Olivier L.

de Weck

Technology
Roadmapping
and
Development
A Quantitative Approach to the
Management of Technology
Technology Roadmapping and Development

Licensed to ([email protected])
Olivier L. de Weck

Technology Roadmapping
and Development
A Quantitative Approach to the Management
of Technology
Olivier L. de Weck
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-88345-4    ISBN 978-3-030-88346-1 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88346-1
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
This book is dedicated to Lynn for her love
and unending support
Foreword

If you want to spend a million dollars to develop a specific technology or system,

you have a myriad of methodologies and tools at your disposal to help plan and
execute your project. You might employ, for instance, design thinking, agile, water-
fall, systems engineering, model-based design, TRIZ, axiomatic design, and any
number of design and project management tools. If you want to spend a billion dol-
lars on a portfolio of technologies, you are pretty much on your own. Not only is
there a dearth of sound theoretical work on the subject of technology planning at
scale, but the state of practice is remarkably primitive. If you want to spend a trillion
dollars over the course of decades, you are in largely untrodden territory.
Turns out, we, as a species, are not very good at technology planning. The most
celebrated technological feats—the Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program, and the
iPhone—are renowned for their rapid execution and narrow focus. There have been
long-term projects too—the pyramids and the cathedrals—but these took place in
times of minimal technological change. Long-term, diverse technology portfolios
do not have a good track record. For instance, the U.S. Department of Energy
invested about as much as the Manhattan Project and Apollo Program combined
(adjusted for inflation) over 35 years into the decarbonization of the US economy
with few visible results.1 NASA spent much of the decades of the 1980s, 1990s, and
early 2000s with little to show for its sizable crewed space exploration budget
largely due to poor planning.2
In my career, I had the opportunity to observe up close technology planning in
the Pentagon and in the Silicon Valley venture ecosystem. I was also responsible for
a $3 billion/year R&D portfolio at United Technologies and €1 billion in annual
technology spending at Airbus (a journey on which this book’s author joined me).
While at DARPA, I led an unusual (even for DARPA) initiative called the 100 Year
Starship, in which we studied how to organize a multi-decade investment in the

1
The Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program, and Federal Energy Technology R&D Programs: A
Comparative Analysis https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34645.pdf
2
In 2012, this led NASA to undertake an ambitious technology roadmapping effort described in
Chap. 8.

vii
viii Foreword

broad set of technologies needed to travel to the nearest star. While interstellar travel
may seem far-fetched and whimsical as a use case for technology planning, the
resources and time scales involved are not so different from those needed to decar-
bonize the world economy, for instance. I had a few battle scars and takeaways from
these experiences.
First, the approach to technology planning is usually qualitative and lacking in
rigor. This is especially apparent when you compare it to the increasingly sophisti-
cated analysis, modeling, and experimentation used in actually executing technol-
ogy projects and combining multiple technologies to build systems and products.
Almost every organization professes to practice roadmapping to inform its technol-
ogy planning. Most of these roadmaps are—in a term of art I learned from former
DARPA head Regina Dugan—“swooshy.” They comprise a fat arrow (a “swoosh”),
going from the lower left (bad) to the upper right (good), along an x-axis that loosely
corresponds to the passage of time and a y-axis that vaguely represents some unit-
less measure of progress, with a series of projects enumerated along the swoosh.
This kind of roadmap has minimal descriptive value (it is essentially a list of proj-
ects) and no prescriptive value whatsoever to help make decisions about which proj-
ects should be undertaken, when, and why. Instead, these decisions are made largely
through a combination of intuition, opinion, politics, quid pro quos, and fads.
What this conceals, of course, is the fact that every organization operates with
constraints, including a finite R&D budget to invest in its technology portfolio. In
whatever manner decisions are made, they represent a ranking of possible projects,
with some getting funded and others cut. A real roadmap makes this process explicit,
which can be uncomfortable. It exposes the tradeoffs being made. It pits near-term
revenues versus long-term growth and risk versus returns. It forces the choice
between low-risk, incremental improvements to existing products and high-risk
technology bets with potentially revolutionary but uncertain outcomes.
Second, time horizons for technology planning are typically very short: one or
two years. This is a byproduct of annual budget cycles, which are ubiquitous both in
industry and government. Each budget cycle provides an opportunity to re-plan,
particularly as new stakeholders come with different opinions and new priorities. So
even if there is a longer-term plan, there is frequent opportunity to deviate from it.
While this can be helpful in adapting to lessons learned and changing circumstances,
it is generally counterproductive to making progress toward long-term goals. The
Pentagon attempts to counteract this through a 5-year planning process. Many com-
panies likewise create multi-year plans. However, since both Congress and corpo-
rate boards typically approve budgets on an annual basis, the longer-term planning
process is largely a pro forma exercise.
Third, there is a frequent failure to recognize the exponential nature of techno-
logical progress. In part, this is because the planning intervals are so short that
changes in technology look locally linear. It is also because humans are notoriously
bad at conceptualizing exponentials. By the time the exponential becomes percep-
tible, it is usually too late. History is littered with carcasses of companies that failed
to spot exponential technological change. Spotting it is no guarantee of success,
Foreword ix

however. Exponentials are notoriously sensitive to initial conditions, so it is impor-

tant to recognize the limits and uncertainties in technology forecasting.
In fact, there is an almost universal failure to take into account and plan for
uncertainty in technology planning. This includes technological uncertainty—the
risk that a technology may or may not pan out as planned—as well as volatility in
budgets, requirements, and priorities. The conventional approach to dealing with
uncertainty is with margins—adding reserves to account of lower performance,
greater weight, or growth in schedule and budget that commonly plagues technol-
ogy projects. But there are other potent tools that are seldom employed and almost
never in a systematic manner across a technology portfolio. One such tool is diver-
sity—pursuing multiple technological paths that are unlikely to suffer from the
same failures. Another is optionality—investing in future flexibility to change
course. Both require a quantitative framework for modeling uncertainty and its
impact on the value and cost of a technology portfolio.
The genesis of this book harks back to one late-summer day in 2016. Prof. de
Weck and I met in a Silicon Valley café and I had a proposal. A few months earlier,
I was asked by Airbus CEO, Tom Enders, to become the company’s Chief
Technology Officer. Tom was just entering his second term as CEO and had an
ambitious agenda. He wanted to streamline Airbus’ governance, undertake a digital
transformation of the company’s operations and services, and be faster and bolder
at technological innovation. Tom understood that the visibly exponential pace of
development of digital, electronic, and electrical technologies was much faster than
the aerospace industry was used to—and that Airbus had to catch up.
I translated Tom’s mandate into three priorities for the Airbus technology organi-
zation. First, rationalize, streamline, and focus the roughly €1 billion in annual
research and technology (R&T) spending. Second, introduce frequent and ambi-
tious flight demonstrators as a way of bringing together clusters of technologies,
accelerating their development, and providing early validation of their maturity.
And third, to significantly accelerate the speed with which Airbus developed and
manufactured new airplanes and other systems. The efficiencies from the first would
also have to pay for the latter two!
This was my proposal to Prof. de Weck that day in Silicon Valley—would he
come to Toulouse, France, the heart of Aerospace Valley, and help sort this out?
More specifically, would he lead the creation of a rigorous technology planning and
roadmapping capability for the company that would help deliver on future flight
demonstrators and products? He was perfect for the role. We had known each other
for over a decade, with Prof. de Weck providing valuable guidance to DARPA in the
agency’s quest to improve the design process for complex military systems. He was
an eminent academic who spent much of his MIT career thinking deeply about the
interaction between technology and its surrounding social and societal systems. He
cut his teeth in industry on the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 program and knew how
to navigate large, complex organizations. And he was originally Swiss, and there-
fore could plead neutrality between the French and German factions at Airbus,
which, while much subsided since its early years as a government-owned consor-
tium, still figured prominently in decision-making.
x Foreword

Airbus presented an opportunity to take the latest theoretical work from multiple
fields (strategic planning, portfolio theory, formal modeling, etc.), mold it into a
technology planning and roadmapping process, and prove it out in the messy reality
of corporate planning and budgeting at one of the world’s great aerospace compa-
nies. Prof. de Weck and I discussed at some length the features of a successful
technology planning process and agreed that it should address the four major short-
falls I outlined above:
• It should be objective, as well as both descriptive (where we are and where others
are) and prescriptive (where we could go and where we should go).
• It should explicitly link the technology portfolio to the company’s long-term
product and service strategy, and one should inform the other.
• It should accurately reflect the pace of technological progress with quantitative
figures of merit both for internal projects as well as for the external technology
ecosystem.
• It should quantify uncertainty and capture the value, cost, and risk associated
with each technology and the portfolio as a whole.
In the two years that Prof. de Weck spent at Airbus as Senior Vice President of
Technology Planning and Roadmapping, most (though not all) of the items on this
list went from an aspiration to a pressure-tested methodology, enabled by a robust
set of tools and processes, and operationalized by a well-trained and well-respected
cadre of technology roadmap owners. And it has endured. Today, the methodology
is well on its way to becoming part of Airbus’ cultural fabric. Nothing about this
approach, however, is unique to aviation or aerospace. Any technologically driven
field such as automotive, consumer electronics, energy, medical devices, and min-
ing—just to name a few—can benefit from a similar journey.
Ultimately, it was the freedom and encouragement to write a book based on the
experience that convinced Prof. de Weck to come to Toulouse. It would become a
book documenting what is certainly the most rigorous technology planning and
roadmapping process ever implemented at scale and battle-tested in a complex, cor-
porate environment. It would be a book to teach and inspire a generation of practi-
tioners and theorists to improve the way in which we plan and manage technology
development for the long term. This is that book.

Los Angeles, CA, USA Paul Eremenko

December 2021
Preface

I am writing these words at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which

has been my professional home for the last 25 years. In this book I focus on the last
word in the name of our institution: Technology. We all know what it is. And yet,
when asked to describe it succinctly, many of us struggle.
This is a somewhat startling admission.
When asking students, professionals, or the general public for a definition of
what is “technology” (without using the word itself) we hear a bewildering variety
of answers. This has been compounded in recent years by the use of the short form
“tech” to refer among other things to a set of electronic devices we carry around
with us. Sometimes “tech” simply seems to refer to all technologies as a collective.
It may be useful to go back to the founding of MIT in 1861 to see what was
meant by technology back then. The inscription inside Lobby 7, now the main
entrance to MIT, has always held a special meaning for me. I see it nearly every day
on the way to my office and I often crane my neck to read it again and again, even
though I have seen it many times. The text reflects the original intent of William
Barton Rogers, the founder of MIT, and it is also reflected in the Institute’s charter.
Established for Advancement and Development of Science its Application to Industry the
Arts Agriculture and Commerce. Charter MDCCCLXI

Thus, “tech” is about the development, advancement, and beneficial application

of scientific principles in industry and in other domains such as the arts, agriculture,
and commercial enterprises. We will take a similarly broad view here. Interestingly,
MIT itself as an institution was referred to simply as “Tech” or “Technology” in its
early years.

xi
xii Preface

Why This Book?

Since my early childhood growing up in Switzerland I have always been fascinated

with technology. I would look up at the sky in the Alps through my first telescope,
and observe the Moon and planets at night, and I would follow the helicopters
resupplying mountain huts and rescuing mountaineers during both day and night. I
would disassemble my mechanical alarm clock to better understand how it worked.
What material was this device made of? How did it work? What was its internal
mechanism? Could it be made better?
In the late 1980s, I studied engineering at ETH Zurich and decided to specialize
in the area of production and technology management. Right after university I was
fortunate to be asked to develop and implement a technology transfer plan for the
Swiss F/A-18 aircraft program which is what brought me to the USA in 1994. Little
did I know that over 25 years later I would still be living in the USA and that my
profession would be to think about technological systems and how they evolve
over time.
This book was written over a period of three years in 2019–2021, but it is in real-
ity the culmination of two decades of research and application of technology in a
variety of sectors. The final impetus for it came when I took a leave of absence from
MIT to serve as Senior Vice President for Technology Planning and Roadmapping
at Airbus in Toulouse, France, as described in the foreword by Paul Eremenko.
Much of what I learned during this time is in this book.
The book provides a review of the principles, methods, and tools of technology
management, including technology scouting, technology roadmapping, strategic
planning, R&D project execution, intellectual property management, knowledge
management, technology transfer, and financial technology valuation. In 22 chap-
ters we explain the underlying theory and empirical evidence for technology evolu-
tion over time and present a rich set of examples and practical exercises from a
number of domains such as transportation, communications, and medicine. The
linkage between these topics is shown using what we call the Advanced Technology
Roadmap Architecture (ATRA). Each chapter’s position in the ATRA framework is
shown using a graphical map at the start of each chapter. Technology roadmapping
is presented as the central process that holds everything together (Chap. 8).
Readers of this book will learn how to develop a comprehensive technology
roadmap on a topic of their own choice. This is also the foundation of my popular
MIT class 16.887-EM.427 Technology Roadmapping and Development which was
first offered in 2019, and an on-line version of the class available to practitioners via
MIT Professional Education. Technology roadmapping is presented as the core
activity in technology management. Every year my students develop a number of
technology roadmaps which are subsequently published and are freely accessible
over the Internet1.
There are several reasons that make this book pertinent at this time:

1
To view these technology roadmaps, use the following link: http://roadmaps.mit.edu
Preface xiii

• Exponential progress of technology in many areas is now apparent. However,

quantification of technological progress needs to be done carefully and with real
data. Few texts address this issue head-on.
• Roadmaps are a central boundary object in technology-based organizations.
While there has been much emphasis on innovation in general, there is not a
large literature on how to explicitly connect strategy, technology, and finance.
The emphasis on roadmapping in this book explains how these concepts link
together.
• The impact of technologies and the products, missions, and systems in which
they are infused on their surrounding ecosystems and industrial clusters is
addressed in several chapters. To put it simply, firms should not reinvent the
wheel by investing in technologies and intellectual property (IP) that already
exist. Conversely, technologies themselves shape innovation ecosystems around
the globe in ways that were unimaginable a century ago.
The following individuals may find this book interesting and useful:
• Chief technology officers and chief innovation officers
• Technology executives and engineering managers
• Students in engineering, management, and technology
• Researchers in technology and innovation management
• Educators
• Financial market analysts
• Technology enthusiast and historians of technology
• Venture capitalists
This book is organized into different parts and chapters within the ATRA frame-
work as follows:

Descriptive Part (Chaps. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,7, 19, 20, 21, 22)

This part describes what we mean by technology, how technological progress can be
quantified, and what are the key elements of a technology roadmap. We also look at
the history of technology in broad strokes and consider the relationship between
nature and human-made (artificial) technologies. This boundary was once consid-
ered to be very sharp, but is becoming increasingly blurred with advances in
biotechnology.

Licensed to ([email protected])
xiv Preface

Prescriptive Part (Chaps. 8,10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17)

This part develops a systematic approach and methodology for technology road-
mapping specifically, and technology management more generally. We review dif-
ferent ways of implementing and linking to each other the most important technology
management functions including technology scouting, technology roadmapping,
and the management of intellectual property (IP).

Case Studies (Chaps. 6, 9, 13, 18)

In this part of the book we take an in-depth look at several case studies of technol-
ogy development over time. These cases look primarily at cyber-physical systems,
that is, those containing complex hardware and software such as automobiles, air-
craft, and deep space communications, but not exclusively so. One of our case stud-
ies looks at the progress in DNA sequencing, which is one of the foundations of
modern biotechnology.
These cases and the book overall show that technological progress is not smooth
and “automatic.” Rather, it is a deliberate and stepwise continual process, driven by
powerful forces such as the desire for human survival, scientific curiosity, as well as
competition and collaboration between firms and nations. Technology must be care-
fully managed, since it may sow the seeds of our eventual destruction as a species,
or it may propel humanity to new levels of capability and yet unimagined future
possibilities.

Cambridge, MA, USA Olivier L. de Weck

February 2022
Acknowledgments

There are many individuals to thank without whom this book would not have seen
the light of day. First, my professors and colleagues who initially got me interested
in the topic of technological systems in Switzerland in the late 1980s and early
1990s. These include Professors Pavel Hora, Hugo Tschirky, and Armin Seiler at
ETH Zürich and Dr. Claus Utz and Dr. Elisabeth Stocker at F+W Emmen (which
today is part of the company named RUAG).
One of the foundations of thinking about technology in a rigorous way is systems
architecture. I want to acknowledge the influence and mentorship I have received
from Prof. Edward Crawley at MIT over the years on this subject. Prof. Dov Dori
from the Technion introduced me to Object Process Methodology (OPM) – which
is used extensively in this book – and our collaboration on applying OPM to tech-
nology management has grown into a real friendship.
A significant portion of this book is based on a framework for technology man-
agement that was elaborated and put into practice at Airbus between 2016 and 2019.
At Airbus, there are numerous individuals to thank for their support for what seemed
initially to be an insurmountable task. These include Paul Eremenko, the Chief
Technology Officer (CTO) who also contributed the foreword to this book, Tom
Enders the CEO, members of the Engineering Technical Council (ETC), as well as
members of the Research and Technology Council (RTC). My colleagues including
Dr. Martin Latrille, Prof. Alessandro Golkar, Fabienne Robin, Jean-Claude Roussel,
and Dr. Mathilde Pruvost worked with me to create a new organization called
“Technology Planning and Roadmapping” (TPR) with about 60 technology road-
map owners and supporting staff. Specific technology thrusts were spearheaded by
Thierry Chevalier in the area of digital design and manufacturing (DDM), Pascal
Traverse in autonomy, the late Mark Rich in connectivity, as well as by Glenn
Llewellyn in aircraft electrification. Matthieu Meaux and Sandro Salgueiro contrib-
uted to the details of the solar electric aircraft sample roadmap in Chap. 8. Marie
Tricoire deserves mention for her outstanding administrative support. The passion
for technology and planning for a better future were the fuel that carried us through
many challenges and difficulties. Further thanks go to Grazia Vittadini, former CTO
of Airbus, and Dr. Mark Bentall for continuing to implement the approach, even

xv
xvi Acknowledgments

after my return to academia. Specific contributions to this book were made by Dr.
Alistair Scott on the topic of intellectual property (Chap. 5), as well as Dr. Ardhendu
Pathak in the chapters on technology scouting (Chap. 14) and knowledge manage-
ment (Chap. 15).
Once back at MIT, the idea of creating a book and a new class on Technology
Roadmapping and Development was greeted with enthusiasm by my department
head Prof. Daniel Hastings, as well as by Prof. Steven Eppinger at the Sloan School
of Management. The work of Prof. Christopher Magee in tracking technological
progress over time was an inspiration and is referenced extensively in several chap-
ters. Prof. Magee also provided a critical and in-depth review of the manuscript. I
want to further thank Dr. Maha Haji, former postdoctoral associate at MIT and now
a Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Cornell University, as well
as my teaching assistants Alejandro “Alex” Trujillo, Johannes Norheim, and George
Lordos for supporting the three first offerings of the Technology Roadmapping and
Development class at MIT in 2019 and 2021. Dr. Haji in particular contributed sub-
stantially to Chap. 19 on industrial ecosystems. Additionally, we had about 80 stu-
dents, many of them affiliated with the MIT System Design and Management
(SDM) program, give valuable feedback on the content of the chapters and the logic
and workability of the approach.
On specific topics I wish to acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Joe Coughlin
and Dr. Chaiwoo Lee on the relationship between aging and technology (Chap. 21),
as well as the specific situation of military intelligence and defense technologies
that has been extensively studied by Dr. Tina Srivastava in her doctoral thesis and
subsequent book (Chap. 20). Dr. Matt Silver, the CEO of Cambrian Innovation, had
substantial inputs on Chap. 3 which discusses the relationship of technology with
nature. The specific case studies were supported by experts in the field including Dr.
Ernst Fricke, Vice President at BMW, on the automotive case (Chap. 6), Dr. Les
Deutsch at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) on the Deep Space Network (Chap.
13), and Dr. Rob Nicol at the Broad Institute on DNA sequencing (Chap. 18).
Moreover, Chap. 12 on technology infusion analysis is largely based on a collabora-
tion with Prof. Eun Suk Suh, formerly a system architect at Xerox Corporation, and
now a full professor at Seoul National University (SNU). The work on technology
portfolio optimization benefited from the contributions of Dr. Kaushik Sinha.
My thanks also go to Dr. Robert Phaal at the University of Cambridge for his
detailed review of the manuscript, and the inspiration that his impressive body of
work on roadmapping provided to this author.
Finally, my thanks go to the staff at Springer Nature for believing in this project
and supporting its implementation. First and foremost, Michael Luby, who came to
visit me at my MIT office in December of 2019 and is the senior editor for this book.
Thanks also go to Brian Halm for excellent advice and coordination during the writ-
ing and editing process. I want to thank Cynthya Pushparaj and her team at Springer
Nature for typesetting the manuscript and expertly producing this book in both
physical and electronic format.
Contents

1 What Is Technology?��������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1

1.1 Definitions of Technology����������������������������������������������������������������    2
1.2 Conceptual Modeling of Technology������������������������������������������������   12
1.3 Taxonomy of Technology ����������������������������������������������������������������   19
1.4 Framework for Technology Management����������������������������������������   23
Appendix����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   28
References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   29
2 Technological Milestones of Humanity��������������������������������������������������   31
2.1 Prehistoric and Early Inventions ������������������������������������������������������   32
2.2 The First Industrial Revolution ��������������������������������������������������������   37
2.3 Electrification������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   46
2.4 The Information Revolution��������������������������������������������������������������   49
2.5 National Perspectives������������������������������������������������������������������������   53
2.6 What Is the Next Technological Revolution? ����������������������������������   57
References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   60
3 Nature and Technology����������������������������������������������������������������������������   61
3.1 Examples of Technology in Nature��������������������������������������������������   62
3.2 Bio-Inspired Design and Biomimetics����������������������������������������������   67
3.3 Nature as Technology������������������������������������������������������������������������   74
3.4 Cyborgs ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   79
References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   82
4 Quantifying Technological Progress������������������������������������������������������   83
4.1 Figures of Merit��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   84
4.2 Technology Trajectories��������������������������������������������������������������������   98
4.3 S-Curves and Fundamental Asymptotic Limits�������������������������������� 101
4.4 Moore’s Law ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 111
References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 118

xvii
xviii Contents

5 Patents and Intellectual Property���������������������������������������������������������� 119

5.1 Patenting ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 120
5.2 Structure of a Patent – Famous Patents�������������������������������������������� 126
5.3 U.S. Patent Office and WIPO������������������������������������������������������������ 138
5.4 Patent Litigation�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 141
5.5 Trade Secrets and Other Forms of Intellectual Property������������������ 143
5.6 Trends in Intellectual Property Management������������������������������������ 148
References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 152
6 Case 1: The Automobile�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 153
6.1 Evolution of the Automobile Starting in the Nineteenth Century���� 154
6.2 The Ford Model T ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 157
6.3 Technological Innovations in Automobiles�������������������������������������� 162
6.4 New Age of Architectural Competition�������������������������������������������� 170
6.5 The Future of Automobiles �������������������������������������������������������������� 178
References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 181
7 Technological Diffusion and Disruption������������������������������������������������ 183
7.1 Technology Adoption and Diffusion������������������������������������������������ 184
7.2 Nonadoption of New Technologies�������������������������������������������������� 195
7.3 Technological Change and Disruption���������������������������������������������� 199
7.4 The Innovator’s Dilemma ���������������������������������������������������������������� 204
7.5 Summary ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 211
Appendix���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 212
Matlab Code for Agent-Based Simulation of Technology
Diffusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   212
References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 213
8 Technology Roadmapping���������������������������������������������������������������������� 215
8.1 What Is a Technology Roadmap? ���������������������������������������������������� 216
8.2 Example of Technology Roadmap: Solar-Electric Aircraft�������������� 222
8.2.1 2SEA – Solar-Electric Aircraft �������������������������������������������� 223
8.3 NASA’s Technology Roadmaps (TA1–15) �������������������������������������� 238
8.4 Advanced Technology Roadmap Architecture (ATRA) ������������������ 242
8.5 Maturity Scale for Technology Roadmapping���������������������������������� 247
Appendix���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 249
References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 250
9 Case 2: The Aircraft�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 251
9.1 Principles of Flight���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 252
9.2 Pioneers: From Lilienthal to the Wright Brothers
to Amelia Earhart������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 256
9.3 The Bréguet Range and Endurance Equation ���������������������������������� 257
9.4 The DC-3 and the Beginning of Commercial Aviation�������������������� 262
9.5 Technological Evolution of Aviation into the Early Twenty-First
Century���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 264
9.6 Future Trends in Aviation������������������������������������������������������������������ 270
References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 274
Contents xix

10 Technology Strategy and Competition�������������������������������������������������� 277

10.1 Competition as a Driver for Technology Development������������������ 278
10.2 The Cold War and the Technological Arms Race �������������������������� 282
10.3 Competition and Duopolies������������������������������������������������������������ 285
10.4 Game Theory and Technological Competition ������������������������������ 290
10.5 Industry Standards and Technological Competition ���������������������� 298
References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 300
11 Systems Modeling and Technology Sensitivity Analysis���������������������� 301
11.1 Quantitative System Modeling of Technologies ���������������������������� 302
11.2 Technology Sensitivity and Partial Derivatives������������������������������ 311
11.3 Role of Constraints (Lagrange Multipliers)������������������������������������ 316
11.4 Examples���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 319
References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 327
12 Technology Infusion Analysis������������������������������������������������������������������ 329
12.1 Introduction������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 330
12.2 Problem Statement�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 332
12.3 Literature Review and Gap Analysis���������������������������������������������� 333
12.4 Technology Infusion Framework���������������������������������������������������� 337
12.5 Case Study: Technology Infusion in Printing System�������������������� 344
12.6 Conclusions and Future Work�������������������������������������������������������� 356
DSM of the Baseline Printing System ������������������������������������������������������ 358
References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 359
13 Case 3: The Deep Space Network���������������������������������������������������������� 361
13.1 History of the Creation of the Deep Space Network���������������������� 362
13.1.1 Impetus for the Creation of the DSN���������������������������������� 362
13.1.2 Designing the DSN ������������������������������������������������������������ 364
13.1.3 JPL Versus STL������������������������������������������������������������������ 368
13.1.4 JPL Versus NRL������������������������������������������������������������������ 368
13.1.5 The Birth of the Deep Space Network�������������������������������� 369
13.2 The Link Budget Equation�������������������������������������������������������������� 370
13.3 Evolution of the DSN���������������������������������������������������������������������� 373
13.3.1 Organizational Changes in the DSN ���������������������������������� 374
13.3.2 The DSN Proceeded in Three Distinct Stages�������������������� 374
13.3.3 Mission Complexity as a Driver ���������������������������������������� 376
13.3.4 Physical Architecture Evolution ���������������������������������������� 379
13.3.5 Technological Evolution of the DSN���������������������������������� 382
13.4 Technology Roadmap of the DSN�������������������������������������������������� 386
13.5 Summary of the DSN Case ������������������������������������������������������������ 389
References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 392
14 Technology Scouting�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 395
14.1 Sources of Technological Knowledge�������������������������������������������� 396
14.1.1 Private Inventors ���������������������������������������������������������������� 396
14.1.2 Lead Users�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 398
xx Contents

14.1.3 Established Industrial Firms ���������������������������������������������� 400

14.1.4 University Laboratories������������������������������������������������������ 402
14.1.5 Startup Companies (Entrepreneurship)������������������������������ 404
14.1.6 Government and Non-Profit Research Laboratories���������� 405
14.2 Technology Clusters and Ecosystems�������������������������������������������� 407
14.3 Technology Scouting���������������������������������������������������������������������� 413
14.3.1 What Is Technology Scouting? ������������������������������������������ 413
14.3.2 How to Set Up Technology Scouting?�������������������������������� 413
14.3.3 What Makes a Good Technology Scout?���������������������������� 417
14.4 Venture Capital and Due Diligence������������������������������������������������ 418
14.5 Competitive Intelligence and Industrial Espionage������������������������ 420
14.5.1 What Is Competitive Intelligence?�������������������������������������� 420
14.5.2 What Is Industrial Espionage?�������������������������������������������� 420
14.5.3 What Is Not Considered Industrial Espionage?������������������ 421
14.5.4 What Are Famous Cases of Industrial Espionage? ������������ 422
14.5.5 How to Protect against Industrial Espionage?�������������������� 423
References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 424
15 Knowledge Management and Technology Transfer������������������������������ 425
15.1 Technological Representations ������������������������������������������������������ 426
15.1.1 Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE)��������������������� 429
15.2 Knowledge Management���������������������������������������������������������������� 430
15.3 Technology Transfer ���������������������������������������������������������������������� 434
15.3.1 Internal Technology Transfer���������������������������������������������� 437
15.3.2 External Technology Transfer�������������������������������������������� 439
15.3.3 United States-Switzerland F/A-18 Example
(1992–1997)������������������������������������������������������������������������ 440
15.4 Reverse Engineering ���������������������������������������������������������������������� 443
References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 446
16 Research and Development Project Definition and Portfolio
Management �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 447
16.1 Types of R&D Projects ������������������������������������������������������������������ 448
16.2 R&D Individual Project Planning �������������������������������������������������� 450
16.2.1 Scope���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 451
16.2.2 Schedule������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 452
16.2.3 Budget �������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 453
16.2.4 Plan Refinement and Risks ������������������������������������������������ 455
16.2.5 Project Identity and Charter������������������������������������������������ 457
16.3 R&D Project Execution������������������������������������������������������������������ 460
16.4 R&D Portfolio Definition and Management���������������������������������� 464
16.5 R&D Portfolio Optimization���������������������������������������������������������� 470
16.5.1 Introduction������������������������������������������������������������������������ 470
16.5.2 R&D Portfolio Optimization and Bi-objective
Optimization ���������������������������������������������������������������������� 473
Contents xxi

16.5.3 Investment Requirements for Technology Value

Unlocking���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 475
16.5.4 Technology Value Connectivity Matrix������������������������������ 476
16.5.5 Illustrative Examples���������������������������������������������������������� 477
16.5.6 Example 1 ��������������������������������������������������������������������������  477
16.5.7 Example 2 ��������������������������������������������������������������������������  479
16.5.8 The Future of R&D Portfolio Optimization����������������������� 481
References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 483
17 Technology Valuation and Finance�������������������������������������������������������� 485
17.1 Total Factor Productivity and Technical Change���������������������������� 486
17.2 Research and Development and Finance in Firms�������������������������� 490
17.2.1 Balance Sheet (B/S)������������������������������������������������������������ 490
17.2.2 Income Statement (Profit and Loss Statement: P/L)���������� 491
17.2.3 Projects�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 491
17.3 Examples of Corporate R&D���������������������������������������������������������� 496
17.4 Technology Valuation (TeVa)���������������������������������������������������������� 500
17.4.1 What Is the Value of Technology?�������������������������������������� 500
17.4.2 Net Present Value (NPV)���������������������������������������������������� 502
17.4.3 Other Financial Figures of Merit���������������������������������������� 504
17.4.4 Multi-Stakeholder View������������������������������������������������������ 505
17.4.5 Example: Hypothetical Commuter Airline ������������������������ 505
17.5 Summary of Technology Valuation Methodologies������������������������ 515
17.5.1 Organization of Technology Valuation (TeVa)
in Corporations������������������������������������������������������������������� 518
References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 519
18 Case 4: DNA Sequencing������������������������������������������������������������������������ 521
18.1 What Is DNA?�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 522
18.2 Mendel and the Inheritance of Traits���������������������������������������������� 523
18.3 Early Technologies for DNA Extraction and Sequencing�������������� 524
18.4 Cost of DNA Sequencing and Technology Trends ������������������������ 527
18.5 New Markets: Individual Testing and Gene Therapy �������������������� 531
References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 533
19 Impact of Technological Innovation on Industrial Ecosystems ���������� 535
19.1 Interaction Between Technological Innovation
and Industrial Structure������������������������������������������������������������������ 536
19.2 Dynamics of Innovative Ecosystems and Industries���������������������� 537
19.3 Proliferation and Consolidation������������������������������������������������������ 543
19.4 System Dynamics Modeling of Technological Innovation ������������ 545
19.5 Nuclear Power in France Post-WWII �������������������������������������������� 551
19.6 Electric Vehicles in France�������������������������������������������������������������� 554
19.7 Comparative Analysis �������������������������������������������������������������������� 557
References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 559
xxii Contents

20 Military and Intelligence Technologies�������������������������������������������������� 561

20.1 History of Military Technology������������������������������������������������������ 562
20.2 Example: Progress in Artillery�������������������������������������������������������� 568
20.3 Intelligence Technologies �������������������������������������������������������������� 577
20.4 Commercial Spinoffs from Military and Intelligence
Technologies ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 579
20.5 Secrecy and Open Innovation �������������������������������������������������������� 580
References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 585
21 Aging and Technology������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 587
21.1 Changing Demographics���������������������������������������������������������������� 588
21.2 Technology Adoption by Seniors���������������������������������������������������� 591
21.3 Universal Design���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 599
References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 601
22 The Singularity: Fiction or Reality?������������������������������������������������������ 605
22.1 Ultimate Limits of Technology ������������������������������������������������������ 606
22.2 The Singularity�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 613
22.3 Human Augmentation with Technology ���������������������������������������� 619
22.4 Dystopia or Utopia?������������������������������������������������������������������������ 622
22.5 Summary – Seven Key Messages �������������������������������������������������� 629
References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 630

Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 631
List of Abbreviations and Symbols

Symbols

⇨ Exercises in chapters that are meant for self-study

➽ Questions as a prompt for group discussion
[] Units of measurement
✦ Definition
* Quote

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACH Automated Clearing House

AGI Artificial General Intelligence
AI Artificial Intelligence
AOA Angle of Attack
AR Augmented Reality
ASCII American Standard Code for Information Interchange
ASIP Aircraft Structural Integrity Program
AUTOSAR AUTomotive Open System ARchitecture
BCE Before Common Era
BEV Battery Electric Vehicle
BIT Built-In Test
BLI Boundary Layer Ingestion
BOF Basic Oxygen Furnace (steel making)
BOM Bill of Materials
BPR Bypass Ratio
BPS Biomass Production System
bp Base Pairs
B/S Balance Sheet

xxiii

Licensed to ([email protected])
xxiv List of Abbreviations and Symbols

CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy

Cal One kilocalorie of energy
CAPEX Capital Expenditures
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage
CD Compact Disk
CDF Concurrent Design Facility
CE Common Era
CEMO Complex Electro-Mechanical-Optical
CFRP Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (material)
CONOPS Concept of Operations
CLD Causal Loop Diagrams
CPI Cost Performance Index
CPM Critical Path Method
CPU Central Processing Unit
CRISPR Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats
CTO Chief Technology Officer
DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
DDI Digital Display Indicator
DMMH/FH Direct Man Maintenance Hours per Flight Hour
DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid
DOC Diesel Oxidation Catalyst
DOD Department of Defense
DRB Design Record Books
DSM Design Structure Matrix, or Dependency Structure Matrix
DSOC Deep Space Optical Communications
DSN Deep Space Network
EAF Electric Arc Furnace
EBIT Earnings Before Interest and Taxes
ECU Electronic Control Unit
EDF Electricité de France
EDL Entry Descent and Landing
EEX European Energy Exchange
EIS Entry Into Service
EML2 Earth Moon Libration Point 2
EMR Electronic Medical Records
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPE Enhanced Performance Engine
EV Electric Vehicles
EVM Earned Value Management
FAL Final Assembly Line
FDI Foreign Direct Investment
FFRDC Federally Funded Research and Development Center
FMA First Mover Advantage
FMS Foreign Military Sales
FOM Figure of Merit
List of Abbreviations and Symbols xxv

FPGA Field Programmable Gate Array

FPM Functional Performance Metric
FTP Federal Test Procedure
GI Gastrointestinal
GNP Gross National Product
GPU Graphical Processing Unit
GSE Ground Support Equipment
GUI Graphical User Interface
HAPS High Altitude Pseudo Satellites
HEV Hybrid Electric Vehicle
HPC High Performance Computing
HR Human Resources
HSR High Speed Rail (System)
HSS High Strength Steel
ICE Internal Combustion Engine
ICU Intensive Care Unit
IOT Internet of Things
IP Intellectual Property
IRL Integration Readiness Level
ISRU In Situ Resource Utilization
IT Information Technology
ITAR International Traffic in Arms Regulations
ITU International Telecommunications Union
ISO International Organization for Standardization
JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory
JV Joint Venture
JWST James Webb Space Telescope
KM Knowledge Management
KPI Key Performance Indicator
kya Thousands of years ago
LAN Local Area Network
LDP Low Drag Pylon
LEX Leading Edge Extension
LH2 Liquid Hydrogen
LHS Left Hand Side
LIB Lithium Ion Battery
LIB Larger is Better
LLO Low Lunar Orbit
LOM Loss of Mission
LSP Lunar South Pole
MaaS Mobility as a Service
MBSE Model-Based Systems Engineering
MDM Multi-Domain Mapping Matrix
MFC Microbial Fuel Cell
MOSFET Metal–Oxide–Semiconductor Field-Effect Transistor
xxvi List of Abbreviations and Symbols

MOT Management of Technology

MRO Maintenance Repair and Overhaul
mya Millions of years ago
M&A Mergers and Acquisitions
NAE National Academy of Engineering
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NDA Non-Disclosure Agreement
NE Nash Equilibrium
NEDC New European Driving Cycle
NIH National Institutes of Health
NIH Not-Invented Here Effect
NIST National Institute for Standards and Technology
NOx Oxides of Nitrogen
NPV Net Present Value
NRC National Research Council
NRC Non-Recurring Cost
NRE Non-Recurring Engineering
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
NZF Non-Zero Fraction
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
OP Operational Program
OPD Object Process Diagram
OPEX Operating Expenditures
OPL Object Process Language
OPM Object Process Methodology
PCB Printed Circuit Board
PCT Patent Cooperation Treaty
PDP Product Development Process
PEV Plug-in Electric Vehicle
PHC Patent Holding Company
PI Program Increment
PRC People’s Republic of China
P/L Profit and Loss Statement
PM Particulate Matter
PSTN Public Switched Telephone Network
PV Photovoltaics, also known as solar cells
RFID Radio Frequency Identification
RHS Right Hand Side
RMO Roadmap Owner
RNA Ribonucleic Acid
ROI Return on Investment
RT Remote Terminal
RVI Relative Value Index
R&D Research and Development
SAM Surface to Air Missile
List of Abbreviations and Symbols xxvii

SARS Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

SETI Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence
SI Système International (international unit system)
SLAM Simultaneous Localization and Mapping
SME Subject Matter Expert
SOW Statement of Work
SPI Schedule Performance Index
SPL Sound Pressure Level
SPO Single Pilot Operations
SSTO Single Stage To Orbit
STEM Science Technology Engineering Mathematics
SUV Sports Utility Vehicle
SWIFT Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication
SysML Systems Modeling Language
TAA Technical Assistance Agreement
TAM Technology Acceptance Model
TCP/IP Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol
TDP Technical Data Package
TGV Train à Grande Vitesse
TIA Technology Infusion Analysis
TPS Toyota Production System
TRD Technology Roadmapping and Development
TRIZ Theory of the Resolution of Invention-Related Tasks
TRL Technology Readiness Level
TSTO Two Stage to Orbit
UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
USPTO United States Patent and Trademark Office
VFR Visual Flight Rules
VLSI Very Large-Scale Integration
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VR Virtual Reality
WBS Work Breakdown Structure
WIPO World Intellectual Property Office
WRU Weapons Replaceable Unit
WWI World War I
WWII World War II
WWW World Wide Web

Mathematical Symbols

B Bandwidth [Hz]
c Speed of light in vacuum [m/s]
C/N Signal-to-Noise Ratio [-]
xxviii List of Abbreviations and Symbols

D Diameter [m]
E Energy [J]
E[ΔNPV] Expected Marginal Net Present Value
σ[ΔNPV] Standard Deviation of the Expected Marginal Net Present Value
DT ,Di Total demand for the market segment, and demand for ith product
gC Critical value for the attribute
gI Ideal value for the attribute
go Market segment average value for the attribute
h Height [m]
K Market average price elasticity (units / $)
l Length [m]
m Mass [kg]
N Number of competitors in the market segment
Ne Number of elements in the DSM
NECΔDSM Number of non-empty cells in the ΔDSM
NECDSM Number of non-empty cells in the DSM
N1 Number of elements in the DSM
N2 Number of elements in the ΔDSM
Pi Price of the ith product
Rmax Maximum data rate [bps]
TIA Technology Infusion Analysis
TDSM Number of hours required to build a DSM model
v Velocity [m/s]
V, Vi Value of the product, Value of the ith product
Vo Average product value for the market segment
v(g) Normalized value for attribute g
TDSM Number of work hours required to build a DSM model
Ne Number of elements in the DSM
Q Economic output measured as GNP (gross national product) in $
QH Heat [J]
K Capital actively in use in units of $
L Labor force employed in units of man-hours1
t Time in years
w Width [m]
𝜎w Yield strength [MPa]

1
Both capital K and labor L account for active workers and capital assets in use. This means that
unemployment and idle machinery have to be corrected for.
Chapter 1
What Is Technology?

Advanced Technology Roadmap Architecture (ATRA)

Inputs
Steps Outputs
Strategic Drivers for Technology
+10y Technology

FOMjj
1. Where are we today? Roadmaps
L1 Products and Missions +5y

L2 Technologies Technology State of the Art and Organization Figures of Merit (FOM)
Competitive Benchmarking Current State of the Art (SOA)
Competitor 1 Technology Trends dFOM/dt
Technology Systems Modeling Competitor 2

Tech Pul
Pull Today FOMi
2. Where could we go?
Dependency Structure Matrix

L1
+10y
Scenario-based
Technology Systems Modeling and Scenario A Technology Valuation
FOMj

Trends over Time

Technology +5y Design Reference Missions
Scenario B
Projects Future Scenarios
? T h l
Technology Valuation
V l ti
3. Where should we go? Vector Charts
L2
Scenario Analysis and FOMi
Technology Valuation
Tech Push Technology Investment
Efficient Frontier
E[NPV] - Return

Technology Scouting 4. Where we are going! Pareto-optimal set of technology

Knowledge Management Technology investment portfolios
Technology Portfolio Valuation, Portfolio Recommended Technology Portfolio
Intellectual Property Analytics Optimization and Selection Technology (Expected NPV and Risk)
Projects
σ[NPV] - Risk
Foundations C
Cases

Definitions History Nature Ecosystems The Future Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
1
1 What is Milestones of Technology, Nature Technology Diffusion, Is there a Deep Space DNA
Singularity ? Automobiles Aircraft
Technology? Technology and Humans Infusion and Industry Network Sequencing

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 1

O. L. de Weck, Technology Roadmapping and Development,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88346-1_1
2 1 What Is Technology?

1.1 Definitions of Technology

Several definitions of what is meant by “technology” exist in the literature. Contrary

to popular belief, the term is relatively recent. The first use of the word technology
is generally traced back to the nineteenth century, and it became much more perva-
sive only in the first half of the twentieth century.

⇨ Exercise 1.11
What is your own personal definition of technology? Write it down. Do not
look up a definition online or in a dictionary before answering this question.

The etymology2 of the word “technology” goes back to the Greek: Techne –
logia. It can be roughly translated to English as the “science of craft,” coming from
the Greek τέχνη, techne, which means “art, skill, cunning of hand”; and the mor-
pheme -λογία, −logia, which means “communication of divine origin.”3 This dual
nature of technology is very important and will stay with us throughout this book.
Technology can therefore be defined both as an ensemble of deliberately created
processes and objects4 that together accomplish some function as well as the associ-
ated knowledge and skills used in the conception, design, implementation, and
operation of such technological artifacts. A specific technology is then an instance
of the application of said “science of craft” to solve a particular problem. Examples
of this distinction between the underlying scientific knowledge and the embodiment
of the technology itself, along with the problem it addresses, are given in Table 1.1.
It is also important to distinguish between technologies and products. Technologies
enable and are a part of products and larger systems (see Chap. 12) and are not usu-
ally the product itself.
In Fig. 1.1, we look deeper at the first example, the electrically powered refrig-
erator. The left side shows the underlying thermodynamic cycle of a heat engine
such as the one used in a refrigerator, and named after the French scientist Sadi
Carnot (1796–1832).
The refrigerator (right side) implements a heat engine according to the theory of
the Carnot cycle (left side). The Carnot cycle defines the state changes of a working
fluid (coolant) in terms of its pressure (p), temperature (T), and volume (V). By

1
Exercises are interspersed in each chapter to challenge the reader and help them explore more
deeply their own mental models about key terms or concepts related to technology. However, read-
ers may skip these exercises without loss of information or coherence.
2
Etymology is the science of the origins of words in human natural language.
3
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology, URL accessed June 30, 2020.
4
We will argue below that the deliberate creation of technology is a key element of understanding
what it is. This means that objects and processes that occur spontaneously in nature, without the
active involvement of an agent, are not “technology” as we understand it. Chap. 3 discusses the
link of nature with technology in depth.
1.1 Definitions of Technology 3

Table 1.1 Distinction between technology as knowledge, technology as embodiment, and the
specific problem solved by technology: four examples
Scientific knowledge Technology embodiment Problem addressed
Thermodynamics – the Carnot Electrically powered refrigerator Prolonging the shelf life
cycle of food and drink
Microbiology – pasteurization High-temperature food processing Preventing milk from
using heat exchangers carrying pathogens
Fluid mechanics – Bernoulli’s Fixed-wing heavier-than-air aircraft Rapidly transporting
principle people over long
distances
Genetics – DNA double-helix Sanger’s method for DNA Testing humans for
molecule structure sequencing with the chain-­ genetically linked
termination method diseases

Fig. 1.1 Example of technology: refrigerator operating according to the Carnot cycle

going around the cycle counterclockwise, a low-pressure cold gas at point A is com-
pressed adiabatically (without adding or removing heat) which raises its pressure
and temperature to point B at which point it becomes a hot gas and is sent from the
compressor to the condenser. The condenser is typically located at the back of the
refrigerator which is the warmest part of the machine. The temperature of the con-
denser coils is hotter than the ambient air which implies a heat transfer from the hot
working fluid to the surrounding air. The process of condensation B-C turns the hot
gas into hot liquid-gas mix. The hot coolant is then sent through an expansion valve
which allows it to cool from a high- to a low-temperature C-D. The cold fluid is then
4 1 What Is Technology?

sent to the evaporator inside the air chamber of the refrigerator. The evaporation is
powered by extracting heat (QH) from the air inside and increases the volume of the
fluid by allowing it to boil, that is, turn from a liquid back to a gaseous state. This
process going from D-A extracts heat from within the air chamber and keeps food
and drinks cold, thus prolonging their shelf life. The cold gas then returns to the

⇨ Exercise 1.2
What is an example of a technology you know and care about, and what are
its underlying scientific knowledge and principles and the problem it solves?

compressor at A, after which the cycle is repeated as long as the temperature in the
air chamber is above the temperature set on the thermostat. This example illustrates
that in order to “master” the technology of refrigeration, both the theory of its opera-
tion (its underlying scientific principles) and its physical implementation have to be
understood. This duality is something we call “mens et manus” at MIT, the working
together of mind and hand.
In the German language there is a distinction between the word “Technik” and
“Technikwissenschaften.” The former refers primarily to the visible and tangible
manifestation of technology, while the latter emphasizes the scientific and
knowledge-­related aspects of technology. This distinction has largely disappeared,
or never really existed in English. Schatzberg (2006) explains in detail how “tech-
nology” became a keyword only in the early twentieth century in the Anglo-Saxon
world, whereas earlier a number of different expressions were used to describe the
application of “arts and sciences” to industrial applications. Similar semantic sub-
tleties with respect to technology exist in French, Chinese, and other languages.
Despite these differences, most cultures agree that technology:
• Does not occur spontaneously in nature, but is the result of a deliberate act of
creation by one or more agents. As Thomas Hughes (2004) stated so well:
“Technology is a creative process involving human ingenuity.” Here, we will
argue that the agents may not always be humans, and that technology can also be
invented accidentally (e.g., cooking food by using fire).
• Results in the creation of one or more artifacts that are subject to inspection. In
other words, the results of technological creation can be seen and used in the real
world, such as in machines, software, tools, processes, etc. A mere idea is not
(yet) a technology.
• Requires specific knowledge and/or skills that must be acquired through study,
apprenticeship, or copying from other agents. The technological knowledge can
be based on planned scientific research and development or serendipitous
discovery.
• Solves a specific problem or challenge or creates a new capability. Technology
does not exist merely for its own sake but it is or should be purpose-driven, usu-
1.1 Definitions of Technology 5

ally but not always, to improve the condition of those who invent, deploy,
or use it.
It has been suggested that the ability to invent new technologies is something that
sets humans apart from other species on Earth. This topic has also been the subject
of study for many philosophers who have reflected on the nature of humans and
technology. One of them is the Scottish philosopher David Hume who wrote:
The first and most considerable circumstance requisite to render truth agreeable,
is the genius and capacity, which is employed in its invention and discovery. What
is easy and obvious is never valued; and even what is in itself difficult, if we come
to the knowledge of it without difficulty, and without any stretch of thought or judg-
ment, is but little regarded. (David Hume (1739–1740), “A Treatise of Human
Nature”, Book II, Part III, Sect. X)
This quote speaks forcefully to the agency and effort required in making new
scientific discoveries and rendering them useful to society. This should make us
reflect more deeply on the relationship between science and engineering – the dis-
cipline generally credited with creating technology, art, and society.

➽ Discussion
How does science create new knowledge?
How is such knowledge rendered useful to society?
What is the relationship between technology and engineering?
How is technology different or similar to art5?

Technology is all around us. Unless you find yourself somewhere in the far
northern latitudes of the Arctic or the sweltering heat of the Sahara or Gobi deserts,
you cannot escape visible signs of technology and human civilization. Even in those
remote places you will see satellites passing overhead at night reminding you that
we have fundamentally reshaped life on this planet through technology. In Chap. 2,
we will explore the technological milestones of humanity.
The invention of the steam engine coupled with rotary motion in the eighteenth
century began augmenting human and animal power with mechanical power and
paved the way for the first industrial revolution. This included rapid transportation
by ship, train, and later by air across continents and above the world’s oceans.

5
The reason we ask about art here is that in education the paradigm of STEM (science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics) has become very prevalent, and is sometimes augmented as STEAM
(science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics) to emphasize the importance of creativity.
6
We celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission in 2019. MIT’s Instrumentation
Laboratory under Charles “Doc” Draper developed the guidance and navigation system for Apollo.
7
Some argue that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the basis for a twenty-first-century technological
revolution, but the roots of AI can in fact be traced back to the mid-twentieth century and are there-
fore not fundamentally new. This is not meant to diminish the tremendous impact that AI already
has on many products and services, and society at large.

Licensed to ([email protected])
6 1 What Is Technology?

Electrification helped light the night sky and led to the second industrial revolution
in the late nineteenth century. The invention of the digital computer in the twentieth
century enabled the lunar landings of program Apollo6 and the Internet revolution
which has transformed how we as humans create, share, and consume information.
This is often referred to as the third industrial revolution. More recently, the inven-
tion of genomic sequencing and gene editing is remaking the very nature of biology,
which may well lead to the next technological revolution in the twenty-first century.7
The jury is still out as to what will be the largest driver of technological innovation
in the twenty-first century. There are several candidates such as the sequencing and
editing of DNA mentioned above (a strong candidate),8 the mastery of quantum
effects as in quantum computing, the merging of hardware and software in large
coupled networks as in cyber-physical systems, or the discovery of the exact nature
of dark matter as we probe closer and closer to the Big Bang with a new generation
of infrared space telescopes such as the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Or it
may be something entirely different that no human has yet conceived of or understood.
Every one of the abovementioned technologies and systems is the result of
human ingenuity, determination, hard work, and transformation from a mere idea to
physical reality. Many of these artifacts and capabilities are the outcome of multi-
year research and development (R&D) projects executed by teams of people, con-
suming money, producing new technology and value, and overcoming failure.
Everything man-made9 we see around us such as buildings, roads, bridges, auto-
mobiles, aircraft, spacecraft, hospitals, lights, computers, cleaning products, medi-
cations, and even some of the food we eat is the result of the following scientific,
engineering, and design processes:
• Inquiry and discovery
• Inspiration from nature (see Chap. 3)
• Invention including architecting and design
• Implementation and production
• Verification and replication
• Adoption and use (see Chap. 7)

8
Chapter 18 will focus on the technological evolution of DNA sequencing.
9
When we say “man-made” we refer to inventors of all genders. The key distinction, which we
probe deeper in Chap. 3, is that these products, systems, and services would not occur spontane-
ously in nature without human intervention or replication. This is also related to the notion of
artificiality. We sometimes refer to human-made technology.
10
The aspect of deliberate continual improvement is a key feature of human-originated technology.
We view the spontaneously occurring processes of evolution and natural selection in nature as
distinct from this, as discussed in Chap. 3 on the relationship of nature and technology. A philo-
sophical argument can be made that since humans (homo sapiens sapiens) are part of nature, that
therefore technological evolution driven by humans is in itself simply an extension of natural
evolution, including natural selection. The emergence of what has been called the Anthropocene,
that is, a new age where human technology shapes our planet at a faster rate than the underlying
natural processes that predate the industrial revolution, is generally recognized as new and impor-
tant. Some of these anthropogenic effects turn out to be potentially undermining our long-term
survival as a species on planet Earth.
1.1 Definitions of Technology 7

Fig. 1.2 Examples of technology in use today from upper left to lower right: Basic Open Furnace
(BOF) in a steel mill, array of photovoltaic (PV) cells in a solar farm, graphical processing unit
(GPU) for computing, large commercial aircraft, high-voltage electrical power transmission grid,
the Deep Space Network (DSN), cryogenic hydrogen tank for the first stage of a large launch
vehicle, grid-level lithium-ion electrical battery, optical compact disk technology (CD) for
data storage

• Copying and technology transfer (see Chap. 15)

• Continual improvement10 (see Chap. 4)
Someone came up with the original idea. Some individual or group of individu-
als had the tenacity to prototype it. Someone had the courage to share it with others.
Someone had the intellect and scientific acumen to perform experiments, derive
equations, and uncover the working principles underpinning all of these artifacts,
machines, and even life itself. This is the visible manifestation of technology.
Figure 1.2 shows a collage of different technologies in use in the early twenty-­
first century. As we will see later in this chapter, the order in which these technolo-
gies are arranged in Fig. 1.2 is not random. For now, notice that the examples in the
three columns relate to matter, energy, and information, respectively. It should also
be noted that in each of these examples the technology does not exist alone, in
8 1 What Is Technology?

isolation, but it is part of a larger system. Systems that contain technologies and are
enabled by them are referred to as technological systems.
For our purposes, we will now provide two definitions of technology, a longer
one and a shorter one. No one can claim to have found the right definition of tech-
nology for all purposes and all audiences. Neither do we. However, we not only
provide these definitions but also explain them in some detail.
Long Version
Technology is both knowledge and physical manifestation of objects and
processes in systems deliberately created to enable functions that solve specific
problems defined by its creators.
This definition is intentionally abstract. It is similar and yet different from some
of the common definitions of technology such as “Technology is the collection of
techniques, skills, methods, and processes used in the production of goods or ser-
vices or in the accomplishment of objectives.”11

➽ Discussion
Are humans the only ones capable of creating technology?
Can technologies exist on their own or are they always part of a larger system
such as an artifact, product, or system?
Are technologies always created to generate value for some stakeholder?
Does technology always have to be replicated and scaled up to have impact?

We see the following aspects as critical to understanding the essence of what is

technology:
• Technology is dual in the sense of knowledge of objects and associated pro-
cesses, and their physical instantiation in the “real world” (as opposed to only in
the mind of their creator).
• Technology never exists in isolation. Technology is always part of a larger
ensemble that we refer to as a “system” or a “system of systems.” In order for
technology to have an effect on the real world, it must act on some objects, pro-
cesses, or agents that are not part of the technology itself. Therefore, technology
is always embedded in or infused in a parent system (see Chap. 12).

11
See the source of this definition at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology. There are several
points of debate that often come up with regard to a general definition of technology. These are
summarized in the discussion point above and we encourage the reader to discuss these questions
with a group of peers.
12
This will be explored more deeply in Chap. 3 on technology and nature.
13
It has been shown that homo neanderthalensis (ca. 400,000–40,000 BCE) also used fire, created
tools, and was capable of inventing simple technologies. If humans, other animals with highly
developed brains, and computers with AI can be potential originators of technology, we cannot
preclude the existence of alien technology in or beyond our own solar system. In that case the
beneficiary of technology will not be humans.
1.1 Definitions of Technology 9

• Technology does not arise spontaneously but is the result of a deliberate act of
creation by one or more agents. Classically, we think of humans as agents and the
sole creators of technology. However, recently it has been shown that other spe-
cies (other than the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens) can also create technol-
ogy12 and that computers endowed with artificial intelligence (AI) may also
create technology. Therefore, we use the rather unfamiliar and more general term
“agent” as the potential originator of technology.13
• There is no such thing as “general technology.” Technology only exists in con-
nection with a specific function or purpose. A specific technology may primarily
help to solve the problem or class of problems of interest and may not represent
the entirety of the solution space (see examples in Fig. 1.2). However, technolo-
gies may be repurposed from one use case to another. There may also exist mul-
tiple parallel and potentially competing technologies intended to solve the same
problem. Usually, when “technology” is used as a general term, it refers to spe-
cific technologies as a collective.
• Technologies are mostly created by humans with the intent to improve their own
condition, as in providing clean drinking water, abundant food, safe transporta-
tion, the curing of diseases, rapid communications, etc. However, some tech-
nologies have known or emerging side effects that may be deleterious. An
example would be technologies that rely on fossil fuels as a source of energy,
thereby releasing carbon into the atmosphere which has been shown to be a
major contributor to climate change on Earth. Some technologies, since the earli-
est days of humanity’s journey, exist specifically to harm or destroy some humans
for the “benefit” of other humans, such as certain classes of weapons.14 While we
do not take a position in promoting or favoring some technologies over others in
this book, we emphasize the need to think through all major aspects of technolo-
gies when creating, deploying, or simply analyzing them.
It should now be clear that understanding technology deeply is not a simple
undertaking and that its creation and study requires a sustained effort over many
years, both by individuals and by society as a whole. We now provide a shorter and
more succinct definition of technology.
Short Version
Technology is both knowledge and deliberate creation of functional objects
to solve specific problems.
What is the relationship between technology, science, and engineering?
The words technology, science, and engineering are often used interchangeably
by the general public. They are related but not synonymous. Figure 1.3 shows the
relationship between technology, science, and engineering in a societal context. The
exact semantics of these words and their relationship is the subject of ongoing

The issues associated with technologies for military and intelligence purposes are explored in
14

Chap. 20, where we cover technologies for offensive and defensive purposes including nuclear
weapons and the emergence of cybersecurity-related technologies.
10 1 What Is Technology?

Fig. 1.3 Relationship between technology, science, and engineering

research in the social sciences and in the field of Engineering Systems (de Weck
et al. 2011), among others. The object process diagram (OPD) in Fig. 1.3 uses sym-
bols that can be shortly summarized as follows: objects are represented by rectan-
gles, whereas processes are ovals.
The diagram in Fig. 1.3 is drawn using Object Process Methodology (OPM), a
general conceptual systems modeling language that we will be using extensively in
this book (Dori 2011). OPM became a standard in 2015 (ISO 19450) and helps
clarify the semantics (meaning) and logical relationship between different entities.
OPM produces both graphical representations and automatically also a formal
Object Process Language (OPL) representation, thus appealing to multiple forms of
cognitive processing and brain lateralization.15
We will use OPM to conceptually model technologies throughout this book. An
OPL representation of Fig. 1.3 is shown below:
Technology is physical and systemic.
Society is physical and systemic.
Nature On Earth is physical and systemic.
Science is informatical and systemic.
Engineering is informatical and systemic.
Knowledge is informatical and systemic.
Problems of Humans are physical and systemic.
Solar System is physical and environmental.
Humans are physical and systemic.
Society relates to Nature on Earth.
Solar System relates to Nature on Earth.

15
According to Brain lateralization, language processing is often dominant in the left hemisphere.
1.1 Definitions of Technology 11

Humans are an instance of Society.

Humans exhibit Problems.
Discovering is informatical and systemic.
Humans handle Discovering.
Discovering requires Nature on Earth and Science.
Discovering yields Knowledge.
Creating is physical and systemic.
Humans handle Creating.
Creating requires Engineering and Knowledge.
Creating yields Technology.
Using is physical and systemic.
Humans handle Using.
Using requires Technology.
Using affects Problems of Humans.
Initially, this formal language may seem unfamiliar or even awkward to the
uninitiated. However, these formal OPL statements, which are automatically gener-
ated from the corresponding graphical representation, help us better grasp the role
of technology, which is the main subject of this book.
Humanity is organized into different groups, tribes, or nations that we collec-
tively refer to as “Society.” As such, society relates to “Nature” which includes our
entire planet Earth including its geological mass, its biomass made up of plants and
animals, the land, the oceans, the atmosphere, the Earth’s magnetic field, and all
technological artifacts we have created. A recent approach by economists is to quan-
tify the inclusive wealth of regions, countries, or the planet as a whole. This includes
its natural capital (forests, minerals, animals, etc.), human capital (the population
including its longevity, level of education, etc.), and produced capital (infrastruc-
ture, sovereign wealth, etc.), see Duraiappah and Munoz (2012). With the growth of
the human population, especially over the last century, there has been a shift from
natural capital to human capital and produced capital. Sustainability science is
working to establish the carrying capacity of our planet and studies “problems” of
society at different scales: individual, local, regional, national, and planetary.16 One
problem which has been studied for centuries, for example, by Robert Malthus
(1766–1834), is the relationship between food production and population growth.
Agricultural technology, such as improved corn seeds, is a good example of the link
between nature, society, science, engineering, and technology.17
Science studies nature to discover new principles and “laws.” This leads to new
knowledge or confirms or modifies existing knowledge. Engineering applies this

16
Eventually, humanity may become a multi-planetary species which may require expansion of
these considerations. For the moment we focus mainly, but not exclusively, on technology located
here on Earth.
17
The adoption and diffusion of new technology in agriculture will be discussed in Chap. 7.
12 1 What Is Technology?

➽ Discussion
Think of a societal problem that does not yet have a technological solution.
What future technologies may change this?
Can knowledge alone solve problems, without technology?

⇨ Exercise 1.3
Create a version of Fig. 1.3 for a specific example. This may be the same or
different from the technology you had selected in Exercise 1.2.18

knowledge, combined with creativity (ingenuity), to create technology that helps

solve or at least helps mitigate problems of society. In recent decades, this seem-
ingly sharp boundary between science and engineering has become increasingly
blurred. For example, in fields such as the fight against cancer, engineers and scien-
tists work closely together in the areas of diagnosis (e.g., digital pathology enhanced
by AI) and treatment (e.g., targeted chemotherapy, radiation, robotic surgery, and
gene therapy).

1.2 Conceptual Modeling of Technology

In order to better understand, describe, and transfer technology, humans have found
and used different ways to describe it using a combination of human natural lan-
guage (text), mathematics (equations), and graphics (drawings). Some of these
descriptions are quite standardized, as in the structure of patents (see Chap. 5),
while others vary widely depending on the application domain in science and
engineering.19
There is evidence that the development of human language (Chomsky 2006) was
a strong driver for the development of technology, and vice versa. Different fields of
science and engineering have developed their own specialized way to describe tech-
nology which is not always easily applied across fields. There is consensus in the
Systems Engineering community that the use of the full set of human natural

18
Readers can simply sketch the example by hand or on a computer. Later, we will use Object
Process Cloud (OPCLOUD) to create such models. Anyone can quickly generate a model using
the OPM Sandbox at: https://sandbox.opm.technion.ac.il/ Note that models cannot be saved, but
screenshots can be captured.
19
Chapter 15 is dedicated to the topic of knowledge management and technology transfer.
20
This richness of human natural language is a big part of the beauty and inspiration of literary
genres such as poetry. In science and engineering, however, the language needs to be limited and
standardized in order to avoid unnecessary ambiguity.
1.2 Conceptual Modeling of Technology 13

language to describe technology, including the requirements for technology, has

become an obstacle rather than an enabler of further progress. One of the reasons for
this is that the same set of facts can be described in a large number of nonunique
ways in natural language, which can lead to confusion, errors, and rework when it
comes to technology.20
For this reason, we seek a more general, and yet precise, way of describing and
analyzing technology. Despite the availability of several systems modeling lan-
guages that could describe technologies such as bond graphs (Montbrun-Di Filippo
et al. 1991) and SysML (Friedenthal et al. 2014), we will use Object Process
Methodology (OPM) as first defined by Dori (2011).
The main advantages of OPM over other modeling languages are threefold:
1. OPM uses a subset of human natural language, Object Process Language (OPL),
to define a clear ontology that describes technology. It is therefore easy to learn
and apply.
2. OPM uses both the left and right hemispheres of our brain including the use of
a single type of graphical diagram (OPD) to describe both natural and techno-
logical systems.
3. OPM became an international standard (ISO 19450) in 2015 and is easily acces-
sible, without having to resort to proprietary software or licenses.
We now provide a brief primer into Object Process Methodology (OPM). OPM
is predicated on the fact that everything in the world can be described with either
objects or processes, or a combination of both.
Objects are things that can exist unconditionally. Objects can be “physical”
things, such as galaxies, stars, planets, molecules, and organisms, or nonphysical
things, such as concepts or ideas, which are generally referred to as “informatical.”
Objects can also be attributes of other objects or processes. For example, in Fig. 1.3,
“Humans” and “Technology” are physical entities that represent objects, whereas
“Problems” are intangible or nonmaterial objects that are shown as rectangles, with
and without shading, respectively. When objects are shown as solid rectangles, they
are said to be “systemic,” meaning that they fall within the system boundary. Objects
represented with dashed boxes fall outside the system boundary (e.g., our solar
system not including planet Earth) and are said to therefore be “environmental.”
Processes act on objects to create, modify, or destroy them. Processes cannot
exist unconditionally but require at least a relationship to one object in order to
exist. In OPM objects are shown as ovals and they can also be physical or informati-
cal depending on whether they deal with informational objects or physical objects.
An example of a process in Fig. 1.3 is “Creating,” which requires as inputs knowl-
edge coming from the process of “Discovering” the methods of “Engineering” as
well as an agent (in this case human) to drive the process. The resulting output of

21
Quantum technologies for computing, timekeeping, encryption, etc. have recently emerged and
are at an early stage of maturity. Currently, OPM assumes that an object can only be in one state at
a given point in time and we have not yet attempted to model quantum technologies using OPM,
which does not mean that it cannot be done.
14 1 What Is Technology?

the process “Creating” is “Technology” which can then be used downstream to help
solve or address society’s problems.
In the case where processes modify objects, we introduce the notion of stateful
objects. In order to describe the effect of a process on an object, we introduce the
concept of “state” which is always attached to an object. In the macroscopic world
that humans are able to perceive and influence, an object is only allowed to be in one
particular state at any given moment in time. In quantum physics, on the other
hand, it is possible for an object to occupy multiple states at once. Most technolo-
gies today exploit the fact that an object can only be in one defined state at once, or
in a transition between states.21
Another important concept in OPM are the links. There are three classes of links.
Links between objects are referred to as structural links. Links between objects and
processes are referred to as procedural links. Links between processes are referred
to as invocation links and they describe the links involving events and conditional
actions. It is possible to develop an OPM model of a system or technology to the
point where it can be simulated.
Figure 1.4 shows a summary of the key concepts in OPM.
The OPL (language) corresponding to the OPD (diagram) is shown in Fig. 1.4
along with a short description of what the symbols actually mean.
Object is physical and systemic.
Object can be in state1 or state2.
Process is physical and systemic.
Process changes Object from state1 to state2.

Fig. 1.4 OPM Primer, left: basic things in OPM are objects, processes, and states, center: object
process links in OPM are known as procedural links, right: links between objects – without show-
ing processes – are known as structural links
1.2 Conceptual Modeling of Technology 15

This is the most fundamental concept in OPM that we will use to describe tech-
nology. Imagine, for example, that this generic process represents “Transporting”
and that the “Object” is you, a person. The process of “transporting” will change
your state from being in location “origin” to being in location “destination.” Let us
now move to the center column of Fig. 1.4.
Object A is physical and systemic.
Process A is physical and systemic.
Process A affects Object A.
This situation is shown at the middle top of Fig. 1.4 and represents the fact that
Object A is being affected by Process A, but without showing the details. For exam-
ple, in the case of “transporting,” the passenger or cargo object will be affected by
the process, but we are not explicitly showing the state change. Here, we are simply
hiding the states and using a double-headed arrow in OPM. This is known as a so-­
called “affectee” link.
Object B is physical and systemic.
Process B is physical and systemic.
Process B yields Object B.
This situation shows that Object B is created as a result of Process B occurring.
In the example of our refrigerator in Fig. 1.1, a result of the process of refrigeration
would be the waste heat that is convected from the condenser to the ambient air in
the room. A one-sided arrow pointing from a process to an object is known as a
“resultee” link.
Object C is physical and systemic.
Process C is physical and systemic.
Process C consumes Object C.
This is the opposite of the prior situation with the one-sided arrow pointing from
the object into the process. This implies that the object is being consumed by the
process. This is known in OPM as a “consumee” link, and an example in the case of
our refrigerator example is the electrical energy that is used to power the process of
compressing the cooling fluid.
Object D is physical and systemic.
Process D is physical and systemic.
Object D handles Process D.
Here, Object D, is neither a resultee nor consumee of Process D, but represents
the agent that “drives” the process. Traditionally, in OPM an agent is a human agent.
For example, in Fig. 1.1, the human agent is required to set the thermostat to the
desired temperature. This is depicted with the so-called agent link. Some automated
processes may be able to occur without a human agent, but in this case they would
require an automated controller as an “instrument” of the process, see below.
Object E is physical and systemic.
Process E is physical and systemic.
Process E requires Object E.

Licensed to ([email protected])
16 1 What Is Technology?

As described above, Process E cannot occur without the use of Object E, which
is therefore linked to the object using an “instrument” link. In Fig. 1.1, we can think
of the “Condenser” as the object required for allowing the process of “Condensing”
to occur. In this case, the main instrument and the process conveniently have the
same name. This is not always the case when it comes to describing technology. We
now move on to the structural links on the right side of Fig. 1.4.
Object F is physical and systemic.
Object G is physical and systemic.
Object H is physical and systemic.
Object F consists of Object G and Object H.
The dark filled-in triangle linking Object F, the uppermost object, to the subordi-
nated Objects G and H indicates an “aggregation-participation” link which means
that Object F is made up of or can be decomposed into Objects G and H. Another
way to say this is that combining together Objects G and H will result in Object
F. Finally, we explain the “exhibition-characterization” link which is shown as an
empty triangle with a smaller inset filled-in triangle.
Object I is physical and systemic.
Object J is informatical and systemic.
Object I exhibits Object J.
Here Object J is an “informatical” object (its rectangular box is not shaded) that
serves as an attribute to describe the physical Object I. An example in Fig. 1.1 would
be the amount of interior volume filled with air, which is an attribute of the object
“Refrigerator.” The things represented in Fig. 1.4 are not a complete set of all links
defined in OPM; however, they are the main ingredients of what we will need to
create OPM models of technology.22
OPM manages complexity by defining a System Diagram (SD) at the root level
and allowing in-zooming and out-zooming and other processes for modeling sys-
tems and technologies at different levels of abstraction. We now have all the neces-
sary elements to create a conceptual model of technologies, such as the refrigerator
from Fig. 1.1. This is depicted in Fig. 1.5 as a two-level OPM model with (a) the SD
diagram and with (b) the subordinated SD1 diagram which is obtained by zooming
in on the main “Operating” process. The outline of the “Operating” process is shown
using a thick line with shadow, indicating that a more detailed view (SD1) exists.
What is interesting in this example is that only by zooming into one level of
abstraction “down” from SD to SD1 do we expose the internal operating processes
of the technology including the four processes corresponding to the four legs of the
Carnot cycle (see Fig. 1.1). Most users of technology do not know or care about
what is happening at SD1; they just want to have the refrigerator operate smoothly,
set the temperature on the thermostat, and benefit from the cold temperature and
associated shelf life extension of the food. This is typical of most beneficiaries of
technology, where understanding the technology at the SD level is sufficient. For the

22
Readers who are interested in further details are encouraged to consult (Dori 2011) and ISO
standard 19450: https://www.iso.org/standard/62274.html
1.2 Conceptual Modeling of Technology 17

Fig. 1.5 Example of two-level OPM model of a refrigerator. (a) System diagram SD of refrigera-
tor in OPM; (b) System diagram SD1 obtained by in-zooming to “Operating”

scientists, engineers, technologists, or technicians, however, the main focus is on

the inner workings of the technology at SD1 or below, see Fig. 1.5b. The OPL for
the refrigerator example is shown in the appendix at the end of this chapter.
Is conceptual modeling only applicable to “modern” technologies?
Definitely not. An example of an early technology in humanity’s evolution is the
stone axe. Figure 1.6 shows a description of a stone axe as technology using
OPM. One of the uses of a stone axe is to cut down a tree, that is, change the state
of the tree from standing to fallen.
18 1 What Is Technology?

Fig. 1.6 Left: OPM of stone axe making and use for cutting a tree, right: sample axe (Stone tools
are among the oldest known examples of human-made technologies. They were created and later
refined to reduce the cutting force and therefore energy consumption for various tasks such as cut-
ting and shaping wood, see Chap. 2.)

The OPL corresponding to our stone axe example is auto-generated as follows:

Rock is physical. Handle is physical. String is physical. Energy is physical.
Making requires Knowhow. Making is physical.
Making consumes Energy, String, Handle, and Rock.
Making yields Stone Axe. Stone Axe is physical.
Human is physical. Human handles Cutting and Making.
Tree is physical. Tree can be standing or fallen.
standing is initial.
fallen is final.
Cutting is physical. Cutting requires Stone Axe.
Cutting changes Tree from standing to fallen.
Cutting consumes Energy.
In order to understand the value of technology, it is important to quantify how it
works and not only to describe it conceptually. For example, the stone axe is a way
to amplify the cutting force that humans can develop.

⇨ Exercise 1.4
Consider the stone axe shown in Fig. 1.6 as a form of primitive technology.
Derive a mathematical expression and estimate how much energy would be
consumed and how many cuts (number of discrete chops) would be required
for a human to cut down a pine tree with a trunk diameter of D = 10 [cm]. Use
h = 0.5 [m] for the length of the handle, m = 0.5 [kg] for the mass of the rock,
l = 0.1 [m] for the length of the blade (sharp edge of the rock), w = 2 [mm] for
the width (thickness) of the blade, and v = 10 [m/s] for the axe head velocity
at the end of the chopping motion. Assume that the ultimate lateral yield
strength of pinewood is σw = 6 [MPa]. Which of the variables we have mod-
eled here describe the “stone axe” technology? Given this result what are
ways in which the stone axe could be improved?
1.3 Taxonomy of Technology 19

It is interesting that the axe is still used today in the twenty-first century, but usu-
ally it is implemented with more advanced materials and manufacturing methods.

1.3 Taxonomy of Technology

A question that is often asked is how we can best group or classify technologies. As
we have already seen, technologies can be grouped essentially by features of their
form such as their material (metals, semiconductors, wood, etc.) or by their func-
tion, that is, their purpose. Given that several generations of technology (in terms of
their implemented form) can fulfill the same function, we have found that grouping
technologies and systems according to their function is the most effective and com-
plete way to arrive at a taxonomy of technologies (de Weck et al. 2011). An addi-
tional point is that technology always involves at least one process such as the
creation, transformation, or destruction of at least one object, which we will refer to
as the operand. The operand is the thing that is being operated on, or acted upon by
the technology.
For simplicity, we can show this taxonomy as a matrix or grid, with the columns
containing the operand(s) and the rows showing the processes. One of the most
widely accepted versions of this is the 3x3 grid proposed by van Wyk (1988, 2017)
and rendered in Table 1.2 with specific examples. Van Wyk refers to this as the
“functionality grid.”
The basic three operands are:
• Matter, which can exist in different states (solid, liquid, gas, plasma)
• Energy, which can take different forms (kinetic, potential, chemical, etc.)
• Information, which also exists in different forms (analog, digital, intrinsic,
explicit, etc.)
The three canonical processes of technology are as follows:
• Transforming – This is the process of changing one or more operands from one
form or one state to another.

Table 1.2 Technology matrix (3 × 3) for technology classification

Technology
matrix Matter (M) Energy (E) Information (I)
Transforming Basic open furnace Photovoltaic cells (PV) in Graphical processing
(1) (BOF) in steel making a solar-electric farm unit (GPU) in computing
Transporting Transport aircraft in High-voltage electric Deep space network
(2) civil aviation (see Chap. transmission lines (DSN), see Chap. 13
9)
Storing Storage tank for Grid-level lithium-ion Optical compact disk
(3) cryogenic hydrogen storage battery (CD) for data storage
(LH2)
20 1 What Is Technology?

• Transporting – This is the process of changing the physical location of one or

more operands from one location to another.
• Storing – This may appear at first to be surprising as a canonical process; how-
ever, many technologies exist to make sure that resources (such as matter, energy,
or information) are available for use at a later time and at the same place.
The examples provided in Table 1.2 were already shown as images in Fig. 1.2,
and their selection makes more sense now when shown in the context of the 3x3
technology grid. They cover a range of instances of technological systems from
rather simple to very complex. However, even technologies that appear to be “sim-
ple” often turn out to be rather complex, once we need to understand them at level
SD1, SD2, etc. or even at the molecular or even atomic level. Lithium-ion batteries
are a case in point.
Thus, lithium-ion batteries can be classified as an E(3)-type technology whose
purpose is to store electrical energy. Figure 1.7 shows how a Li-ion battery (LIB)
works in principle, and its corresponding OPD is shown in Fig. 1.8.
An electrical battery can store and release (discharge) energy obtained from a
chemical reaction. It is composed of an anode (−), a cathode (+), the electrolyte, and
a separator. The chemical reaction is a redox reaction caused by an electrical poten-
tial difference between the anode and the cathode. That is, electrons flow from the
anode to the cathode via an external circuit and metal ions (e.g., Li+) in the electro-
lyte migrate from the anode to the cathode through the separator to receive the
electrons. This redox reaction lasts until electrical equilibrium is reached. The capa-
bilities of LIB such as specific energy density, volumetric density, and cycle durabil-
ity have gradually improved since the 1990s, thanks to the development of new
materials and manufacturing processes. Figure 1.8 shows an OPD of the concept of
operations of LIB technology (type E(3)).

Fig. 1.7 Operating principle of Li-ion battery. (Source: Cadario et al. 2019)
1.3 Taxonomy of Technology 21

Fig. 1.8 OPD of LIB battery technology. (Source: Cadario et al. 2019)

While the classification of technologies in Table 1.2 has been generally accepted,
it is also somewhat confined to a more limited view of technology.23 For one, the
classical assumption that humans, natural systems, and technology are somehow
distinct and completely separate from each other has recently been challenged (de
Weck et al. 2011). Newer technologies that operate directly on biological systems
such as DNA sequencing and gene editing, as well as technologies implanted
directly in the body of humans (and other animals) show that living organisms, as
opposed to “only” inorganic matter, as was implied in Table 1.2, are now an impor-
tant class of operand in their own right.24 Another important aspect is that value

23
In physics, there are deep connections and equivalencies between mass and energy, for example,
Einstein’s famous E = mc2, as well as Claude Shannon’s information theory which quantifies fun-
damental limits to information transport in terms of the maximum data rate Rmax, based on the
bandwidth B and signal-to-noise ratio C/N that is available, Rmax = B log2(1 + C/N). It may be
possible to collapse all technological operands into an energy equivalence, but we do not attempt
this here, as this may force us to operate at a higher level of abstraction than is useful.
24
Some argue that living organisms can simply be classified as “matter,” but we disagree, as the
requirements and value we place on life warrant a separate category.
22 1 What Is Technology?

(money) has become increasingly linked to technology. Technologies dealing with

the flow of money are an important domain, which was perhaps not as much the
case 100 years ago.
Two additional functions, namely, that of control and that of exchange, are iden-
tified in an expanded technology classification matrix. The full 5x5 matrix for tech-
nological classification is shown in Table 1.3. It is interesting to note that many of
the technologies we would consider more recent are to be found in the two bottom
rows and two columns to the right.
There are different explanations for this:
• Value: The emergence of computer-assisted trading of financial assets has grown
significantly since the 1970s. Automatic trading technology has generated (and
occasionally destroyed) trillions of dollars in value. The use of technology in this
domain is generally referred to as “financial technology” or FinTech for short.
Even though information technology is increasingly used for the handling of
financial value flows, the concepts of information and money are distinct.
• Living Organisms: The progress in biology and biological engineering since the
1950s has been impressive, and the confluence of genetics, molecular imaging,
and manipulation and computer modeling in systems biology has led the field of
biological technology, or BioTech for short.
• Exchange and Trade: While the trading and exchange of commodities has been
practiced for Millenia, for example, along the famous Silk Road (de Weck 1989),
and via maritime trading, the emergence of a more stable and peaceful world
order after WWII and the end of the Cold War in the late twentieth century have

Table 1.3 Expanded technology matrix (5 × 5) for technology classification

Technology Matter Energy Information Value Organisms
matrix (5 × 5) (M) (E) (I) (V) (L)
Transforming Basic open Photovoltaic Graphical Crypto Minimally
(1) furnace (BOF) cells (PV) in a processing currencies invasive
in steel making solar farm unit (GPU) (bitcoin ₿) robotic
surgery
Transporting Transport High-voltage Deep space SWIFT Self-driving
distribute aircraft (cargo) electric network financial automobiles
(2) transmission (DSN) network
Storing Storage tank for Grid-level Optical U.S. bullion Stem cell
(3) cryogenic lithium-ion compact disk depository banking
hydrogen (LH2) storage battery (CD) for data (Fort Knox) technology
storage
Exchanging Murray-Darling EEX European Electronic Blockchain Online
(4) basin water energy medical distributed livestock
trading system exchange records (EMR) ledger trading
(Australia)
Controling Diesel engine Digital control TCP/IP web U.S. federal Viral RNA
(5) emissions of home air server and reserve testing, for
aftertreatment conditioning switching automated example,
(NOx, PM) systems technologies clearing SARS-
house ACH CoV-2
1.4 Framework for Technology Management 23

led to the emergence of new technologies that facilitate trading and exchange
across the globe.
• Control and Regulation: While many systems have operated in “open loop” in
the past, the increase in performance (and safety) due to feedback control and
regulation to prevent instabilities in systems has led to dramatic advances in
system performance and control technology.
The upper left 3 × 3 technology matrix is the domain of “traditional” engineering
where matter, energy, and information are transformed, transported, and stored.
This 3 × 3 matrix is shown in Table 1.2. As can be seen in Table 1.3, the full 5 × 5
matrix provides a broader more comprehensive view of technology, including some
technologies that were only conceived in the early twenty-first century. It is not
impossible to think that this technology grid may expand further in the future as new
technologies are invented and deployed. Also, since technologies are always part of
a larger system and can themselves be decomposed into subsystems and parts, it is
often the case that technological systems that fall into one particular cell of Table 1.3
contain within them a multitude of other technologies taken from the technology
grid at different levels of decomposition. For example, self-driving electric passen-
ger cars – technology type L(2) – contain with them energy storage technology,
E(3), as well as information processing technologies, I(1), among others.

1.4 Framework for Technology Management

⇨ Exercise 1.5
Empty the cells in Table 1.2 (3 × 3) or Table 1.3 (5 × 5) and replace the
examples given with different technologies of your own choosing. This may
seem simple at first but is surprisingly challenging to do.

As one studies the evolution of technologies – as we will – it becomes quickly

apparent that an overarching framework is needed to guide the overall development
and deployment of technologies in an organization. This is a field generally known
as Technology Management or Management of Technology (MOT). Several univer-
sities, including MIT, have created research and education programs around MOT
over the years. While the names and instantiations of these programs are evolving –
as are the underlying technologies themselves – it is clear that a guiding set of
principles and processes is needed to develop, deploy, and maintain technologies
over time in those organizations where technology plays a pivotal role.
This is typically the primary role of the Chief Technology Officer (CTO).
A vast literature exists on technology management (Burgelman et al. 2008;
Roberts 2001) which sits squarely at the intersection of management science and
engineering. Our intention in this book is not to review the scholarly work in this
area in a complete and comprehensive manner, but to focus on the role of technology
roadmapping and development in technology management.
24 1 What Is Technology?

One can think of roadmapping, in particular, as the control function for technology
management in organizations. Without a clear understanding of what technologies
exist in a firm (or agency), whether they are competitive, how fast they are evolving
and what targets should be set for them, and most importantly, which future missions,
products, or services require them, it is unlikely that the organization will be a leader
in its own field or industry. Thus, we view technology roadmapping as central to
technology management where all critical information about technology is integrated,
consensus is achieved, and future actions and targets are decided and documented.
Figure 1.9 depicts an object process model of technology management that will
also serve as a basis for the Advanced Technology Roadmap Architecture (ATRA)
in Fig. 1.10 that serves as the overall framework for this book.
The technology management framework shows the different functions in the
development and infusion of technology in the context of an organization25 that
conceives, designs, implements, and operates missions, products, and services that
are technology-based.
In the upper left, we see (if they exist) current capabilities instantiated as prod-
ucts, services, or missions that are being purchased or used by a customer base. This
creates results in the form of revenues or other benefits or social surplus. In markets

Fig. 1.9 Comprehensive technology management framework (shown in OPM)

25
The primary organization we have in mind is a for-profit firm that develops, implements, and sells
products and services that address societal and specific customer needs and that receives revenues
in return. A portion of these is then reinvested to fund the development of new or improved tech-
nologies, products, and services. The framework can also be applied to nonprofit organizations
such as government agencies, research institutes, or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that
focus on missions.
1.4 Framework for Technology Management 25

Advanced Technology Roadmap Architecture (ATRA)

Inputs
Steps Outputs
Strategic Drivers for Technology
+10y

FOMj
L1 Products and Missions 1. Where are we today? +5y
L2 Technologies Technology State of the Art and Organization
Technology
Competitive Benchmarking Roadmaps
Competitor 1
Technology Systems Modeling Competitor 2
Today FOMi
Dependency Structure Matrix

2. Where could we go?

L1
Technology Systems Modeling and +10y
Scenario A
Trends over Time

FOMj
Scenario-based
+5y Scenario B
? Technology Valuation
3. Where should we go?
L2
Scenario Analysis and
FOMi
Technology Valuation

E[NPV] - Return
Technology Scouting 4. Where we are going! Technology Investment
Technology Efficient Frontier
Knowledge Management
Technology Portfolio Valuation, Portfolio
Intellectual Property Analytics Optimization and Selection Technology
Projects
σ[NPV] - Risk
Foundations Cases

Definitions History Nature Ecosystems The Future Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
What is Milestones of Technology, Nature Technology Diffusion, Is there a Deep Space DNA
Singularity ? Automobiles Aircraft
Technology? Technology and Humans Infusion and Industry Network Sequencing

Fig. 1.10 Advanced technology roadmap architecture (ATRA)

other than natural monopolies, a corporate strategy is needed to define which cus-
tomers and market segments should be pursued and what products and services are
needed to succeed in these market segments. The strategy is sanctioned by the
senior leadership of the organization and takes into account the current and future
requirements of the customer base.
The Chief Technology Officer (CTO) is typically a member of the senior leader-
ship team and drives the creation of a set of technology roadmaps which map both
the existing products, services, and missions as well as the corporate strategy against
specific targets for market share, performance, cost, profit, and other Figures of
Merit (FOMs).26 The resulting roadmaps and targets need to take into account past
and expected future technology trends. While it is often helpful to set ambitious
targets for future product, service, or mission requirements along with a specific
timeline, the setting of utopian targets should typically be avoided as it is generally
counter-productive.
This information is captured by a set of technology roadmaps, which facilitate
the planning of a firm’s R&D (research and development) portfolio.27 This planning
process can result in the launch, continuation, modification, or cancellation of R&D
projects, including demonstrators and prototypes, and the shaping of a multiyear
R&D budget. This budget is typically approved by the senior leadership of the

26
The use of figures of merit (FOM) is central in our approach to technology management.
27
Some firms, particularly in Europe, make a distinction between R&T (research and technology
development) and R&D (research and product development). However, this is not the case in most
parts of the world where research, technology maturation, prototyping and the development and
launch of new products, services, and missions are all considered to be part of R&D.

Licensed to ([email protected])
26 1 What Is Technology?

organization. Together these processes provide the necessary market “pull” for
technology development.
However, there may also be technology “push,” that is, the injection of new ideas
from competitive analysis, the industrial ecosystem (suppliers, partners), and aca-
demia. Capturing and bundling these ideas, and quantifying them in credible exist-
ing technology trends, and future requirements is the job of the technology scouting
function. Another important function is the actual execution of the R&D projects by
the engineering organization which hopefully leads to tangible outcomes in the
form of technological knowledge, new or improved technologies, and prototypes.
Some of this technological knowledge may be explicitly recognized and managed
as intellectual property (IP) through patent filings and, if necessary, protected
through litigation. Other inventions may be managed more informally and inter-
nally as trade secrets.
If technology development is successful, the senior leadership may decide to
infuse new technologies into existing products, services, or missions to upgrade
them, or to transition promising prototypes to become new products and services in
the market. The degree to which current or new customers or users will value these
new capabilities is crucial to understand which technologies and projects to priori-
tize. This prioritization is needed given the overall budget constraints and constantly
shifting market conditions as well as threats and opportunities. The budget for R&D
typically comes from a mix of internal and external sources. Deciding how much
and where to spend on R&D is one of the most important decisions that firms and
agencies have to make to ensure their long-term success and survival.
Throughout this endeavor the availability of motivated and talented R&D staff,
mainly scientists and engineers, is critical. Such staff may be “grown” internally or
recruited externally from academia, suppliers, or even competitors.28 The organiza-
tion of R&D into teams that can both sustain existing products, services, and mis-
sions while also developing new technologies and prototypes is one of the most
challenging tasks of technology management.

⇨ Exercise 1.6
For your current (or past or future) organization, draw a diagram similar to
Fig. 1.9. Who does technology scouting in your firm? Are there technology
roadmaps? Who decides on and who implements the R&D project portfolio?

This book dedicates several chapters to the processes shown in Fig. 1.9, as sum-
marized in Table 1.4. The sequence of chapters does not follow a linear chain but
emphasizes foundational concepts first and gradually moves from considering only
a single technology to a portfolio of technologies.

Many competitors attempt to prevent this by inserting so-called noncompete clauses in their
28

employment contracts. These are generally difficult, but not impossible, to enforce in a court of law.
1.4 Framework for Technology Management 27

Table 1.4 Mapping of processes in Fig. 1.9 against chapters in this book

Technology management function Chaptera

Managing intellectual property 5
Technology roadmapping 4, 8, 11
Strategy development 10
Executing research and development 11, 12, 16
Infusing technology in products or systems 12
Technology scouting 14
Managing knowledge 15
R&D portfolio planning 16, 17
Valuing technology 17
a
Note that chapters not listed here contain complementary materials such as case studies (Chaps.
6, 9, 13, and 18) or special topics linked to technology such as defense and intelligence technolo-
gies (Chap. 20), technology and aging (Chap. 21) as well as the question of the existence of a
singularity and the ultimate limits of technology (Chap. 22)

In smaller companies and startups, all of these functions may be carried out by a
single person, such as the primary technologist or engineer among the co-founders.
As organizations grow and mature, there will be teams and eventually departments
responsible for each of these functions at which point the coordination and flow of
information between strategy, marketing, technology (the CTO-led organization),
engineering, manufacturing, and supply chain management, among others, becomes
crucial and challenging to manage.
At that point what is needed is a more prescriptive framework that implements
Fig. 1.9 in a logical architecture that can be implemented and followed with confi-
dence. Figure 1.10 shows what we will call the Advanced Technology Roadmap
Architecture (ATRA) that also provides the guide map and signposts in this book.
The foundational topics and case studies are shown at the bottom, while the four-­
step technology roadmapping process with inputs and outputs is shown at the top.
As mentioned in the foreword, the author first implemented the ATRA technol-
ogy roadmapping framework in a large aerospace firm with more than 100,000
employees and a €3 billion annual R&D budget. Many observations and recommen-
dations in this book come from this experience, combined with the latest insights
from the academic literature. However, since then the ATRA approach has also been
selected by NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD), by other com-
panies in aerospace, the energy sector, in medical devices, and even by startups, in
a simplified form. It is now being taught as a coherent approach to technology man-
agement at several universities around the world, to both students and
professionals.
In the next chapter, we will review some of the technological milestones of
humanity.
28 1 What Is Technology?

Appendix

Object process language (OPL) model of refrigerator, see Fig. 1.5.

SD
Refrigerator is physical and systemic.
Thermostat Setting of Refrigerator is physical and systemic.
Food is physical and systemic.
Shelf Life of Food is physical and systemic.
Human is physical and systemic.
Temperature of Food is physical and systemic.
Electrical Energy is physical and environmental.
Waste Heat is physical and systemic.
Exterior Air is physical and environmental.
Refrigerator exhibits Thermostat Setting.
Food exhibits Shelf Life and Temperature.
Operating is physical and systemic.
Operating requires Refrigerator.
Operating affects Food.
Operating consumes Electrical Energy.
Operating yields Waste Heat.
Setting is physical and systemic.
Human handles Setting.
Setting affects Thermostat Setting of Refrigerator.
Convecting is physical and environmental.
Convecting affects Exterior Air.
Convecting consumes Waste Heat.
SD1 (In-Zooming on “Operating”)
Operating from SD zooms in SD1 into Condensing, Expanding, Evaporating,
Compressing, and Regulating, as well as Coolant.
Refrigerator is physical and systemic.
Food is physical and systemic.
Electrical Energy is physical and environmental.
Waste Heat is physical and systemic.
Compressor is physical and systemic.
Pump is physical and systemic.
Condenser is physical and systemic.
Expansion Valve is physical and systemic.
Evaporator is physical and systemic.
Thermostat is physical and systemic.
Coolant is physical and systemic.
Refrigerator consists of Compressor, Condenser, Evaporator, Expansion Valve,
Pump, and Thermostat.
Operating is physical and systemic.
References 29

Operating requires Refrigerator.

Compressing is physical and systemic.
Compressing requires Compressor and Pump.
Compressing affects Coolant.
Compressing consumes Electrical Energy.
Compressing invokes Condensing.
Regulating is physical and systemic.
Regulating requires Thermostat.
Regulating invokes Compressing.
Condensing is physical and systemic.
Condensing requires Condenser.
Condensing affects Coolant.
Condensing yields Waste Heat.
Condensing invokes Expanding.
Evaporating is physical and systemic.
Evaporating requires Evaporator.
Evaporating affects Coolant and Food.
Evaporating invokes Regulating.
Expanding is physical and systemic.
Expanding requires Expansion Valve.
Expanding affects Coolant.
Expanding invokes Evaporating.

References

Burgelman RA, Christensen CM, Wheelwright SC. Strategic management of technology and inno-
vation. McGraw-Hill/Irwin; 2008
Cadario A., et al. “Energy Storage Technology Roadmap”, MIT EM.427 Technology Roadmapping
and Development, URL: http://34.233.193.13:32001/index.php/Energy_Storage_via_Battery
December 2019, last accessed 27 Dec 2020
Chomsky, Noam. Language and mind. Cambridge University Press, 2006.
de Weck, Christine. The Silk Road Today, Vantage Press, ISBN: 0-533-08031-2, 1989
de Weck, Olivier L., Daniel Roos, and Christopher L. Magee. Engineering Systems: Meeting
human needs in a complex technological world. MIT Press, 2011.
Dori, Dov., “Object-Process Methodology: A Holistic Systems Paradigm”. Springer Science &
Business Media, 2011
Duraiappah A.K., Munoz P. Inclusive wealth: a tool for the United Nations. Environment and
Development Economics. 2012 Jun 1;17(3):362–7.
Friedenthal, S., Moore A., and Steiner R.. A practical guide to SysML: the systems modeling lan-
guage. Morgan Kaufmann, 2014
Hughes T.P. Human-built world: How to think about technology and culture. University of Chicago
Press; 2004
Hume, D. A Treatise of Human Nature, Book II, Part III, Sect. X, 1739–1740
Montbrun-Di Filippo, J., Delgado M., Brie C., and Paynter H.M.. "A survey of bond graphs:
Theory, applications and programs." Journal of the Franklin Institute, 328, no. 5–6, 1991:
565–606.
30 1 What Is Technology?

Roberts EB. Benchmarking global strategic management of technology. Research-Technology

Management. 2001 Mar 1;44(2):25–36.
Schatzberg E. “Technik” Comes to America: Changing Meanings of “Technology” before 1930.
Technology and Culture. 2006 Jul 1;47(3):486–512.
Van Wyk, R.J., Management of technology: New frameworks. Technovation, 7(4),
pp. 341–351, 1988.
van Wyk, R., Technology: Its Fundamental Nature – To Explore further Ahead and farther Afield,
Lambert Academic Publishing, ISBN: 978-620-2-00622-4, 2017
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology accessed 21 April 2019