Technology portfolio analysis

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The technology portfolio analysis ( TPF analysis ) is an instrument of strategic technology management . Their use serves the systematic evaluation of (new) technologies and provides the basis for strategic investment decisions in favor of economically promising (new) technologies. The technology portfolio analysis was developed in the late 1970s by Werner Pfeiffer and employees of the Research Group for Innovation and Technological Prediction (FIV), which he heads .

Step 1: technology identification

The evaluation objects of a TPF analysis are technologies (→ technologies as objects of technology management ). In the course of technology identification (similar to → early technology detection ), in addition to the established technologies that have been the basis for marketable products (for a long time), also those (new) technologies which, due to their function, can be considered as alternatives in the long term and for today's technologies May pose a risk of substitution. At the time of planning, new technologies are in the early stages of their development. The decisive search criterion for the technology identification is therefore above all the fundamental functional suitability of a technology or the functional equivalence of new technologies to established ones.

  • Example: A manufacturer of mechanical keys and locking systems must carry out the technology identification with the perspective of the technologies with which the "access control" function could equally be implemented. Functionally equivalent to its previous technology are, among other things, biometric methods , methods for querying codes (e.g. PINs ) and solutions based on microelectronic components (e.g. chip card as a key).

Step 2: Future-oriented technology assessment

Pfeiffer technology portfolio with indicators

A technology portfolio depicts the evaluation of a technology in terms of two central parameters: the technology attractiveness and the strength of resources.

Technology attractiveness

The technology attractiveness is "... - to put it simply - the sum of all technical and economic benefits that can be gained by exploiting the plug end in a field of technology strategic development opportunities ...." The technology attractive is the one of the technology characteristics (potential side) and on the other hand, depends on the requirements of (future) users (demand side) .

The two sizes of the technology portfolio, technology attractiveness and resource strength, each represent a (highly) aggregated evaluation result in relation to deeper individual factors. Pfeiffer and Dögl propose three indicators to determine technology attractiveness :

  • Further development potential : To what extent is technical further development and thus performance increases and / or cost reductions possible?
  • Range of application : How can the number of possible areas of application of the technology and the quantities per area of ​​application be assessed?
  • Compatibility : What negative or positive effects can be expected in user and surrounding systems (innovation obstacles, drivers)?

Resource strength

Resource strength expresses “... to what extent the evaluated company has the prerequisites in comparison to its potential competitors to use the technological alternative [...] considered successfully, ie in a timely manner and in the form of marketable products. In other words, it is a measure of the technical and economic strength or weakness of a company in relation to a technology relative to its competitors. "

Pfeiffer and Dögl propose the following three indicators for determining resource strength :

  • Technical and qualitative degree of mastery : How is our technology-specific know-how to be assessed in relation to the competition, is there a lead or lag in development?
  • Potentials : To what extent are financial, human and material resources available in order to exploit the existing further development potential of the technology?
  • Speed ​​of (re-) action : How quickly can the evaluating company exploit the further development potential of the technology compared to the competition?

Future orientation and system perspective

An essential characteristic of the technology evaluation in the context of a TPF analysis is future orientation or long-term orientation. Possible future developments must be assessed for both performance and cost-related technology properties as well as the requirements of customers and users. Helpful technology management models for estimating future technology potential are in particular the S-curve and the experience curve concept . Scenario analyzes can be used to forecast the development of the user side.

Pfeiffer and his co-authors also emphasize the great importance of a higher-level system and environment perspective that extends beyond individual technologies. On the one hand, this means that technical peripheral systems are included in the analysis (e.g. the establishment of a methanol or hydrogen supply infrastructure required for the implementation of fuel cell drives for cars ). On the other hand, non-technical framework conditions are also decisive for the technology assessment (e.g. the possible tightening of emissions legislation ), → environment analysis .

  • Example: By the beginning of the 1980s at the latest, camera and film manufacturers were faced with the strategic planning task of assessing the long-term attractiveness of the two technologies "chemical (analog) photography " and " digital photography ". In the 1980s and 1990s, the technical-functional (image quality, resolution) and economic suitability (unit cost / price of camera and prints) of digital photography were not competitive with analog photography, and in Germany the sales volume of digital cameras only exceeded that in 2003 from analog cameras. With a long-term planning perspective, however, according to Pfeiffer et al. the higher technology attractiveness of digital photography can be recognized at an early stage. Based on Moore's law for the long-term development of the price-performance ratio for semiconductor components, the further development potential of digital photography (with CCD semiconductor sensors as the central technological component) could be recognized as very high. On the other hand, favor on the user side z. For example, the general trend towards the increasing equipping of private households with the required “computer infrastructure” is digital photography.

Step 3: Evaluation of the technology portfolio

Pfeiffer technology portfolio with recommendations for action

There are specific recommendations for action for four areas of the technology portfolio. These “... are not to be understood as dogma; rather, they give recommendations in which direction a decision should be made. "

(1) Investment field

In the case of a high technology attractiveness in combination with a high resource strength (field top right with technology T 1 ), a technology must be promoted. Financial resources should continue to be invested in these technologies in order to strengthen their own good competitive position in economically attractive applications.

  • Example: The Darmstadt-based company Merck is the market and technology leader for liquid crystals (LCs) , which are required for the production of liquid crystal displays (flat screens). Merck holds all important patents worldwide (very high resource strength), particularly for LCs for LCD flat screens based on vertical alignment technology. At the same time, the technology attractiveness of LCs and LCDs is high.

(2) Disinvestment field

Conversely, investments are not advisable in the case of a combination of low technology attractiveness with low resource strength (lower left field with technology T 2 ). Companies that have not previously been active in these unattractive fields of technology should not try to get started. Anyone who has previously dealt with technologies in this field with weak own resources should prepare the switch to superior technologies.

  • Example: Technologies with (very) low technology attractiveness are e.g. B. Classical chemical-analog photography (films and cameras) and cathode ray tubes for TV screens . For companies with a low level of resources, there is a clear recommendation to exit these technologies.

(3) Technology-attractive selection field

In the case of a position with high technology attractiveness, but low resource strength (top left field with technology T 3 ), there are two general alternatives for action: (1) exit (or non-entry) in view of weak own resource strength or (2) expansion (or entry) into the Technology with massive investments to catch up with the existing development gap. In these cases it is not a sensible strategy to operate technology development “on the back burner”.

  • Example: In 2004, Siemens bought the American company US Filter and bundled its water activities in the Siemens Water Technologies organizational unit. Before the takeover, Siemens was focused on municipal water treatment. US Filter had attractive technologies for disinfecting water with UV light , desalination and membrane technologies . Following the US filter acquisition, Siemens Water Technologies can also offer systems for treating industrial process wastewater. "We now have the complete range of technologies for physical water treatment and wastewater disposal," said Radke, then head of Siemens Water Technologies in 2004.

(4) Resource-rich selection field

A position with high resource strength but low technology attractiveness (bottom right field with technology T 4 ) harbors the risk of misdirection of financial means and human resources. The further development of technologies, which currently still form the basis of numerous products and thus ensure a high inflow of funds in the short term, often ties up a large part of the R&D budget (“where a lot comes from, a lot has to flow into”), while knowledge is built up in new technology fields comes shortly.

  • Example: An appropriate evaluation would have classified electromechanical solutions for cash registers as unattractive as early as the late 1960s . For a company like the National Cash Register (NCR) with a very high level of resources in relation to electromechanics, the recommendation for action could have been derived at an early stage to drastically cut investments in this old technology and instead force the switch to (micro) electronics .

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Metze (2008), p. 325 names the development period “end of the 1970s”. The first comprehensive presentation of technology portfolio analysis as a planning instrument is Pfeiffer et al. (1982). Summarizing presentations of Pfeiffer's technology portfolio concept as an established planning instrument of strategic management are given by Voigt (2008), p. 162 ff., Vahs / Burmester (2005), p. 125 ff. And Gerpott (2005), p. 154 ff.
  2. ↑ See the illustration on substitute goods with the criterion of the functional interchangeability of two goods.
  3. ↑ "key importance is in the [...] technologies again the running of the technical components functions to; namely, they are the starting point for finding possible alternative (replacement) technologies. ”, Pfeiffer / Dögl (1986), p. 158.
  4. ↑ On this example, cf. in detail Pfeiffer et al. (1997), pp. 165 ff.
  5. ↑ Pfeiffer, Dögl (1986) 154th
  6. ↑ See Pfeiffer, Dögl (1986), p. 154.
  7. ↑ Pfeiffer et al. (1997), p. 122.
  8. ↑ See Pfeiffer, Dögl (1986), p. 154.
  9. ↑ See Pfeiffer, Dögl (1986), p. 156 ff. And Pfeiffer et al. (1997), p. 113 ff.
  10. ↑ For this example, cf. in detail Pfeiffer et al. (1997), pp. 144 ff.
  11. ↑ Pfeiffer et al. (1991), p. 102.
  12. ↑ Simon (2007), p. 20, the liquid crystal division of Merck is one of the hidden champions , whose leading market position is largely based on superior technological competence. For this example, see also WiWo No. 25/04 of June 10, 2004, p. 92.
  13. ↑ Cf. on this recommendation for chemical-analog photography Pfeiffer et al. (1997), p. 151 ff. For tube screens Beise (2006), p. 97 ff.
  14. ↑ See VDI-Nachrichten No. 20/04 of May 20, 2005, p. 14.
  15. ↑ Pfeiffer, Dögl (1986) 166th
  16. ↑ See Foster (1986), p. 147ff.

See also

literature

  • M. Beise: The lead market strategy. The secret of globally successful innovations. Berlin / Heidelberg / New York 2006.
  • RN Foster: Innovation. The technological offensive. Wiesbaden 1986.
  • TJ Gerpott: Strategic technology and innovation management. 2nd Edition. Stuttgart 2005.
  • G. Metze: Technology portfolio as a methodology for the assessment of invention and innovation - prolegomena to metrics for inventions and innovations. In: W. Schmeisser, H. Mohnkopf, M. Hartmann, G. Metze (eds.): Innovation success calculation. Innovation management and property rights assessment, technology portfolio, target costing, investment calculations and accounting for R&D activities. Berlin / Heidelberg / New York 2008, pp. 325–346.
  • W. Pfeiffer, R. Dögl: The technology portfolio concept for mastering the interface between technology and corporate strategy. In: D. Hahn, B. Taylor (Eds.): Strategic business planning - Strategic business management. Status and development tendencies. 4th edition. Heidelberg / Vienna 1986, pp. 149–177.
  • W. Pfeiffer, G. Metze, W. Schneider, R. Amler: Technology portfolio for the management of strategic future business areas. 1st edition. Göttingen 1982.
  • W. Pfeiffer, G. Metze, W. Schneider, R. Amler: Technology portfolio for the management of strategic future business areas. 6th edition. Göttingen 1991.
  • W. Pfeiffer, E. Weiß: Methods for the analysis and evaluation of technological alternatives. In: E. Zahn (Hrsg.): Handbuch Technologiemanagement. Stuttgart 1995, pp. 663-679.
  • W. Pfeiffer, E. Weiss, T. Volz, S. Wettengl: Functional market concept for strategic management of fundamental technological innovations. Göttingen 1997.
  • W. Schneider: Technological analysis as the basis of strategic corporate planning. Göttingen 1984.
  • H. Simon: Hidden Champions of the 21st Century. The success strategies of unknown world market leaders. Frankfurt am Main / New York 2007.
  • D. Vahs, R. Burmester: Innovation Management. From the product idea to successful marketing. 3. Edition. Stuttgart 2005.
  • K.-I. Voigt: Industrial management. Industrial management from a process-oriented point of view. Berlin / Heidelberg / New York 2008.
  • E. Weiß: Management of discontinuous technology transitions. Analysis and therapy of inhibiting factors. Goettingen 1989.