
multi-firm exercise. It is a normal part of such      Roadmapping: Comparing Hopes and Realities”,
projects that firms interact in a learning and        presented at Office of Naval Research workshop,
knowledge exchange mode with each other and           October, 29–30, 1998 (Michael Radnor)
with other MATI companies that have already
developed relevant experience. Companies              RM 9. “Roadmaps and Roadmapping”, presented
engaged in such projects give periodic progress       at Office of Naval Research workshop, October
and learning reports to relevant MATI meetings.       29 –30, 1998 (Richard Albright, Lucent)
Such projects can also be looked upon as rich case
study and research opportunities.                     RM 10. "Technology Roadmapping: A New State
                                                      of the Art", Michael Radnor, John Thompson and
2. Papers and Presentations                           Harry Morehead, INFORMS, Seattle, Oct. 1998

Roadmapping                                           RM 11. Technology Roadmapping: An
RM 1. “Technology Roadmapping Tools: An               Evaluation, Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern
Empirical Assessment" (Tom Kappel,                    University, December, 1998 (Thomas A. Kappel)
Northwestern University, John Peterson, Lucent
Technologies and Michael Radnor, Kellogg              RM 12. “The Diffusion of Planning: A First Look
School, Northwestern University), December 3-5,       at Technology Roadmapping”, Working paper,
1997 Palm Springs, CA. Management Roundtable          Lucent Technologies, 1/1999 (T. Kappel)
Summit on Product Strategy
                                                      RM 13. “Aligning Strategy and Technology
RM 2. “Plotting and Navigating a Non-Linear           Using Roadmaps”, Proceedings of PICMET ’99,
Roadmap: Knowledge-Based Roadmapping for              (Michael Radnor and John Peterson).
Emerging and Dynamic Environments”, East
Asian Conference on Knowledge Creation                Strategic Issues
Management in Asia, Singapore, March 1998; for        S 1. “Coupling of Technology Management and
The Asia-Pacific Journal of Management, (Jeffrey      Strategic Management Processes”, INFORMS
Strauss, Michael Radnor and John Peterson)            Atlanta, November 1996 (Michael Radnor, Daniel
                                                      Levin, Jeffrey Strauss and Michel Thouati,
RM 3. “Technology Roadmapping: The Whys,              CellNet Data Systems.)
the Whens, the Hows and the Risks”, INFORMS
Tel Aviv, June 1998, (Michael Radnor)                 S 2. “On Managing the Keys to the Technology
                                                      Kingdom”, 1996 (J. Peterson.)
RM 4. “Roadmapping and Roadmaps”,
INFORMS, Tel Aviv, June 1998, (Richard                S 3. “Corporate Growth Engines: Driving to
Albright, Bell Labs. and John Peterson)               Sustainable Strategic Advantage”, to appear in
                                                      International Journal of Technology Management,
                                                      1998, (Michel Thouati, Michael Radnor and
                                                      Daniel Levin). The Free Press will publish a book
by Thouati and Radnor based on this paper and      Knowledge and Technology Transfer
titled Corporate Growth Engines.                   KTT 1. “Transferring Knowledge within the
                                                   Company in the R&D Arena”, Proceedings of
S 4. “Root Causes of Technology Transfer           1997 PICMET Conf. (D. Levin and M. Radnor).
Failure”, INFORMS’96 Atlanta (D. Levin, M.
Radnor and M. Thouati.)                            KTT 2. "Transferring Knowledge in the R&D
                                                   Arena: Links, Loops and Learning in the
S 5. “Coupling of Technology Management and        Technology Transfer Process", 1998 D. Levin
Strategic Management Processes: The State of the
Art”, in Proceedings of 1997 PICMET Conference     KTT 3. “Smoothing the Path from Product
(Michel Thouati, M. Radnor and Jeffrey Strauss).   Conception to Delivery”, Working paper, May
                                                   1998, (John Thompson and Gary Lindquist.)
S 6. “Aligning Technology Impact and Corporate
Strategy in the Technology Intensive Enterprise:   KTT 4. "New Perspectives on the Technology
Conceptual and Theoretical Model/Case Study”,      Transfer Process", A. McMillan and L. Greguske,
(Hajime Yamada, NTT Corp., John Peterson and       Rockwell, INFORMS, Seattle, October 1998.
Michael Radnor). Proceedings of IAMOT, 7th
International Conference, Orlando, February        KTT 5. Transferring Knowledge Processes
1998.                                              Within the Organization in the R&D Arena, Ph.D.
                                                   Dissertation, Northwestern University, December,
S 7. “Excellence Through Refocus: Managing         1999 (Daniel Z. Levin.)
and Performing to a Balanced Scorecard.” ASQ
meeting, April, 1998 (Bitthal Gujrati, SBM and     Voice of the Customer
Mark Fabish, Insight Software.)                    VOC 1. “Management of Technology in
                                                   Business: What Role does the Voice of the
S 8. “Aligning National Policy and Technology:     Customer Play?” ASQ meeting, April, 1998 (M.
Of Tofflerian Waves, Engines of Economic           Radnor and T. Kappel.)
Growth and Strategic Technology
Diversification”, Presented at ISMOT ’98,          VOC 2. "Voice of the Customer: Improving
Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, November     Reception and Response", Edward Ostrowski,
1998 (J. Peterson and M. Radnor.)                  Kodak, INFORMS, Seattle, October 1998.

S 9. “Reflections in the Looking Glass: On         Defense
Strategy and Technology.” Draft May 1998 for       D 1. “Defense Conversion for the Technology
Management Sciences: Interfaces, (Michael          Intensive Enterprise: On the Conversion Illusion”,
Radnor and John Peterson.)                         in Proceedings of Second Klein Symposium on
                                                   Technology Management, Elsevier Science, 1999
S 10. “On Creating New Horizons: Integrating       (Michael Radnor and John Peterson.)
Non-Linear Considerations to Better Manage the
Present from the Future.” Presented at the         D 2. “Addressing the Illusion of Defense
IAMOT ’98 Conference, November, 1998 (John         Technology Advantage or Once more into the
Anderson, NASA, M. Radnor and J. Peterson.)        Breech”, 1997 (Michael Radnor, Glen Wagstaff,
                                                   Lucent Technologies and John Peterson).
Technology Processes
TP 1. “On the Management of Accelerated            D 3. Panel presentation, DoD Logistics
Technology Insertion”, in Proceedings of 1997      Conference, on "Technology Insertion",
PICMET Conference (M. Radnor, Lloyd Erikson        November 16 -19, 1997 Monterey, CA. M.
and John Peterson).                                Radnor and M. Gnam, NCMS.)
TP 2. “Using a Process View of Organizations to
Understand the Management of Technology”.          3. International Activities
Proceedings of TIM Division, Academy of
Management, Boston, August, 1997 (D. Levin, M.     A series of meetings has been held with members
Radnor and M. Thouati).                            of the Technology Management Programme at the
                                                   University of Cambridge in the UK. These took

place in London and Cambridge (by Michael              discuss collaboration and a follow-up held in July
Radnor), in Cambridge (by Robert McCarthy of           1999.
Roche), at the PICMET Conference in Portland
(by John Peterson and Michael Radnor) and              In February 1999, four members of MATI were
culminated in a visit by one of the co-leaders of      invited to Ottawa, by Industry Canada and
the Cambridge programme (David Probert) to the         Innovation Council of the Conference Board of
November 1999 MATI meeting. Probert                    Canada to make two day-long presentations on
description of the Cambridge program and               Corporate and Industry Roadmapping. Meeting
industrial consortium (that is much like MATI’s,       participants were a group of 28 company
with: British Aerospace, BG Technology, Domino         executives and120 government officials concerned
Printing Sciences, Federal Mogul Technology,           with national level technology programs,
Hoogovens, Marconi, Rolls Royce, The Post              consultants and academics. A follow-up visit was
Office, Unilever, and Com Dev). It is anticipated      paid to the Canadian authorities by Michael
that a close pattern of collaboration between our      Radnor in June 1999. It is anticipated that these
two programs will emerge, starting with                meetings will herald broad cooperation between
participation in the July 2000 Cambridge               MATI and several Canadian organizations.
conference on roadmapping and technology
management.                                            4. Defense Related
                                                       MATI project people have participated in several
A grant was obtained from the National Science         defense related programs (D 1 to 3.) Discussions
Foundation and development carried out on a            are currently underway with the Defense
collaborative research and applications program        Department Logistics Command to extend
on the management of technology between                collaboration.
institutions in Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan
and the PRC and our program in the US. An              MATI played a major role in the recent
initial visit to these countries took place in March   International Roadmapping workshop organized
1998 with a follow-up in the Spring of 1999.           by the Office of Naval Research (ONR), Virginia,
Besides developing important contacts, the visit       October 29 – 30. 1998. Papers were contributed
enabled participation in and delivery of a paper at    by Richard Albright and Michael Radnor.
an Asian Knowledge Process Management
Conference in Singapore. John Peterson and             4. Tech Management for Small Business
Michael Radnor were invited to present a paper at      A small business component of the program has
the 11/98 Second International Conference on           been initiated to extend the research program to
Technology Management in Zehjiang University,          this arena and a proposal submitted by NCMS to
China. This was given by Peterson who will be          the National Institute of Standards & Technology.
returning to China in early 2000 on behalf of          Several small firms were studied as part of
Lucent. These activities have led to the launch of     MATI I. Plans have been developed to expand
a larger scaled Greater China program, now             this small company component in MATI II.
underway and set the stage for a full proposal to
NSF later in 2000. Relatedly, Dr. Radnor is now        6. Life Sciences (health, food industry)
the External Examiner for the National University      Roadmapping
of Singapore Technology Management Program.            In collaboration with the Northwestern University
                                                       Biotechnology Research Center and several health
Two sessions were organized for the July 1998          and food industry companies, first steps have been
Tel Aviv INFORMS/ORSIS and Tel Aviv                    taken to launch roadmapping initiatives in the life
University conference with the general theme:          science industries, something that has not as yet
Technology Roadmapping - Understanding and             occurred. A planning meeting with 25 companies
Applying an Important Management Tool (RM 3,           and other organizations working in the field will
4 and 5.) Topics were: Technology                      be held in Sring 2000 followed by a large-scale
Roadmapping: Strategic and Operational                 conference in the Fall.
Considerations and Experiences; and an Industry
Roadmapping Workshop. Meetings were held               7. Research Roundtable Reports
with the Office of the Chief Scientist of Israel to    "Lessons Learned", attending: Baxter, Case,
                                                       Caterpillar, GM, IBD, Kellogg, Motorola, NCMS

and Rockwell; held March 7, 1997."Voice of the      Kellogg School or operate in a free standing
Customer", attending: GM, Kodak, IBD, Kellogg,      manner
Lucent, Vanderbilt University, May 14, 1997.
                                                    9. Professional Society
"Technology Roadmapping", attending: GM,            The INFORMS sections Management of
Johnson Controls, IBD, Kellogg, Kodak, Lucent,      Productivity and Technology (M. Radnor, chair)
Liquid Controls, NCMS, Rockwell, SSG and            and Technology Management (J. Liker, University
Westinghouse held November 12, 1997.                of Michigan, chair) have been merged into a new
“Voice of the Customer”, January 1998, Detroit: -   technology management society, allied to the
Host, General Motors, also attending IBD,           MATI program. A joint sessions of the two
Kellogg, Kodak, Rockwell, OMNEX, SGM and            sections was held at the October, 1998
Westinghouse.                                       INFORMS conference in Seattle, WA, including
                                                    one by the MATI group and other such joint
“Technology Transfer”, February 1998, Orlando: -    sessions have been planned for future INFORMS
Host Westinghouse, also attending, General          meetings. INFORMS was formed several years
Motors, IBD, Kellogg, Lucent, NCMS and              ago through a merger of a the Operations
Rockwell.                                           Research Society of America (ORSA) and the
                                                    Institute of Management Sciences (TIMS).
Other Roundtables/Tutorials:
May, 1997, Nashville (NCMS Annual Meeting),         10. Staff and Research Assistants
on Environmental Monitoring, International Tech     Michael Radnor is professor of management at
Sourcing and Transfer                               the Kellogg Graduate School of Management
May, 1997 Pittsburgh: Patent Mapping - Host,        where he specializes in technology management.
Westinghouse                                        His doctorate from Northwestern University was
June, 1997, Naperville: Roadmapping - Host          in Industrial Engineering and he holds advanced
Lucent/Bell Labs.                                   degrees in engineering and business from Imperial
March 1998, Evanston, Process Integration           College and the London School of Economics in
May, 1998, Orlando: Roadmapping - Host              the UK. Before entering academic life he worked
Westinghouse                                        for Israel Aircraft Industries, Lucas Industries (in
May, 1998, Orlando NCMS Annual Meeting.             automotive components) in the UK and in the US
“Development and Use of Roadmaps for your           with Westinghouse and as head of a high tech.
Technical Agenda”, (M. Radnor, H. Morehead,         switching start-up in Detroit. He has authored 2
Westinghouse, T. Kappel. J. Thompson, Lucent        books and almost 100 articles.
and E. Ostrowski, Kodak.)
                                                    Jeffrey Strauss, has led a series of technology
Level-set Series                                    and international projects. His masters degree in
A 3-meeting series was held from September to       management was obtained from the Kellogg
November 1999 to enable MATI II firms to come       School and his undergraduate degree in East
up to the knowledge level attained by the MATI I    Asian Studies from Oberlin. Strauss has been a
companies. The agendas of these sessions are in     member of the MATI team since its pilot study
Appendix I.                                         inception.

8. Research and Training Institute
Explorations are underway in the development of     Daniel Levin, Kellogg completed his doctoral
a MATI-based research and training institute that   dissertation in November 1999. He has already
could enable the carrying out of more extensive     been a co-author of a number of papers listed
studies and more extensive programs of training     above. Before beginning his doctoral studies, he
than feasible within a consortium context. A        worked as a consultant. An Academy of
committee has been formed to pursue this matter.    Management meeting winner of a best paper
Meetings have been held with possible sponsors      award and a best dissertation proposal finalist at
as part of one strategy for implementing this       INFORMS 1997, Dallas His dissertation is
vision. The institute could be located at the       focused on Knowledge Processes in the R&D
                                                    domain. He is now assistant professor at Rutgers.

                                                     Consultant; 1995-96 Nation's Bank; 1993-95 and
Jack Bishop, worked in corporate strategic           with McDonald's Corp.
planning at Brunswick, Dow Corning, May
Department Stores and KFC before launching the       Manthos Kallios – Manthos is a Masters of
Northwestern Technology Innovation &                 Management student at Kellogg, graduating in
Commercialization Center. He then revitalized a      June 2000. A BEng and MSc graduate of
State technology transfer and commercialization      Imperial College in London, Manthos, originally
organization.. More recently, he led UN and          from Greece, had substantial engineering
USAID technology incubator development               experience in UK in the diesel engine and
projects in 20 countries. His doctorate is in        consulting fields before coming to the US.
business-economics with a BS in chemical
engineering.                                         Michael Kirschner – Mike is a Masters of
                                                     Manufacturing Management student at Kellogg
Steven Kaufman initiated corporate technology        with MS and BS Science & Mechanics degrees
sourcing at Baxter Healthcare (one of the first in   from the Georgia Institute of Technology.
the nation), following a successful manufacturing    From1996-98 he was with Nortel as a Systems
management assignment for the company in             Engineer; 1990-96 at Motorola in Automation,
Australia. With funding from Baxter and other        New Products and Manufacturing Operations.
sources he started an automated (robotic) home
nursing care firm based on technology he had         Michael Rosen – Michael will graduate from
sourced. The holder of several patents, he now       Kellogg Graduate in 2000 with majors in finance,
consults with major international firms on           marketing and entreprenuership. Prior to
technology sourcing. His earlier experience was      attending Kellogg, he worked as a construction
in the cosmetics industry in manufacturing in        project manager in New York City. He received
Australia.                                           is a registered professional engineer in New York.

Justine Dube - Masters of Manufacturing              New Kellogg Assistants (as of 10/99)
Management student at Kellogg; B.S. University
of New Hampshire, Decision Sciences. 1996-98         Vincent Chun (Ph.D. Aeronautics, MIT,
PRTM Consulting Weston, MA and Stamford CT           Aerospace firms, NASA), Matt Cienkus (BS/MS
as a Senior Operations/Industry Analyst              Mechanical Eng.; Motorola), Yi Gao (Monsanto,
(benchmarking, supply-chain studies, training).      China), Claude Lavigne (Ph.D. Mechanical
1993-94 SCI Systems NH.                              Engineering University of North Carolina,
                                                     Ceramics firms), Arthur Lo (Systems Engineering
Elliott Fan – has completed five years in the        University of Pennsylvania, Booz-Allen,
Kellogg Ph. D program in Organization Behavior.      Singapore), Michelle Pan (China), Shun Zhang
His research focuses on interdepartmental            (Electrical Engineering, Motorola, Orga
roadmapping teams. His previous studies were         Germany), Tito Ciuffij (Mechanical Engineering,
completed in the field of social psychology.         Kodak, 3M), Jeri Richards (Mechanical
                                                     Engineering, GM Institute, GM).
Richard Hayes – a Ph.D. student in Organization
Behavior at Kellogg has an MBA from Emory
University and BA Morehouse College. 1996-97
with Price Waterhouse as a Management

Appendix I
                               MATI II LEVEL-SET MEETING AGENDA
                               WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15-17,1999

8:00 PM Optional Dinner

8:30 AM     Agenda for Meeting and MATI II Status Report – Radnor, KGSM/IBD
                     State of the Website
                     Discussion of Task Force Group Topics
                     Meeting agenda

9:15 AM                    Level-set I: Integrated Tech. Mgmt Processes - Radnor

9:45 AM                   Level-set II: Roadmapping
                  Overview /Agenda - R. Albright, Lucent (See appended outline)

10:30 AM          Break
10:45 AM          Context of roadmapping in MATI I companies
                  Background presentations from Panel: Kappel, Lucent; Morehead, Siemens-Westinghouse;
                  Odlyzko, Motorola; Essenpreis, Roche; Greguske, Rockwell
            1.    The evolution of roadmapping within the company:
                  What processes were used before roadmapping?
                  How it started and why?
                  What has developed since?
            2.    Roadmapping utilization within various functional departments.
            3.    What does each member of the team get out of it? How have their roles changed over
            4.    Characterization of how company culture impacts the roadmapping process.
            5.    Performance of cross roadmap level analyses, e.g., to discern common priorities, gaps and
                  opportunities over a range of products or technologies.
            6.    What type(s) of roadmapping goes on in the firm? Product, technology, industry, other?

11:35 AM          Technical aspects of Roadmapping (Templates) – Morehead, Siemens-Westinghouse
                         Creation of visuals – The Roadmap

11:55 AM          Organizational Aspects of roadmapping – Kappel

12:25 PM          Lunch

12:55 PM         Panel presentation and discussion – Moderator: Albright
                 Three major points (selected by Albright) of the roadmapping process with MATI I companies
                 providing information on how the process works within their own companies (task
                 importance, verification, case examples, etc.)
           1.     Teams – setting up, leadership, management of
           2.     Supporting roadmapping - resources, integration, etc.
           3.     Selling the roadmap , e..g.,
                  Getting the organization, higher-level management to use it
                  Buy-in

2:30 PM Benefits of Roadmapping - Radnor

2:40 PM Break

2:50 PM Comments on variations in roadmapping- Strauss, IBD
              Adding uncertainty, scenarios and variations into the roadmapping process
              (preliminary discussion).

3:00 PM          Decide on topics to be covered at the 2-day Roadmapping meeting in November –
                 General discussion moderated by Albright

3:25 PM          Level-set III: Scenario Planning – Ralph Wood, United Technologies and Paul Odlyzko,

4:10 PM          Biotech Task-force presentation – McCarthy, Roche; Loffler, Northwestern University

5:30 PM          Break/Dinner

7:00 PM          MATI Board Meeting

8:30 AM      Level-set V: Technology Transfer - Levin, Rutgers; Radnor; Greguske, Rockwell; and
             Burrows, USG

9:45 AM          Level-set VI: Technology Strategy and Portfolio Management - Peterson, Lucent

10:45 AM         Break

11:00 AM         Task Force Updates/ Working Lunch


1. Define the objectives of the roadmapping exercise
     Define target(s)
2. Define target drivers - Typically what have the drivers been?
     Competition - What is the competition doing? How do you compare?
     Customers - What do customers want? Will they pay for it? Do they know?
     Technology - What is technologically feasible?
     Others
3. Define Limitations of the roadmapping process, e.g.:
     Time – By when must the roadmap be completed?
     $ - What are the budgetary constraints on the process?
     Technology, Buy-in, etc.
4. Specify stakeholders/players & Select roadmapping team
     Define relationship of roadmapping to other organizational processes
     Information requirements and usage requirements of the roadmap by the rest of the
5. Define tasks and sequence – translate drivers (i.e., customer needs) into resource requirements
    (i.e., technology).
6. Compare existing resources to required resources for each task. Determine timing and intensity
    of resource requirements. Identify conflicts over resources.
     Resources include:
     Technology
     $
     Personnel
7. Resource acquisition plan
     How do you acquire the resources that you lack? Make or buy?
8. Define assumptions, internal and external milestones, critical events, scenarios and roadmap
9. Creation of visuals – The Roadmap
     Templates
Post-Roadmapping Processes (10 – 12)
1. Integration with other roadmaps and processes
     What synergies exist with other roadmaps?
2. Revisiting the roadmap – Keeping it up-to-date
3. Lessons learned

                      AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 13-15, 1999 MEETING

10/13/99:        Individual Pre-Meeting Task-force dinners with students & faculty
                         8.00PM, Intra-Organizational Issues
                         8.30PM, Inter-Organization (Standards)
                         8.00PM, Bio-Tech
8.30AM           Registration & coffee
8.45AM           Introductions; MATI Update, review of Survey and Program Introduction
                          Mike Radnor, MATI/Kellogg
9.15AM           Inter-Organizational: Standards and Trade
                          Alec McMillan, Rockwell
                     Why a corporate Standards Strategy is becoming increasingly important
                     Government Regulations, Industry Standards and Roadmaps for a stable Global
                      Trading system
                     Rockwell’s experience and approach
                     Components of a Standards Strategy
                     Organizational requirements
                     Standardization across the Supply Chain

10.15AM          Break
10.30AM          General discussion of Standards, Industry roadmapping and Trade
11.15AM          Working lunch and Board meeting
12.15PM          Technology Strategy (continued from September Level-set meeting)
                         John Peterson, Lucent
                  Portfolio Management: Moving beyond the Purely Financial Criteria
                  Assessing technology opportunities and threats
                  Critical portfolio issues
                  Lucent experiences and lessons

1.00PM           Task-force sessions
2.00PM           Break

2.15PM           Task-force reports

2.30PM           MATI I Patent Claims Intelligence Project (from Sept. Level-set meeting)
                        Mining the Techno-infrastructure: Accelerating Creation of
                        Knowledge-based Intellectual Capital Opportunities
                                 John Peterson, Lucent
                         Sample of patent claims filings and query structure for early innovation
                             identification (demonstration software & report)
                         Pilot implementations and validations of target processes and best practices;
                             knowledge transfer mechanisms
                         New competency: coalition solutions and mining CASIS and similar data
                             bases to identify critical innovation, players and capabilities

3.15PM Close

Optional Evening Program (open invitation)

6.00PM           Informal meetings with students
6.30PM           Presentations to Mike Radnor’s D59 class
                 6.30PM Alec McMillan on Standards, etc.
                 7.45PM Break
                 8.00PM Ralph Wood on Scenario Planning

               AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 17-19, 1999 MATI II MEETING
Wednesday, November 17, 1999

8.00 PM Task-force Dinners
                1. Roadmapping (including biotech roadmapping)
                2. Strategy/Portfolio Management
                3. Intra-organizational Issues.

Thursday, November 18, 1999 (at Motorola)

8.30 AM          Registration and continental breakfast

8.45 AM          MATI Update and Program Introduction
                       Mike Radnor, MATI Chairman

9.15 AM          Company Experiences with Roadmapping: Panel discussion
                       Tom Kappel, Lucent - Moderator
                       Keith Bergelt, Motorola
                       Alec McMillan, Rockwell
                       Harry Morehead, Siemens-Westinghouse

10.30 AM         Break

10.45 AM         Tom Freeburg, Motorola Corporate Vice President and Director of Technology Outlook
                 Laboratory, “Technology, It Must be Managed Well”

11.00 AM         Corporate Roadmapping Developments:
                         Dave Stirsman, Ford - Moderator
                         Rich Albright: Roadmapping Taxonomy
                         Bob McCarthy, Roche & Mike Rosen, KGSM: Bare-bones/fast-start Roadmapping
                         David Probert, University of Cambridge - Developments from Cambridge Program
12.30 PM        Lunch plus visit to Motorola Museum

2.00 PM Industry Roadmapping: Needs, Processes and Benefits
                        Ken Friedman, US Department of Energy
                        Mike Scharf, Baxter – Moderator

3.15 PM         The University of Cambridge Technology Management Program and discussion of
                         David Probert, University of Cambridge
                         Natalie Schoch, Kellogg - Moderator

4.30 PM Break

4.40 PM Task-force meetings
                1. Biotech
                2. Intra-Organizational Issues
                3. Roadmapping
                4. Strategy/Portfolio Management
                5. Technology Sourcing
                6. Technology Transfer

6.00 PM Dinner at Motorola

Friday November 19, 1999

8.30 AM         Task-force meetings (continued)

9.30 AM         Task-force reports (except biotech)
                        Natalie Johnson, McDonald’s - Moderator

10.15 AM        Break

10.30 AM        Role of “Futurists”
                         Denise Chiavetta, Coca Cola & Andy Hines, Kellogg
                         Paul Odlyzko, Motorola - Moderator

11.30 AM        Biotech Roadmapping discussion
                        Susan Gaud, Kraft - Moderator
                        Pinch Luther, Motorola - bioinformatics
                        Jodi Flax, Motorola - biochips
                        Mike Liebman, Roche
                        Bob McCarthy, Roche & Alicia Loffler,
                        Norhwestern Biotech Center - Roadmapping task-force
12.30 PM        Lunch

1.15 PM Board Meeting: Mike Radnor, MATI & Mike Gnam, TRC/NCMS

APPENDIX II: Member Fees and Contributed Time and Expenses

For 1999/2000 (12 month period starting with project launch meeting), the fee for MATI II Consortium
membership has been established at $25,000 per 12 month period for firms of $500 million in sales and
above. Smaller firms and non-corporate organizations will be assessed a Consortium membership fee on a
sliding scale and/or on a negotiated basis (by majority agreement of the Board), with a minimum of $12,500
per the 12 month period. MATI I firms will pay a reduced amount in for the first year of $12,500 in
recognition of their contribution to the existing MATI I intellectual property. The annual membership fees
are due and payable in full upon launch of the Consortium, or, as otherwise agreed to on a case-by-case
basis agreed to by the Board in writing.

Participants joining the Consortium during year one but after the launch date will be treated as if they had
joined at the beginning – i.e., there will be no pro-rating of fees. For years beyond 1999/2000, the Board
will establish continuing fee levels and rules. A policy to cover financial arrangements with foreign entities
will be developed by the Board; until such time, there will be no pre-established policy.

The sum of the Consortium’s full member fees will constitute a pool (the Consortium Fund Pool) from
which the expenses of the Consortium are funded. Expenses will be incurred by IBD, Inc for performing as
Chairman of the Board and for performing the program tasks outlined in the Consortium work scope.
Expenses will also be incurred for externally contracted Consortium administration and management
support services. This Consortium Fund Pool will need to reach a minimum critical mass of $150,000/ year
to launch the Consortium. In the event sufficient funds to launch MATI II are not collected by Sep 1, 1999,
any collected funds will be returned in full to the payer(s).

Besides the annual Consortium membership fee, it is the expectation that all participant firms will contribute
significant time to the Consortium endeavors and cover all their own out-of-pocket expenses for travel, etc.

Consortium membership will begin with a limit of 30 Participants, subject to Board approval.

The MATI II Consortium includes a restricted membership category termed “Associate Participant”, to make it
possible for firms interested in only one of the MATI II interest areas but not in other parts of the Consortium
program to participate. For example, a firm wishing to be involved in the biotechnology initiative could join the
MATI II group working on that interest area only. As such it could participate in any activity of that specific
interest group. The firm would not be a member of the MATI II Board, would not be eligible to participate in
other MATI II interest groups or in general MATI II meetings except by invitation (for example, making a
presentation), would not have access to the MATI II web site, etc. Within their group interest area, Associate
Participants are expected to give a commensurate level of effort as full Participants; pay their own travel and
other expenses, etc. The Associate Participant annual fee for large firms ($500M and above in sales) is set at
$12,500 with a minimum $6,250 for smaller firms, or as appropriate based on the above indicated sliding
schedule or other Board action. Associate Participants can upgrade to full membership during any year by
making up the full one-year fee difference and signing the Consortium Agreement as a Participant.

Associate Member fees will not be considered as part of the Consortium Fund Pool above, but as a separate
Associate Fund Pool from which the expenses incurred by the Associate’s interest groups will be funded in
part according to Board discretion.

Associate Participants will be initially limited to 15, subject to Board approval.


To top