Assessing The True Cost Of Delivering Nano Hype

Engineering and technology can have a massive impact on productivity and economic growth so it is important to track the likely course of new technologies as they grow from concept to maturity. Nowhere is this more important than in the case of nanotechnologies. This broad category ranges from incremental CMOS developments to highly speculative new materials with novel functionality. However, roadmaps for strategic development need to be built on more than hype and promises. This paper describes a simple tool to measure the maturity of new technologies in many economic as well as technical domains. It ascribes one of ten stages of maturity to fourteen different parameters. A review of non-volatile memory technologies is used as a benchmark. The tool has been used to demonstrate technology evolution within academic courses and it has also been applied within short industry courses. Project rationale and scope The appeal of nanotechnology lies in the sheer breadth and potential impact of its applications. However, these features are also its greatest weakness. Hardly a week passes without some new nano-product or material being touted as the miracle solution that will drive the next wave of high-tech development . The reality is that few of these claims will be realized in the form predicted. Even the developments that eventually succeed will have a tortuous and demanding evolution path. How does anyone make a balanced assessment of new technology that captures its novelty and the imagination of the innovators but at the same time acknowledges that realistic business criteria will also be applied? This paper describes a simple process to derive a measure of the maturity of new technologies in many economic as well as technical domains. It was initiated by a need to explain new technology in course work and has since been extended to research and development outcomes in several industry sectors. Technology evolution rests on a brutally Darwinian process that is based on the interaction of engineering, economics and market opportunities. This makes any long term planning difficult yet there is every reason to believe that the scope and impact of technical change will be as profound in the next thirty years as it has been in the last thirty. However, it is difficult to find a balanced view of any emerging technology. The advocates obviously dwell on its strengths and sometimes their enthusiasm can drift into unsubstantiated hype and wishful thinking. At the other end of the spectrum, those involved with mature technologies are too busy managing products and cash flow in highly competitive global markets to be seriously concerned about a technology that may be a decade or more away. A quantitative tool that measures the maturity of emerging technologies has a number of applications in the domain of Engineering Economics: P ge 13234.2 It can determine risk in research and development (R & D) investment. It may be used for technology roadmap preparation and analysis. It shows where and when financial and market comparisons should be made. It demonstrates the wide range of factors needed for technology success and the vulnerability to a weakness in any one of them. It is a useful framework for student projects where some reasoned case has to be made for the likely evolution path. Many parties have an interest in making objective assessments of the possible success of emerging technologies from investors to students pondering their career direction. To make the task more tractable, cases that are judged individually on merit have been excluded. This avoids the minefield of research project funding, venture capital and peer-reviewed publications. Instead, this paper concentrates on cases where there is no single project advocate. The goal is to determine the maturity state and intrinsic merits of an emerging technology rather than measure the capacity of an individual or group to make it a success. To be successful as a distinct technology, it will have to rise far beyond the level of individual enthusiasms. Background methodology New technologies (of any kind) face three major hurdles before they can be considered a success in the business world. 1. If they offer a radically new application or market opportunity, there are too few customers to provide the revenue needed to support mature development. We may now feel smug when we read Ken Olsen’s 1977 statement that, “there is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home” . However, in the context in which it was offered, he made a valid claim and the 30 years it took to move from lab curiosity to household item is still typical. This is the most risky category to predict success since every facet of the market is new. 2. If the new technology is a replacement for an existing product, for example a new memory or a replacement for CMOS logic, there is a cost target to be met. The great advantage is that many features of the market and its growth are known. However, until the new technology can approach the market cost-per-function, benchmark comparisons will be poor 3 and there will be a natural reluctance to move away from the familiar technology. The association of nano-$ with nanotechnology is uncomfortable but cannot be avoided. 3. International standards relating to quality, safety, environment, ethical applications and warranty have to evolve and be met. It is a long slow process to establish the required track record in these areas but if they are not met, the technology will not progress to successful maturity . These three constraints are a formidable ‘catch-22’ that is rarely featured in technical papers and even less in degree programs. However, most of today’s high-impact P ge 13234.3 technologies had to overcome similar challenges . The important message for students and technology executives alike is that innovation does not stop when the papers describing the original concept have been published. The typical evolution path starts with speculative funding (from government or private sources) and later proceeds to revenue and market-based support providing key conditions have been met. Unfortunately, there is a time gap between these funding regimes and it appears to be growing. It has been called ‘The Valley of Death’ 6 and is often one of the most severe bottlenecks in technology development. On the other hand, if an embryonic product or new technology can cross the Valley of Death, that becomes an important early indicator for further success. The concept of an all-embracing metric to measure performance or maturity is well known. Four examples serve to illustrate the variety of background applications we have examined. a. The Technology Readiness Index or Level (TRI or TRL) was developed by NASA more than 20 years ago . It is widely used by the defense industry. There are 9 levels with brief descriptions in figure 1. Figure 1. Technology Readiness Levels The TRI is important because it is accepted for risk identification and analysis. The levels are defined in great detail in the DOD literature but they can also be summarized concisely and usefully as shown in figure 1. The limitation of the TRI is that it was designed to assess components and cannot handle the diversity of concepts and expectations involved in determination of a whole new technology. It was the starting point for the work described in this paper. b. The risk attaching to new products and systems may be represented using conventions that are standard project management practice. The parameters Features Level Technology has successful mission operations 9 System technology qualified 8 System prototype in operational environment 7 Prototype product in relevant environment 6 Show components in relevant environment 5 Components or sub-systems in lab form 4 Lab studies to validate concepts 3 Concepts or applications formulated 2 Basic principles observed & reported 1