Assessment and market planning for a

discontinous innovation
By: A. SCHWERY - V. F. RAURICH
Power
Hydro Generators
1

The hydraulic power generation business is usually faced with continuos innovation, meaning that progress
is rather made in small than in large steps. Nevertheless, there are currently some examples of
discontinuous innovation, the "Powerformer"-technology being one of them. The Powerformer-technology
was chosen as an application example, in order to gather experience on how to act when the issue of
introducing a discontinuous innovation into the market arises.
The SWOT-Methodology enhanced with aspects of the Technology Choice Tool is a valuable preparation
for assessing the competitive product concept of a discontinuous innovation. The developed innovation
method aggregating both, a Roadmapping procedure and a process for technology commercialization, leads
to specified market segments, a market penetration schedule as well as to development and design aims. A
second iteration of the concept's process has to be done to define in detail the discontinuous innovation
synthesis. The developed innovation method proves to be very helpful for the management of discontinuous
innovation generation, evaluation and synthesis. It is therefore suggested for application by technology-
intensive enterprises in similar situations.
2
1 Company and environment
1.1 ALSTOM Power Hydro
ALSTOM Power Hydro has a business volume of one
billion Euro and employs approx. 5000 coworkers.
ALSTOM Power Hydro is the world market leader in
hydro business with an installed capacity of over 240
GVA on generators and 120 GVA on turbines. ALSTOM
Power Hydro is composed of five strategic divisions as
shown in Fig. 1.
The division "Generators" is subdivided into
geographically separated business units. Sweden is in
charge of acquisition, engineering and the sale of the so-
called Powerformers, (high voltage generator) but has no
production line by itself.
Hydro
Power
Generators Turbines
Plants &
Systems
Systems Latin
America
Water Business
Fig. 1: Organizational structure of ALSTOM Power Hydro
The Technology Center is responsible for development
and maintenance of the calculation programmes. It is
involved in optimization and unification of the design. It
provides support for special calculations as well as for
complex assignments. It controls the contract offerings of
the business units. Furthermore, the Technology Center is
concerned with the technological improvements and
developments, in order to meet the requirements and
longer-term trends of the market. The mentioned
organisation is shown in Fig. 2.
Generators
Europe Brazil Canada USA Sweden
Technology
Center
Fig. 2: Organization of the "Generators" Division
1.2 Hydro generator market
The optimal operating point of a turbine depends on
potential energy, flow rate and revolutions. Depending to
the geological and geographical situation, generators with
different revolutions and power are required.
Electrical generators have a long life expectancy. It often
occurs, that machines have to be replaced after 40 years,
only. The product itself is technically mature, which
results in a degree of efficiency up to 99 %. The
fundamental concepts have already been developed a
hundred years ago. Since then the synchronous machine
has been enhanced and modified to its present form.
Todays development effort concentrates on the reduction
of costs. This is achieved by the use of new materials,
improved procedures of calculation and therefore a
reduction of the elements of uncertainty, improvement of
the process control, more efficient project management
and finally a standardization of the products.
For most products in the industrial goods market an
engineer or manager has the possibility to experience
several product life cycles in a few years time. This isnt
the case in hydro-generator market. The innovation
theories of the industrial goods market are not directly
applicable here. According to this the market behaves
conservatively. Furthermore, a breakdown of a generator
causes immediately large production losses and leads to
disastrously financial effects. Per machine and day the
costs can rise up to a million Euro. Altogether the
hydraulic market isnt an ideal field for innovations.
Despite this, as we will see further on, there still are
innovative ideas in this sector.
1.2.1 Factors of influence
The most important economical influence on the
development of the energy market is the price of the
primary raw materials, such as oil, uranium, gas and coal.
Compared with thermal power stations, hydraulic power
stations represent larger investments. This becomes
obvious when we look at the infrastructure expenditures
for dams and pressure pipes. However, in operation, no
costs for fuel arise for hydraulic power stations, thus
increasing prizes on raw materials lead to higher operating
costs for thermal power stations. Therefore, assuming that
the worldwide requirement of electrical power doesnt
become smaller, additional projects in the hydraulic
market can become economically interesting in future.
1.3 Powerformer
The capacity of a generator is proportional to the product
of voltage and current. Better isolation systems have been
developed, in order to build generators with larger
capacities. The process of this development follows
approximately an S-curve. The strength of the electrical
field is used as a measure within the S-curve. The
evolution of the maximum allowable strength of the
electrical field per mm of isolation is shown in Fig. 3. The
present overall voltage limit for the application of
conventional technology lies within the range of 30 kV.
3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
Year
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l

F
i
e
l
d

E

[
k
V
/
m
m
]
Fig. 3: S-curve of the strength of the electrical field in generators
The stator coils of large synchronous generators consist of
so-called Roebel-bars, which are embedded in the slots
of the laminated stator core. These bars are composed of
rectangular cupreous wires, which are surrounded by an
isolation of epoxy resin and mica.
The pattern of the strength of the electrical field along the
circumference of a conventional bar and a cable is
compared in Fig. 4. Because of its rectangular shape high
electrical field peaks are generated at the corners of the
bar. this is the critical geometry, for which the isolation
has to be dimensioned. The fundamental idea of the
Powerformer developers is to use cables instead of bars,
as cables do not have this disadvantage. Voltages up to
400 kV can be reached

with XLPE as an isolation material
(Dettmer, 1998).
Fig. 4: Pattern of the electrical field strength in "Roebel"-bar and cable
It is economically better to transfer electricity at a high
voltage and a low current for long distances (Coulon &
Jufer, 1998). Depending on the network these voltages
range between 65 kV and 400 kV. As these voltages cant
be reached in generators using the classical isolation
technology, the given voltage of the generator is
transformed by a transformer unit.
The outstanding benefit of using the Powerformer
technology is, that the high voltages can be generated
directly without a transformer unit. This is illustrated in
Fig. 5. This also brings benefits for the protective concept,
the infrastructure needed and a simpler building concept.
For these reasons the implementation of the Powerformer
idea is an innovation bringing along a change of
paradigm, also with the corresponding difficulties.
Fig. 5: Comparison of a conventional plant and the benefits of the
Powerformer Technology
2 Assessment of technologies
The SWOT-Analysis (Zst, 2000) is a recognized and
proved method for the evaluation of technologies. It is
popular, intuitively, easy to understand and simple to
apply. However, besides these advantages it has the
disadvantage that the procedure is relatively free and thus
unstructured. The individual arguments are best gathered
with the help of experts from different fields. At the end it
is not sure if all the relevant aspects have been covered.
Meyhack et al. (2002) developed the Technology Choice
Tool, a methodology for assessing technologies and
giving a structured overview of its potentials. This
methodology will first be applied and then used as an
initial position for a further SWOT-Analysis.
2.1 Technology Choice Tool
In their publication, Meyhack et al. (2002) present a
structured method for technology evaluation in case of a
Market-Pull. Seven Meta-criteria are defined and shown
in Fig. 6. A check list involving several arguements
assessing the potential within each Meta-criteria is
performed on the technology at stake. Although the
Technology Choice Tool was elaborated to handle a
Market-Pull case, this procedure was found useful to give
a structured starting point for the evaluation of the
Powerformer Technology-Push. Now following, a deeper
insight in the discussions used for assessing the potentials
within the Meta-criteria is given.
4
Technological
Impact
Acquisition
Implemen-
tation
Future
Securing
Diffusion Use
Fig. 6: Seven meta criteria for technology evaluation.
2.1.1 Potential of acquisition
Can we acquire a technology ourselves or is it possible to
develop it? Are the required resources available?
2.1.2 Potential of implementation
Is the technology suitable for use? Does it match the
strategy of the company?
2.1.3 Potential of use
The technological potential of use is analysed,
independent of whether the technology is accepted by the
customer or not.
2.1.4 Potential of diffusion
How do the chances and risks of market diffusion of this
technology look like?
2.1.5 Potential of securing
Can the involved technological know-how, intellectual
property and technology standards used be protected in
the future?
2.1.6 Potential of the future
Which possibilities can the technology open up in the
future?
2.1.7 Potential of technological impact
Under this aspect we summarize technological effects on
the society, taking into account intended as well as
unintended ones.
2.2 SWOT-Analysis
The SWOT-Analysis points out that the Powerformer
innovation does not only have external challenges, but
also needs internal improvements. Here, in particular the
concentration of know-how in only one department is
relevant, as well as the internal competitive situation,
which may result from the sale of a Powerformer unit.
The high dependency on further cable development
belongs to the external challenges. Furthermore, the
implementation of this innovation and its difficulties are
discussed taking into account the conservative market
environment.
Weakness / Threat combinations of technical nature were
clearly shown within the detailed SWOT-analysis. These
threats have been discussed in detail. Other relevant
combinations of weaknesses in connection with the
conservative market were revealed and identified in detail.
The question raises, whether it is possible or not to find
market segments with less conservative and skeptical
customers.
3 Aims deduced from the SWOT-
Analysis
3.1 General aims
This study was performed by ALSTOM Power Hydro and
the ETH-Chair for Technology Management and
Entrepreneurship in order to acquire further know-how in
the area of Technology Management and especially in
Technology Planning for a Technology-Push situation.
The Powerformer product is a suitable object and example
for this purpose.
The Powerformer is an innovative development project in
which a new technology comes into operation and
therefore is interesting to the Technology Management
perspective. Furthermore, the market introduction aspect
under the Technology-Push circumstance contains
interesting insights for the market view, too.
3.2 Study aims
The aims are deduced from the summary of the SWOT-
Analysis. As shown, one main challenge is to find
markets and market sectors, which do not show the
revealed weakness / threat combinations. This could be
markets, where a decision in favor of the Powerformer
outperform the investment risk perceived by the customer.
In a next step, it has to be clarified how the products for
these markets have to look like, whether they can be
manufactured with the existing technical possibilities or
whether new ones have to be developed.
5
The further proceeding is to examine different solution
apporaches and to determine, if new markets can be
identified. Then a process should be found where the path
from technology to the market application can be pointed
out and be controlled. The elaborated solution must
answer the following questions:
Are there markets in which the benefits of the
Powerformer technology can be applied as an
important customer benefit, whereas the perceived
financial risk for the customer is smaller?
How do such different products look like?
Can the desired products be manufactured with the
existing technical instruments?
Can the involved technological competencies be
acquired?
Which technical development would still be
necessary?
4 Solution Approaches
4.1 Roadmapping
The literature of Roadmapping in general and Technology
Roadmapping in particular is very extensive. On one hand
this is connected to the fact that this well-known tool was
used more and more in the last years, on the other hand
the terminology is not always used in the same way.
Meanwhile many previsional documents are called
roadmap.
4.2 Technology Roadmapping
Within the Technology Roadmapping metaphor, a
company is in a way considered as a vehicle, which is on
a journey through partly well-known, partly unknown
areas, and its leadership (i.e. the driver) has to be
supported in navigation (Mhrle & Isenmann, 2002).
Phaal et al. (2001) deliver a good insight on Technology
Roadmapping, too. In their publication they present an
overview of eight classes according to their Technology
Roadmap model, and correspondingly give a graphical
split-up into eight classes. This classification implicates
that the Powerformer application is a Product Planning,
multiple layer Technology Roadmap. This Roadmap is
composed of different layers and links products with
markets and technologies. The analysis of Phaal et al.
taking into account approximately 40 different Roadmaps
showed that this type is also the most common one. A
generic diagram of this type is pictured in fig. 7. Time is
shown on the abscissa and the breakdown in layers on the
ordinate. In our case we will use three layers: Market,
Product and Technology. If necessary, the Roadmap could
still be completed by a fourth layer, which would contain
the R&D projects. The layer of the market reflects the
purpose (know-why), namely to supply a market and to
draw financial profit of it. In the lowest layer are the
resources (capacity and know-how) of the company. The
middle layer fulfils the task of connecting the two other
layers. The product development (know what) is located
there.
Fig. 7: Generic Technology Roadmap, following Phaal et al. (2000)
Phaal et al. (2000) also describe a procedure on how to
create the Technology Roadmap, subdivided into four
steps: Four different workshops are suggested, with
persons from different competencies within the company,
in order to guarantee that all relevant aspects are covered.
In the "market workshop", the markets which have to be
supplied, are identified. They should be described and
isolated on the basis of important characteristics. It should
be analyzed, which are the requirements of the market and
which the motivation of the customer. Furthermore
requirements on the business are defined.
In the "product workshop" the required product
characteristics are identified, which permit a supply of the
defined markets. It is decided whether different products
and product families are needed or not and which product
specifications are needed.
The "technology workshop" is closely connected to the
product workshop. Herein, it has to be clarified, which
technologies the company should possess, in order to be
able to manufacture products with the desired
characteristics.
Finally in a fourth workshop, called the "charting
workshop", the three previous workshops are
interconnected and the Technology Roadmap is
developed. For this purpose questions have to be
answered, as for example: "Do we already possess the
technology X to guarantee the product characteristicY?"
and "If not, how much time will the development or
procurement of this technology take us?" In this way the
Technology Roadmap is developed through a balanced
discussion. Then, milestones have to be identified, finally
programs have to be launched. The procedure described
can or should be adapted to the prevailing conditions of
the company. It is possible and sometimes even necessary
to improve the Roadmap in several steps as it is shown in
Fig. 8.
6
Planing
Implementation
Market
Workshop
Product
Workshop
Technology
Workshop
Charting
Workshop Iteration
Fig. 8: Chronology of the workshops, following Phaal et al. (2000)
4.2.1 Technology push and market pull
The proceeding described above corresponds to the
Market-Pull process shown in Fig. 9 on the right side. For
example there exists a market for the product P3. The
product P3 could be described as a further development of
the products P1 and P2. However it is not clear whether
the technologies needed for it are already available or not
(for example T4). This surely corresponds to the most
encountered situations. For example if we think of the PC
market. There surely is a market for 10 GHz processor,
but the technology needed for it doesnt exist yet.
Even if the Market-Pull process is more common, and
shows clear advantages concerning the marketing, the
complementary Technology-Push process still exists. This
process is shown on the left side in fig. 9. In this
procedure, the company has a certain technology, for
which an appropriate market doesnt exist yet. In a way
the market has to be created (or identified), which requires
much larger efforts than to supply an existing market with
products. However this version offers the company the
possibility to occupy the new market sector as a
monopoly for a certain time, with the help of adequate
protective means. More information on this subject and a
classification of Technology Roadmaps structured after a
Push and Pull process in the study of Kostoff & Schaller
(2001).
time
T2
T1
T2
Actual set of
technologies
T3
Technology
T1 T2 T3
Consistency over time ?
T2 F
a
P1
F
b
T4
??
Missing Technology!
Market Pull view
Missing Product/Market! Technology Push view
T3 F
x
P4
??
Actual set
of products
P2
P3
P1
P1
Product
P2 P1
time
Fig. 9: Technology-Push and Market-Pull, following Mhrle et al.
(2002)
4.2.2 Factor of success
Different conditions have to be fulfilled, in order to
accomplish the Roadmapping process successfully
leading to a useful Roadmap. After analyzing 2000
companies in England Phaal et al. (2001) come to the
following conclusion:
First of all, a clear company requirement is needed
Secondly, the initiative needs the full commitment of
management.
Thirdly, it is important to win the right people from
relevant fields of the company.
One of the most important challenges seems to be the
problem of obtaining relevant information. The inquiry
also reveals that one of the most difficult challenges is to
keep the Roadmap alive. The Roadmap can be generated
and improved in several steps. If a satisfying document
has been developed it should still be revised and updated
from time to time.
4.3 Innovative commercialisation of
technologies
Jolly (1997) analyzes the innovation process and its
organization on the basis of development and use of
technologies. He not only involves the issue of
development, but also in continues towards the
commercialization of the technology. Jolly organizes the
development process from the idea to the commercial
application as a sequence of five sub-processes, adding
value throughout the process. Additionally, an activity to
mobilize resources takes place between two sub
processes. An overview of the total process is shown in
Fig. 10.
Subprocesses: Building the Value of a New Technology
Bridges: Satisfying and Mobilizing Stakholders at Each Stage
1
.

I
m
a
g
i
n
i
n
g
2
.

M
o
b
i
l
i
z
i
n
g
3
.

I
n
c
u
b
a
t
i
n
g
4
.

D
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
n
g
5
.

P
r
o
m
o
t
i
n
g
6
.

S
u
s
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
2
.

M
o
b
i
l
i
z
i
n
g
2
.

M
o
b
i
l
i
z
i
n
g
2
.

M
o
b
i
l
i
z
i
n
g
Fig. 10: Process of technology commercialization, following Jolly
(1997)
4.4 Controlling
Compared to Roadmapping or the above described
innovation process, Controlling alone cant be used to set
up targets. It is rather a supporting process, nevertheless a
very important one. The Controlling aspect has to be
applied in connection with another instrument.
In connection with the Roadmapping process, Controlling
can be used to guarantee the continuity of the generated
Roadmap. During the development of the Roadmap
figures should be defined in the individual sections. Later
on we can determine on this basis, if we are on the
selected track or not. Including this, projects and
7
developments can be numerically seized, controlled and
evaluated.
4.5 Real options
An option gives the right, however not the obligation, to
transact an investment up to a given time at a certain
price. Companies in the oil and natural gas industry buy
licenses, which give the company the right to use a certain
block for a given time period. The company however is
confronted with large uncertainties. On one hand, it is not
clear how profitable and accessible the sources are and on
the other hand no one knows how the petroleum price will
develop in the future. A standard NPV evaluation method
can not measure up with this situation. Instead of
calculating the value, that the block would have when
using immediately, one can try to keep the option, to use
the block in the future, when circumstances become better
(improvement in drilling technology, increased petroleum
price). To estimate the value of this option real options
calculations (Copeland & Keenan, 1998; Leslie &
Michaels, 1997) can be performed.
4.6 TIPS
The TIPS Methodology was invented 50 years ago by
Genrich Saulowitch Altschuller. TIPS or TRIZ, as it is
often called deduced from its original Russian title, is an
acronym for "Theory of Inventive Problem Solving".
Additional information on TIPS can be found in the
Internet. Besides, Mhrle & Isenmann (2002) describe
possible involvement of TIPS into Roadmapping.
4.7 Prioritization of Solution Approaches
The solution approach to choose should serve the need of
finding new applications for a given technology and to
clarifiy how such an innovative application could be
realized. The description of different procedures and
approaches to this topic showed, that Technology
Roadmapping and the Jolly innovation process are
solution approaches that best suit this case. Additionally,
the controlling aspect must also be taken into account, in
order to ensure the operative implementation and
monitoring.
Real Options is not applicable in the beginning, as there is
insufficient data in this case, treating a "Technology-
Push" situation. When markets and market introduction is
nearby, a Real Options calculation may be very valuable
for assessing different product development and
introduction scenarios.
TIPS, is a very technically oriented method offering
inventive support, and can therefore be applied on a more
detailed level during the development effort. Herein, the
special development of a wind-powerformer product
might benefit from TIPS.
Table 1 shows the solution approaches, and summarizes
their prioritization.
Solution approach Applicable Comment
Roadmapping Yes Technology-Push case can be
treated correspondingly
Jolly Yes Commercialization of new
technology.
Controlling Yes Development process
monitoring
Real Options No Necessary input data is not
available
TIPS No For later special development
useful, at the moment too
technical
Table 1: Summary of discussed solution approaches
5 Integrative Planning and Control
5.1 Procedure
The chosen solution approaches are implemented in a
combination, which is found suitable for the discussed
case. The procedure suggested by Phaal et al. (2000) was
performed, and enriched with the technology
commercialization procedure from Jolly (1997). The four
stages "Market", "Product", "Technology" and "Charting"
where done one after the other, taking into account the
elements of the Jolly (1997) technology
commercialization and defining on which parameters
might control the chosen direction. The following figure
shows, how the interaction and combination of both
procedures was realized.
1
.
Im
a
g
in
in
g
2
.
M
o
b
iliz
in
g
3
.
In
c
u
b
a
tin
g
4
.
D
e
m
o
n
s
tr
a
tin
g
5
.
P
ro
m
o
tin
g
6
.
S
u
s
ta
in
in
g
S
u
b
p
ro
c
e
s
s
e
s: B
u
ild
in
g
th
e
V
a
lu
e
o
f a
N
e
w
T
e
c
h
n
o
lo
g
y
Planing
Implementation
Market
Workshop
Product
Workshop
Technology
Workshop
Charting
Workshop Iteration
2
.
M
o
b
iliz
in
g
Fig. 11: Combination of Technology Roadmapping and Innovation
Commercialization procedure.
5.2 Market Workshop
The market workshop is the first step towards
commercialization, and is called Imagining by Jolly
(1997). As described before, it is important that this
workshop has a high degree of interdisciplinary
contributions. In this "Technology-Push" case, the first
Imagining activity was done by technicians in their
8
laboratory. This competence was enriched with people
from product management and marketing know-how.
Taking into account the Promoting step, not only possible
markets and applications should be identified within the
market workshop, but also how these markets can be
served in a sustainable manner, adapting it to different
upcoming needs. A Roadmap is a living document, and
this philosophy can be incorporated from the very
beginning. The active market processing has to be taken
into account, too. This has to be realized in the first step,
as suggested by Jolly (1997) with the term Sustaining.
The SWOT-analysis shows, that the current market is
very conservative and a problematic introduction field for
the Powerformer. Besides objective comparisons between
the new and the old technology, also soft factors play an
important role. This has to be taken into account, when
searching new markets and applications for the
Powerformer.
Therefore, markets are discussed, where buyers are more
investment friendly, and several possibilities where found
together with the experts involved in the discussion. Not
only the markets where denominated, but also control
parameters where named, such as market volume,
turnover, price, costs and basic product requirements. The
defined markets are called Market 1 through 4.
The next question is, if all the markets should be served or
if a selection should take place. Taking into account the
Jolly (1997) process, this corresponds to the Incubating
step.
5.3 Product Workshop
The Product workshop should better define individual
product features, which have to be fulfilled to serve the
defined markets 1 through 4. Firstly, current product
specifications have to be taken into account and to be
compared if they fulfill a large part of the desired features.
Then, a development effort estimate can be undertaken.
Also, additional technologies might be needed or taken
into account depending on the market discussed. Finally,
the needed prototype description was elaborated within
this workshop.
5.4 Technology Workshop
After the product workshop, a step deeper into realizing
the Powerformer innovation was discussing technical
issues within the Technology Workshop. The high voltage
cable technology is a crucial element within this
innovation, and the applicability of the experience gained
with existing prototypes was further elaborated. The need
for a new prototype built to proof and investigate the
newly needed performance and product requirements was
discussed herein. This step incorporates the
Demonstrating argument within the Jolly procedure.
5.5 Control
As already stated, the market and product workshop
defined product requirements in order to ensure the
applicability of the innovation in certain markets. These
requirements are put into a market overview table, as
shown in Table 2. This table is filled in during the first
three workshops, and lays the basis for the benchmark and
control activities during the realization phase.
Market Revolutions Voltage Performance
Market 1 W Rev./min W kV W kW
Market 2 X Rev./min X kV X kW
Market 3 Y Rev./min Y kV Y kW
Market 4 Z Rev./min Z kV Z kW
Table 2: Market and product overview
5.6 Charting Workshop
5.6.1 Planning
Figure 12 shows the result of the charting workshop.
Taking into account the four identified markets, four
different approaches are shown in this Roadmap
overview.
The fourth market is hypothetical, as this market is far
ahead of being developed, and there are some
technological shortcomings to be improved. Nevertheless,
this market is already mentioned, in case that its
importance will become higher in the future. This
strategic option is therefore taken into account within this
Roadmap.
The last two steps of the Jolly (1997) commercialization
procedure can now be identified as Sustaining and
Promoting. While new markets are penetrated in a staged
procedure, this should ensure the sustained success over
time. The promotional aspect is important for market
penetration especially. Besides, with this action plan
ready also internal promoting can be undertaken, to
convince stakeholders within the company.
Market 2
Market 3
Prod 2
Prod 3
Tech 2
Tech 3
Market 1
Market 4
M
a
r
k
e
t
Prod 1
Prod 4
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
Tech 1
Tech 4
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
K
K
K
Time
2002 2004 2003
K
K
K
SD
SH
T
D
D
H
H
W
W
Fig. 12: Roadmap after the first iteration
In terms of Controlling, the charting workshop is a crucial
point, as during this workshop the major milestones
9
towards the aims which are intended are set and
graphically shown. Also performance figures are set for
project control and further product specification. This can
be easily transformed into the stage gate process, which is
applied in one form or another in almost every company.
As herein a interdisciplinary competence is needed, the
representatives from the other workshops are involved in
the Charting workshop, too. Besides defining the
responsible person for the innovation at stake, also aspects
of resources allocation have to be considered more
thoroughly at this point.
6 Summary
The need to learn about new procedures and tools in the
field of Technology Management was the reason for this
study, which was performed together with the ETH-Chair
for Technology Management and Entrepreneurship. The
Powerformer innovation, which is a product already
existing, but has further development potential, was an
ideal testing object to do so.
A SWOT-Analysis showed, that the Powerformer project
not only has to cope with external problems. Internal
improvement potential could be deduced from this kind of
analysis. These insights lead to the aim of investigating
appropriate solution approaches for the encountered
challenges. On one hand, new markets should be defined
within a specified process, on the other hand, the link
from technology towards the market should be described
properly. After a prioritization of possible solution
approaches, a combination of Technology Roadmapping
and the process of technology commercialization
following Jolly (1997) was chosen. The procedure
involving four different workshops proved to be useful in
practice. In order to be able to monitor the ongoing
success of the innovational evolution, control parameters
where defined during the workshops, too.
From the point of view of the authors, as well as the
involved people from inside and outside the company, this
work was an effective contribution in learning about
useful new procedures and tools of Technology
Management. It was shown, that the described
methodology is a valuable approach within the
organization of large development projects. The
ALSTOM Power Hydro Generator Technology Center
will use this experience to apply more broadly the
described methodology.
7 References
Copeland, T. E. & Keenan, P. T. (1998). Making real options
real? The McKinsey Quarterly, Nb. 3
Dettmer, D. (1998). The heart of a new machine. IEEE Review
November, 255-285.
Coulon, F. & Jufer, M. (1989). Introduction
llectrotechnique in: Trait dElectricit, Volume I. Lausanne,
Presses Polytechniques Romandes
Jolly, V. K. (1997). Commercializing new technologies.
Boston, Harvard Business School Press.
Kostoff, R. N. & Schaller, R. R. (2001). Science and
Technology Roadmaps. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 48(2): 132-143.
Leslie, K. J. & Michaels M. P. (1997). The real power of real
options, The McKinsey Quarterly, Nb. 3
Meyhack, O.; Raurich, V.; Tschirky, H.; Kappes, S. &
Schumann, F. (2002) The Technology Choice Tool: A tool
that underpins strategic thinking in R&D and innovation
management. Leuven, R&D Management Conference.
Mhrle M. G.; Specht, D. & Behrens, S. (2002). Management
von Innovationen und neuen Technologien im Unternehmen,
in: Gabler Lexikon Technologiemanagement. Wiesbaden,
Gabler.
Mhrle, M. G.; Isenmann, R. (2002). Technologie-
Roadmapping: Zukunftsstrategien fr
Technologieunternehmen. Berlin, Springer.
Phaal, R.; Farrukh, C. J. P. & Probert, D. R. (2000). Fast-start
technology roadmapping. University of Cambridge.
Phaal, R.; Farrukh, C. J. P. & Probert, D. R. (2001).
Technology Roadmapping: linking technology resources to
business objectives. University of Cambridge.
Zst, R. (2000). Einstieg ins Systems Engineering
Systematisch denken, handeln und umsetzen. Zrich, Verlag
Industrielle Organisation.
ALSTOM Power Hydro Generator Technology Centre CH-5242 Birr - Switzerland
Phone: +41 56 466 66 11 Fax: +41 56 466 69 83 www.alstom.com

A
L
S
T
O
M

-

2
0
0
0
.

A
L
S
T
O
M
,

l
e

l
o
g
o

A
L
S
T
O
M

e
t

l
e
u
r
s

f
o
r
m
e
s

f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
v
e
s

s
o
n
t

d
e
s

m
a
r
q
u
e
s

d

p
o
s

e
s

d
e

A
L
S
T
O
M
.

L
e
s

a
u
t
r
e
s

m
a
r
q
u
e
s

m
e
n
t
i
o
n
n

e
s

d
a
n
s

c
e

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
,

d

p
o
s

e
s

o
u

n
o
n
,

a
p
p
a
r
t
i
e
n
n
e
n
t

l
e
u
r
s
d

t
e
n
t
e
u
r
s

r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
f
s
"
.