Customer NeedsThe selection of technologies for development beyond basic and applied research activities is a key step in the overall technology-development process of the Department. If technology selection is done properly, the selected technologies should be able to move through the complete development process and lead to solutions of identified problems. If it is done poorly, it can result in wasted resources, in customer dissatisfaction, and in lingering problems. Show
At its most fundamental level, successful technology development is a product of meeting customer needs by solving their problems to an acceptable degree. Where technology development takes place independently of customer (and stakeholder) needs, the rate of technology deployment is low. Where the needs of potential customers (and stakeholders) are identified and considered from the beginning of the development process, the likelihood of eventual technology acceptance and use is high. The subcommittee recommends that the Department's technology-selection process be intimately linked with identified customer needs. We believe that the most important step that EM can take in this regard is to ensure that a structured process is implemented and consistently applied to require consideration of customer needs explicitly and seriously from the beginning of the process. Focus AreasThe EM technology-development program designated five priorities or "focus areas" for technology development:
The purpose of the focused approach is to bring together users and developers to decrease cost, decrease risk, and do what "cannot be done." In addition to the focus areas, the Department has identified several crosscutting or common areas: characterization, monitoring, and sensors; efficient separations and processing; robotics; and technology transfer. The subcommittee thinks that the focus areas that have been defined provide an appropriate structure for accomplishing this objective. The focus areas provide a forum for bringing together technology developers, technology users, potential industrial partners, and other stakeholders for the purpose of developing technical products that can meet customer requirements. We endorse and validate this approach as being closer to a market-driven or user-driven system than any technology-development procedure previously used by the Department. However, we are concerned that implementation of the focus areas has fallen short of the intended mark primarily because user and customer requirements have not yet been fully integrated into the decision-making process for selecting new technologies. Some members of the subcommittee have observed a general indifference to the process on the part of the key Offices of EM. We recommend that steps be taken to ensure that user involvement in the focus areas is sufficient (and has sufficient expertise) to influence the early selection of technologies for development.
Decision Process for Selecting Candidate Technologies for DevelopmentThe subcommittee is aware that EM is developing a decision-making framework that could potentially be used to select technologies for development by EM. We support the refinement of this framework and its eventual acceptance and use by the focus areas. The lack of an accepted and consistently applied framework is a distinct problem. The framework must clearly identify who has the responsibility and authority to ask, answer, and make appropriate decisions regarding such fundamental technology-selection questions as the following:
In addition, the framework needs to have an explicit link between the proposed technology development and customer needs as stated above. The subcommittee recommends that the responsible person or entity for technology selection be clearly identified and that a knowledgeable peer-review group (which is independent and includes members from outside the Department, as discussed above) have substantial influence in the selection decision. Because new technologies are constantly being developed, the decision-making framework must recognize that technology selection for the Department is a dynamic process that must be periodically revisited. Understanding of what kinds of technology are becoming available, not only from inside the Department but also from outside, is necessary. Circumstances that must be accounted for in making technology-selection decisions change (e.g., funding levels may decline, the understanding of the health effects of different circumstances in the DOE complex may change, and the consequence for the environment may be better appreciated), so technology-selection decisions should be made with a view to achieving a strategic mix of technology developments that have short-term and longerterm payoffs. Technology-Development ModelThe strategy of organizing EM technology development within focus areas offers the opportunity for radical redesign of procedures for development of new environmental-remediation technologies. To achieve optimal return from the new approach, a much-needed and fundamental paradigm shift for the EM technology-development program, a progressive conceptual model must be developed to guide and manage the process. Each focus area will have some special features and requirements, but the basic elements of the model will be more similar than different for the different focus areas. A model that divides technology-development projects into six categories or ''gates" with screening criteria was discussed at the workshop. Gate 1 is the entrance for applied research, gate 2 is the entrance for exploratory development, gate 3 is the entrance for advanced development, gate 4 is the entrance for engineering development, gate 5 is the entrance for demonstration, and gate 6 is the entrance for implementation (see Figure 1).  Figure 1Gated Evaluation Process. Source: Gretchen McCabe, Battelle. Presentation at the National Academy of Sciences, July 12, 1995. Several specific requirements of the EM technology maturation model identified by the subcommittee should strengthen the EM technology-development effort. Models for technology development must be strongly coupled to supporting research and development and to technology demonstration and utilization programs. That might be difficult to accomplish, considering the varied nature and dispersed organization of the research supported by the Department that is applicable to technology development. For example, the subsurface-science research program is not in EM, and most of the environmental-process research in EM is not in the Office of Technology Development. Nevertheless, because most new environmental-restoration technologies in several of the focus areas have their origins and underpinnings in environmental-process research (e.g., in transport, fate, and subsurface characteristics), a carefully nurtured, interactive relationship must be established between basic and applied research and technology development. EM has recently begun an effort to coordinate its technology-development efforts with the Office of Energy Research, which houses much of the Department's basic research and is the principal office for interaction with nondefense Department National Laboratories. The Congress has allocated $50 million of EM Program funds for this effort. This type of linkage, including the defense-related Laboratories, where much of the expertise in nuclear materials resides, is precisely what is called for by this subcommittee. The Department should extend this attempt to create partnerships to include the basic-research efforts in universities and industrial concerns that are developing technology or undertaking their own research. As with any program initiative in the Department that involves many groups with their own programmatic objectives (e.g., basic research in support of the Department's missions versus applied research for specific projects), it can be difficult to create an effective link between basic research and the needs of a specific program, such as the EM Program. A principal challenge to its success will be to convince all those who have managerial responsibility for the different groups that this shared initiative deserves their support and encouragement. The Department should provide incentives to its managers, Laboratories, and contractors to make initiatives like this a success. A way must be found to empower environmental-technology users to participate effectively in the allocation of applied research and technology-development funding, regardless of the source in the Department. Technology development must be tightly coupled to technology demonstration and user implementation if the barriers to the introduction of new technology are to be overcome. A mechanism that has proved effective in overcoming a number of barriers is stakeholder involvement from technology selection through all stages of development to final implementation. Stakeholder must also be broadly defined and include not only R&D and user personnel, but regulators at all levels, permit writers, and the public. As emphasized above, a productive technology-development model must also be based on clearly articulated goals and analyses to determine whether the goals are likely to be achieved. Analyses should be included at multiple points in the development process to justify continued investment. Life-cycle costs of technologies in development should be subjected to economic analysis, and the potential risk reduction likely to result from the technology should be analyzed before huge sums are invested. Cost analyses must be benchmarked against available technologies or other technologies under development, regardless of the sponsor. That will require EM to improve its research and technology-development outreach by opening the Department's R&D program to all qualified persons and organizations, regardless of type or location. The subcommittee believes that technology-development funds should be awarded on a competitive basis. Creative partnerships between industry, academy, and National Laboratories should be encouraged. Many of the Department's waste-management issues are not peculiar to the Department; they are faced by private industries and the Department of Defense as well. The Department should make full use of the expertise and talent in universities, industry, and other federal agencies. The role of industry and universities should be of several kinds:
As with the technology-selection process, development should incorporate a broad-based system of peer review that is carefully implemented and monitored to ensure equity. A system of incentives must be developed to increase the likelihood that new technologies will be implemented. Stakeholder involvement will help, but other approaches should be considered such as grants to communities that cooperate in the demonstration of new technologies. Cost-Benefit Analysis as Part of the Technology-Development ProcessCalculation of costs and benefits takes into account a number of factors. Costs should include life-cycle costs, as well as shorter-term costs. Life-cycle cost is an estimate of the full cost of implementing the technology over its expected life; estimation uses a discounted present value analysis (in its most useful form, a range of interest rates, including 0.0%, are used). This allows comparison of short-term capital intensive technologies with longer-term, more cost-effective technologies on an equal basis. Examples of benefits are: decreased likelihood that contamination will reach or affect a population, increased reliability of the method for containing pollution or remediating, decreased production of secondary waste, increasing safety for workers in the environmental management program, and development of a method that might have wide use or commercial viability. As with any analytical tool of this kind, life-cycle analysis has its critics. DOE should use it with this in mind, be certain to make clear statements about the assumptions used, and seek participation of stakeholders in making judgments about these assumptions. Cost-benefit analysis should be included at each step of the research and technology-development process in the Department. Obviously, the proof of effectiveness should be much less stringent and detailed for basic and applied research and for exploratory development than would be required for more-advanced stages of technology development. The technology-development model with screening criteria was presented at the workshop by Gretchen McCabe of Battelle (see Figure 1, above). The general approach embodied in the screening criteria was supported by the subcommittee. Although many variants of this model are possible, it serves the purpose of making a few general points. In the model presented, cost-benefit analysis is used to determine whether a project passes the fourth gate from "advanced development" to "engineering development," which involves prototype development and testing. Incorporation of cost-benefit analysis at this stage in the process is appropriate, but as stated above, it should be applied throughout the process and with different levels of detail, depending on the uncertainties associated with the particular stage of development. The level of detail required for cost-benefit analysis is different at different levels of technology development. For projects in the basic-research, applied research, or exploratory-development stage, there should be a description of scientific reasons for expecting costs to be reduced if the project is developed and of benefits (with respect to risk reduction, cleanup time, and reduction of secondary wastes) that can be expected if the project is successful. The scientific basis for expecting specific benefits needs to be explained. The issues that will substantially affect costs and benefits should be identified as early as possible in the technology-development process. For more-advanced projects (gates 4, 5, and 6), the level of detail about costs and benefits should be increased. Claims of cost savings or benefits should be documented. At this point, information on the expected implementation of the technology should be sufficient for estimating the life-cycle cost for some generic or site-specific examples. It should also allow estimation of hidden implementation costs. In the assessment of these more-mature projects (gates 4–6), specific cost-benefit goals should be stated; e.g., a working target might be to remove cadmium from soil at a cost 20% less than the cost of current landfill solutions or to remove a contaminant from groundwater at a rate 30% faster and at no higher cost than a current-pump-and-treat strategy. The decision to fund further technology-development projects will be based in part on the stated goals and the ability of the projects to meet goals declared at earlier gates. There should be at all stages a comparison of the costs and benefits of using the new technology and established technologies for the same pollution problem. For example, aquifer characteristics, such as hydraulic conductivity might be known to have a major effect on the feasibility and cost of a particular bioremediation technology. Hydraulic conductivity is a measure of how easily water moves through soil; it varies widely between soil types. In this example, proposals for bioremediation programs in the early stages (e.g., research or exploratory development) should identify this important property of soils and discuss how the issue will be considered in the analysis. Proposals for moreadvanced work (advanced or engineering development and beyond) should be able to measure the impact of hydraulic conductivity on feasibility and cost. In addition, consideration of the applicability of a particular technology should include a discussion of the impact of this factor (e.g., how large the market for this type of technology is, given the conductivity requirements). For most projects, several such issues need to be identified early in development and continually revisited with increasingly detailed analysis as the technology passes through the various gates. Peer reviewers should have information about the costs and benefits of a technology project in comparison with those of other existing technologies to assist them in their evaluations. Role of the National Laboratories in Technology DevelopmentThe decision as to whether National Laboratories, universities, or industry should take the lead in the development of any particular technology should be based on a competitive process that undergoes external review, not on a formula or some other form of entitlement. Often, teaming together and partnering different groups for the development of a particular technology is the most effective approach. National Laboratories constitute an extraordinary technical resource in both capability and size. It must be recognized, however, that they are unique in culture and expertise (especially with nuclear materials); this can be both an advantage and a disadvantage in bringing new technologies to bear in restoration activities. There must be strong external benchmarking and peer review of research and technology-development efforts in National Laboratories. The Laboratories must be open to procurement of ''outside" capabilities even when the main body of the R&D fits inside. As with all participants in the technology-development effort, a Laboratory should structure efforts to be responsive to the technology customers. Experience has demonstrated time and again that the National Laboratories are most effective at producing technologies that have potential for commercialization when they are linked to industry at the earliest possible time. The idea is for industry to provide "technology pull" that can guide R&D so that a product meets customer requirements and there are no surprises when it is turned over to industry for commercialization. Partnerships between industry, the Laboratories, and universities in which each party contributes what it does best may be desirable. 4 The National Laboratories, for example, have extraordinary expertise in simulation and modeling, advanced materials, chemistry, fluid dynamics, and other disciplines of potential interest to industry. Furthermore, the Laboratories have officially designated user facilities—usually one-of-a-kind instruments or Laboratories that are available for industrial collaboration with a minimum of paperwork and bureaucracy. Other models for technology development have not been very successful. Technologies that are developed without industry participation face a much more difficult road to commercialization for a variety of reasons, ranging from difficulty of manufacture to the "not invented here" syndrome where a company is not interested in developing a technology because it had nothing to do with its earliest development. 4 An example of this partnership model is developing at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. In early 1995, Motorola approached the Laboratory about developing technologies for cleanup of solvent-contaminated groundwater. Motorola visited the Laboratory on several occasions to inform Laboratory scientists and engineers of the customer requirements, including providing information on the extent of the problem and possible approaches that would be acceptable in the existing corporate and regulatory environment. The Laboratory plans to allocate some of its FY 1996 laboratory-directed research and development funds to start a small number of projects that will be conducted with expanded industry involvement, including that of Motorola and other interested companies. If promising solutions can be developed during the coming year, Motorola has agreed to lead a program-development effort for continued funding. How does technology have an impact on process selection?Advancements in technology have had the greatest impact on process design decisions. Technological advances have enabled companies to produce products faster, with better quality, at a lower cost. Many processes that were not imaginable only a few years ago have been made possible through technology.
How does technology help in decision making?It helps you eliminate bottlenecks that are slowing down your decision making, provide accurate data that makes your decision-making process more reliable, and provide better customer experiences by eliminating the need for manual and redundant tasks.
How technology has influenced production and operation management?Technology can be used in many different ways. One important argument for technology use is the transaction volume, where automated systems can handle volumes that manual operations cannot handle. Other aspects include risk avoidance, specifically when it concerns complex tasks with high consequences from mistakes.
What is technology selection in operations management?Technology selection represents a crucial decision in the early stages of a project which can have a substantial impact on the economic viability of the project. Hence the need for a disciplined technology evaluation methodology to ensure that the most appropriate, efficient and cost effective solution is selected.
|
