0
Determining the future success of emerging
technologies
The future success of offshore wind turbine support structures
1
Determining the future success of emerging
technologies
Future success of offshore wind turbine support structures
Business Administration: Business Development University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
November 2009
Hendrika Johanna Wilhelmina Schouten Student number: 1494023
Sallandstraat 1 7412 WB Deventer
Cell phone number: + 31 (0)6 48 68 7333 E-mail: H.J.W.Schouten@student.rug.nl
Supervisors from the University of Groningen: First: dr. K.R.E. Huizingh
Second: dr. ir. M.W. Hillen
2
Preface
A period of hard work, joy and discovery lies behind me. The final work of my master Business Development at the University of Groningen is finished. The goal of this research is twofold: (1) to develop a method to determine the future success of emerging technologies in clean tech sectors and (2) to get insight into the future success of various emerging technologies in the field of offshore wind turbine support structures. The research is written following a request from the Clean Tech team of the Food and Agri Research and Advisory (FAR) department of Rabobank International.
I would like to thank Rabobank International for the opportunity to write my thesis at their office. A special thanks to Maartje van der Berg for all her guidance and enthusiasm during my project. I would also like to thank everybody at Rabobank International for their support. They made the time I spent in Utrecht a real pleasure.
Secondly, a word of appreciation to my supervisor Eelko Huizingh for his advice during my master thesis project. Further, my special thanks goes out to all the respondents who were so kind to help me, I really enjoyed the interviews!
Last but not least, I would like to thank my family and friends for their support during my time as a student and in the time of my graduation. Especially my parents and my boyfriend deserve special recognition for their support and encouragement.
Thank you all,
Deventer, November 2009
3
Abstract
The purpose of this study is twofold: 1) to develop and evaluate a method to determine the future success of emerging technologies in clean tech sectors and (2) to apply the method in a case study to get insight into the future success of various emerging technologies in the field of offshore wind turbine support structures. Yet, no method is developed in scientific literature to determine the future success of emerging technologies. In order to develop the method, the success factors of emerging technologies are examined. But there are no generic technology success factors. However, it is found that success factors can be categorized in the following dimensions: organization, technology, market and environment. These dimensions form the framework of the developed method. This framework is modified by adding sub-dimensions. These sub-dimensions positively contribute to the quality of the identification of the success factors of a specific emerging technology field.
The developed method gives insight in the competing technologies, actors and needs in the emerging technology field. Based on the assessment the potential and bottlenecks of the competing technologies can be determined. Finally, an outlook can be given in the likelihood these technologies will reach the market. The output of this method gives enough information to make better technology selection and investment decisions. Therefore, this method is interesting for investors, developing organizations, grant funding agencies and consultants.
The developed method is applied to the offshore wind turbine support structures (foundations) field. Based on this case study the following conclusions can be drawn. The decision to use an offshore wind turbine support structure is mostly influenced by the following factors; water depth, soil conditions, weight of the turbine, reliability and costs of the support structure. The offshore wind turbine support structure market is price competitive. Till now the most successful offshore wind turbine foundation is the steel monopile. The steel monopile is one steel pile driven into the seabed. From the assessed competing technologies, the drilled concrete monopile has the biggest likelihood to reach the market, because it is cost competitive. If pile driving becomes forbidden, the steel monopile cannot be used anymore and other types of support structures become much more attractive, such as floating support structures. Till now the floated support structures, Floated to Fixed and SIP III, are far too expensive. In the future these support structures are more interesting, when wind farms are build in deeper seas, but further development of these support structures and wind turbines is needed.
4
Content
Preface ... 2 Abstract ... 3 1 Introduction ... 5 1.1 Research question ... 61.2 Outline of the thesis ... 6
2 Theoretical framework ... 7
2.1 Introduction ... 7
2.2 Emerging Technologies ... 7
2.3 Future success of emerging technologies ... 10
2.4 Success factors of emerging technologies ... 11
3 Assessment of the future success of emerging technologies ... 15
3.1 Introduction ... 15
3.2 Technology assessment ... 15
3.3 Technology roadmapping ... 17
3.4 Steps of the technology roadmapping process ... 18
3.5 Usability of the technology roadmapping process for our method ... 19
4 Method... 21
4.1 Introduction ... 21
4.2 Method... 21
5 Methodology ... 26
6 Case study: Offshore wind turbine support structures ... 31
6.1 Identify the emerging technology field ... 31
6.1.1 Offshore wind energy ... 32
6.1.2 Offshore wind energy in the Netherlands ... 32
6.1.3 Offshore wind turbine support structures ... 33
6.1.4 Development of an offshore wind farm ... 34
6.2 Identify actors ... 34
6.3 Identify technologies ... 35
6.4 Select actors ... 36
6.5 Select technologies ... 36
6.6 Determine success factors ... 37
6.7 Analyze competing technologies and developing organizations ... 38
6.7.1 Floated to Fixed ... 38
6.7.2 Self Installing Platform... 41
6.7.3 Hywind ... 44
6.7.4 Drilled Concrete Monopile ... 47
6.8 Determine future success of competing technologies ... 50
7 Evaluation of the method... 52
8 Conclusion ... 56
9 References ... 57
5
1
Introduction
This master’s thesis is written following a request from the Clean Tech team of the Food and Agri Research and Advisory (FAR) department of Rabobank International. FAR is the global Food and Agri knowledge provider for the Rabobank Group. The Rabobank Group is a cooperative bank, specialized in financing the Food and Agri Business. FAR comprises a global team of analysts who continuously accumulate knowledge about issues and trends in major Food and Agri sectors. The FAR department has 80 employees worldwide, with a central unit in Utrecht and with smaller teams in various countries around the globe.
Rabobank has strengthened its commitment in the clean tech sector. In March 2007 the Clean Tech team was founded. The team currently consists of five employees. The Clean Tech team is covering different kinds of sectors of renewable energy. The major subjects are biofuels, solar energy and wind energy. The Clean Tech team has two major internal clients; the Renewable Energy and Infrastructure Finance Department and Robeco.
One of the Clean Tech team’s primary tasks is to get more insight into the offshore wind energy sector. At this moment many developments are going on in the offshore wind energy sector. After a few years of experience in the offshore wind energy, companies are developing new techniques and solutions, that are custom made for the offshore wind energy sector. Examples are the Ampelmann technique, new wind measurement techniques per satellite, a floating support structure, new especially designed installation boats, turbines with a helicopter platform and, the combination of offshore wind farms with gas production.
The Clean Tech team wants know which of those new techniques and solutions will most likely be used in the future. Thus, the Clean Tech team wants to get insight into the future success of various emerging technologies in the offshore wind energy sector.
6
1.1 Research question
The following central question is based on the problem statement and the objective of this research:
“How can the success of emerging technologies in a clean tech sector be determined and what results can we expect if this method is applied to the offshore wind energy sector?”
To answer the central question, the following sub questions have to be answered:
1. What method can be used to determine the future success of emerging technologies in a clean tech sector?
2. How can this method contribute to the assessment of the future success of emerging technologies in the offshore wind energy sector?
3. How can this method be further improved in order to make it applicable to other clean tech sectors?
1.2 Outline of the thesis
7
2
Theoretical framework
2.1 Introduction
The aim of this research is to determine the future success of emerging technologies. The first part of this chapter consists of the description of emerging technologies and in the second part the success factors of emerging technologies are determined.
2.2 Emerging Technologies
Technology is the process of transforming inputs into outputs (Billings, 1977; Reimann, 1977; Rousseau, 1977). More specific, technology is the body of knowledge about materials, techniques of production, and operation of equipment, based on the application of science (Day and Schoemaker, 2000). “Emerging technologies are those where (1) the knowledge base is expanding, (2) the application to existing markets is undergoing innovation, or (3) new markets are being tapped or created” Day and Schoemaker, 2000:2. Emerging technologies are science-based innovations which are potentially able to create a new industry or transform an existing one. They include radical technologies that emerge from new or incremental technologies that arise from the convergence of existing technologies (Day and Schoemaker, 2000).
For established technologies the technology, infrastructure, customers, and industry are relatively well defined. Emerging technologies can be distinguished from established technologies by technological uncertainties, ambiguous market signals, and embryonic technologies (Day and Schoemaker, 2000). Table 2.1 (adopted from Day and Schoemaker, 2000:5) shows the contrasts between emerging and established technologies. Below the characteristics are described of emerging technologies.
Table 2.1 Contrast between emerging and established technologies
Established Emerging
Technology
Science basis and applications Established Uncertain Architecture or standards Evolutionary Emergent
Functions or benefits Evolutionary Unknown
Infrastructure
Value network of suppliers, channels Established Formative
Regulation/standards Established Emergent
Market/customers
Usage patterns/behaviour Well-defined Formative
Market knowledge Thorough Speculative
Industry
Structure Established Embryonic
Rivals Well-known New players
8
Technology
Emerging technologies may draw on several underlying families of technologies that fuse together in the new application domain (Yoffie, 1997). Established technologies can be destroyed by the power of creative combinations of new and old technologies, new and old methods of producing products and new and old business models. The convergence of technologies creates new knowledge domains, which can be new to the industry, but also new to the world. When a technology is applied to a new domain, it results in significant technological revolution in the application domain in terms of the technologies’ benefits and costs.
Emerging technologies are characterized by rapid development in terms of significance and development rate of new ideas and technologies. Emerging technology fields keep changing as science and technology progress over time, examples of emerging technology fields are biotechnology and nanotechnology (Valk, Moors and Meeus, 2009). In this research a technology field is defined as the class of related technologies that focus on fulfilling similar needs. There appears a compression in time for the development of emerging technologies, with an increase in the overall rate of technological progress (Srinivasan, 2008). The development of emerging technologies is going faster, caused by research domains which are converging upon each other, such as communication technologies, satellite technologies and materials. Further, globalization and the overall trends toward free markets have influence on the pace of emerging technologies (Srinivasan, 2008).
Infrastructure
The environment of emerging technologies is complex, risky and uncertain. No government regulations and industry standards are determined for the new technology (Day and Schoemaker, 2000). Also, the network of suppliers within the emerging technology field needs to be formed (Day and Schoemaker, 2000). Concluding, the infrastructure of the emerging technology field is formative and emergent.
Industry
9 At the early stages in the development process, emerging technologies have low performance-price ratios (Srinivasan, 2008). The potential of emerging technologies may be overlooked by the industry, because the applications and benefits of those technologies are not always apparent in their early stages. With the growing commercial potential of an emerging technology during the development, large incumbent firms get concerned about the effects of the emerging technology on their current business models. This is the reason why large incumbent firms begin to participate in the development of the emerging technology. The large incumbent firms participate by partnerships with the small start-up firms or by acquisition of those start-up firms. On the other side the small start-up firms are using these partners to overcome their lack of capabilities (Day and Schoemaker, 2000). Thus, the locus of innovation in the emerging technology shifts from the small firms to the larger incumbent firms (Srinivasan, 2008).
Market/Customers
Emerging technologies are characterized by unclear demand or by demand that is not articulated yet (Valk, Moors and Meeus, 2009). Because emerging technologies are evolving, it is not clear who will be the most attractive customers, when and how they will use the product, or what they will be prepared to pay (Day and Schoemaker, 2000). Also, uncertainty exists about the value of emerging technologies. The value of an emerging technology can be eroded by newer emerging technologies. At the same time, the trajectory of technology development and speed of market acceptance are also uncertain. Since the industry structure is embryonic there are many conflicting views and much speculation about the potential rivals and competing technologies. Concluding, the market knowledge of emerging technologies is speculative and the usage patterns of customers is formative (Day and Schoemaker, 2000).
10
2.3 Future success of emerging technologies
How to predict technology success is one of the most important questions in the field of technology commercialization. Every step in the development process a technology is tested on the probability of successful commercialization. Also, grant funding agencies and investors are evaluating technologies on the probability of future success. In spite of all their efforts, it appears that predicting technology success is difficult. Because most of the prototypes do not come to the point of commercialization and a large share of the investments in technology venture are total losses (Galbraith, Ehrlich and DeNoble, 2006). Predicting the success of an emerging technology is even more difficult, because an emerging technology is surrounded by a lot of uncertainty. According to Day and Schoemaker (2000) there is no sound way to predict the future of emerging technologies, but this research will try to prove the opposite.
The aim of this research is to develop a method to determine the future success of competing technologies within an emerging technology field. Yet, no method is developed in scientific literature to determine the future success of competing technologies within an emerging technology field. In the research of Daim et al. (2006) patent analysis and bibliometrics are used to forecast emerging technologies. Negro and Hekkert (2008) explain the success of emerging technologies by innovation system functioning. Till now, no attempts are made to investigate which factors influence the success of emerging technologies and how to determine the future success of emerging technologies. When the factors that affect the success of an emerging technology are known, its success can be determined.
The meaning of success differs per actor in the technology field. For the developing organization the final judgement about the success of the technology is made when the sale of the technology is completed. For the buyer of the technology, success only comes after successful and profitable commercialization. The scope of this research is limited to the likelihood that technologies will
reach the market. This is an important intermediate stage for achieving financial returns and includes
both technical success as well as acceptance in the marketplace (Astebro, 2004). The emerging technology with the highest probability of technical success and commercial success is the ‘best’ technology within the emerging technology field. For this scope is chosen, because emerging technologies are surrounded by a lot of uncertainty. Therefore, is it easier to predict the likelihood that technologies will reach the market, then the extent to which the technology will be adopted.
11 regarding the number, definition, or underlying theoretical foundation of the key factors that contribute to successful technology commercialization (Balachandra and Friar, 1997; Astebro, 2004). It is likely that there are no generic technology success factors, because they might depend on the stage of the review and other conditions (Balanchandra and Friar, 1997; Galbraith et al., 2004). There is increasing evidence that success factors must be tied to aspects of the technology and organization, such as the nature of the innovation (incremental versus radical), structural/political nature of the marketplace (existing versus new), and technology sophistication (high versus low) (Balanchandra and Friar, 1997; Galbraith et al., 2004). In conclusion, the success factors of emerging technologies are probably different from the success factors of established technologies.
Despite the little convergence regarding technology success factors, there does seem to be some consensus regarding the classes of success factors. For technology success the factors can be grouped into the four dimensions of market readiness, technology readiness, commercial readiness, and management readiness (Heslop, McGregor, and Griffith, 2001). Astebro (2004) suggests the grouping of success factors of technologies into four dimensions of market, technology, environment and organization characteristics. In this research the dimensions; market, technology, environment and organization, are used to categorize the success factors of emerging technologies. By categorizing the success factors it is easier to assess the emerging technologies on their future success.
The dimensions of Astebro (2004) are in line with the research of Day and Schoemaker (2000), they describe that emerging technologies are influenced by internal factors and external factors. Internal factors are related to the organization that is developing the emerging technology. External factors are related to the actors outside the developing organization, such as the government, competitors, suppliers and clients (Day and Schoemaker, 2000). Thus, external factors belong to the dimension market and environment. These internal and external factors shape the emergence of a technology and in addition these factors themselves are shaped and altered by the technology (Anex, 2000).
2.4 Success factors of emerging technologies
Scientific literature only describes a few success factors of emerging technologies. Technological, strategic and organizational factors of emerging technologies are largely unknown (Day and Schoemaker, 2000:187). Therefore, for this research success factors are also extracted from other types of literature; about new product development, technology selection and new ventures.
12 commercialization which create wealth. Therefore, the success factors of new products may also influence the future success of a technology.
Second, technology selection is concerned with choosing the best technology from a number of available options (Shehabuddeen, Probert, Phaal, 2006). During the innovation process the developing organization has to decide if it is going to commercialize the technology. The decision making of these organizations is based on evaluation factors that determine the technical and commercial success of a technology (Shehabuddeen, Probert, Phaal, 2006). The success factors for a ‘best’ technology may differ depending on the specific requirements of the developing organization. In technology selection literature, the technologies are evaluated from the perspective of the developing organization, but in this research the technologies are evaluated from an industry perspective. Some success factors are not only important for the developing organization, but also important in general and can be used to determine the future success of emerging technologies.
Third, new venture performance literature determines the factors that influence the performance of a new venture. A new venture commercializes new technology products. Most of the emerging technologies are developed in new ventures (Valk et al., 2009). Therefore, success factors mentioned in this literature can also count for emerging technologies.
Success factors belonging to the dimension environment are related to actors outside the developing organization. Actors are all those with interests in an emerging technology, such as the customers, technology suppliers, government agencies, research institutes, environmental groups etc. Actors influence the course of technological development, including its direction (Van den Ende, Mulder, Knot, Moors and Vergragt, 1998). They are the primary determinants of acceptable and unacceptable technology development and are concerned about the effects of the technology development (Coates, 1976). Thus, a technology is shaped by the needs of various actors (Garcia and Bray, 1997). The needs of the actors are often conflicting, for example in embryonic stem cell research. The needs of the actors concerning the technology change during time. For example, currently the needs concerning an electric car are sustainability, liability, safety and costs, but over time the needs can change into modern design and speed (Garcia and Bray, 1997).
The needs of the actors form the success factors that are specific for a particular emerging technology. The emerging technology needs to be assessed on those success factors. Each emerging technology field has to fulfill different needs, thus each technology has different success factors. Therefore, per emerging technology field the actors and their needs regarding the technology need to be identified.
13 success factors are extracted; ET (emerging technology literature), NPD (new product development literature), TS (technology selection literature) and NV (new venture literature).
Table 2.5. Success factors of emerging technologies
Dimension Subdimension Success factors Literature
Organization
Development Process
Structured approach (Cooper and Kleinschmidt 2007; Henard and Szymanski, 2001) NPD
Development risk (Astebro, 2004) TS
Appropriability conditions (Astebro, 2004) TS
Reduced cycle time (time-to-market) (Henard and Szymanski; 2001) NPD
Predevelopment task proficiency (Henard and Szymanski, 2001) NPD
Marketing proficiency (Henard and Szymanski, 2001) NPD
Technological proficiency (Henard and Szymanski, 2001) NPD
Launch proficiency (Henard and Szymanski, 2001) NPD
Market orientation (Henard and Szymanski, 2001) NPD
Customer input (Henard and Szymanski, 2001) NPD
Development team
High-quality new product project teams (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 2007) NPD
Education of team (Galbraith, Ehrlich, DeNoble, 2006) TS
Use of cross-functional project teams (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 2007) NPD
Cross functional integration (Henard and Szymanski, 2001) NPD
Cross functional communication (Henard and Szymanski, 2001) NPD
Management Senior management support (Henard and Szymanski, 2001; Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 2007) NPD Senior management accountability for new product results (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 2007) NDP
Management expertise (Kakati, 2003; Heslop et al., 2001) NPD
Entrepreneur quality (Kakati, 2003; Chrisman, Bauerschmidt, Hofer, 1999; Heslop, 2001) NPD
Strategy New product strategy (Day and Schoemaker, 2000; Henard and Szymanski, 2001; Cooper and Kleinschmidt 2007; Kakati, 2003)
TS
Technological synergy (Henard and Szymanski, 2001; Zirger and Maidique, 1990) TS
Marketing synergy (Henard and Szymanski, 2001; Zirger and Maidique, 1990) ET, NPD, NV
Strategic partnership (Galbraith, Ehrlich, DeNoble, 2006) NPD
Order of entry (Henard and Szymanski, 2001) NPD
Culture Innovative climate and culture (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 2007) NPD
Intellectual openness (Day and Schoemaker, 2000) TS
Ability of the organization to adapt to new technologies (Day and Schoemaker, 2000) ET Resources Dedicated technical resources (Baum and Silverman, 2004) Shehabuddeen, Probert, Phaal, 2006) ET Dedicated R&D resources (Day and Schoemaker, 2000; Henard and Szymanski, 2001; Cooper and Kleinschmidt 2007;
Shehabuddeen, Probert, Phaal, 2006)
ET
Source of primary funding (Galbraith, Ehrlich, DeNoble, 2006) TS
Total amount of external funding (Galbraith, Ehrlich, DeNoble, 2006) TS
Dedicated human resources (Day and Schoemaker, 2000; Henard and Szymanski, 2001; Cooper and Kleinschmidt 2007)
NPD Characteristics
of organization
Number of employees (Galbraith, Ehrlich, DeNoble, 2006) TS
Firm size (Galbraith, Ehrlich, DeNoble, 2006) NPD
Age of the firm (Galbraith, Ehrlich, DeNoble, 2006) TS
Diversification level of firm (Galbraith, Ehrlich, DeNoble, 2006) TS
Technology Product advantage
Product advantage (Henard and Szymanski, 2001; Astebro, 2004) NPD, TS, NV
14
Profit Profitability (Astebro, 2004; Cooper, Edgett and Kleinschmidt, 2002; Henard and Szymanski, 2001; Heslop et al, 2001) NPD, NV
Product price (Henard and Szymanski, 2001; Kakati, 2003) NPD, TS, NV
Technology level
Stage of development (Galbraith, Ehrlich, DeNoble, 2006) NPD, NV
Technology level (Heslop et al., 2001) NPD
Product technological sophistication (Henard and Szymanski, 2001; Kakati, 2003) TS
Product innovativeness (Henard and Szymanski, 2001) TS
Patentable technology (Heslop et al., 2001) TS
Market Market potential
Market potential (size and rate of growth) (Henard and Szymanski, 2001; Zirger and Maidique, 1990; Heslop et al., 2001; Astebro, 2004)
NPD, TS
Marketability (Heslop et al., 2001) TS
Competition Competition (Astebro, 2004; Heslop et al., 2001) TS
Likelihood of competitive response (Henard and Szymanski, 2001) NPD
Competitive response intensity (Henard and Szymanski, 2001) NPD
Acceptability (Astebro, 2004) TS
Effort (Astebro, 2004) TS
Speed to market (Heslop et al., 2001) TS
Nature of
market
Nature of buyers (Chrisman, Bauerschmidt, Hofer, 1999) NV
Nature of suppliers (Chrisman, Bauerschmidt, Hofer, 1999) NV
Industry structure (Chrisman, Bauerschmidt, Hofer, 1999; Heslop et al. 2001) NV, TS Environment Dynamics of
environment
Entrepreneurial activities (Negro and Hekkert, 2008) ET
Knowledge development (Negro and Hekkert, 2008) ET
Knowledge activities (Negro and Hekkert, 2008) ET
Knowledge diffusion through networks (Negro and Hekkert, 2008) ET
Guidance of search (Negro and Hekkert, 2008) ET
Market information (Negro and Hekkert, 2008) ET
Resource mobilization (Negro and Hekkert, 2008) ET
Advocacy coalition (Negro and Hekkert, 2008) ET
Relevance and measurability of the success factors
15
3
Assessment of the future success of emerging technologies
3.1 Introduction
In this chapter technology assessment methods are described and how these models can be used for our method. Further, our method to determine the future success of emerging technologies will be described.
3.2 Technology assessment
‘Technology assessment is a scientific, interactive and communicative process with the aim to contribute to the public and political opinion forming on science and technology related societal aspects, like exploitation of potential, dealing with secondary effects, and technological risks, overcoming problems of legitimacy and technology conflicts’(Bütschi et al., 2004). In scientific literature a lot of variations are used on the term technology assessment, such as technology valuation, technology audit, technology appraisal and technology selection (Tran and Daim, 2008).
Initially technology assessment terminology was meant to refer to public decision making (Park and Park, 2002). The government needs to value technology to be able to make decisions about policy schemes, national R&D programs and subsidies for technology research. The business sector saw in the early stages of technology assessment that the method was also useful for them. They adopted technology assessment as a tool for determining the technological readiness of a technology. The business sector, venture capitalists, consulting firms, and technology brokers need systematic valuation methods for making decisions on investment, licensing, and strategic alliance. The methods applied in the field of technology assessment are as diverse as the field itself. They range from forecasting studies to interventions in stakeholder networks. Methods of technology assessment are cost benefit analysis, impact analysis, scenario analysis, risk assessment, decision analysis and technology roadmapping (Tran and Daim, 2008). See table 3.1 for a short description of these methods.
Table 3.1 Technology assessment methods
Method Description
Cost benefit analysis A technique used in decision making that takes into account the estimated costs to be incurred by a proposed decision and the estimated benefits likely to arise from it (Law and Smullen, 2008).
16 Scenario analysis Method to forecast developments in an industry by using expert opinion to formulate a qualitative view of the future. It should identify major trends and analyse long-term environmental influences (Law, 2009). Risk assessment The consideration of risk in a business, project, or decision. It involves
the identification of risk, the classification of risks in regard to their impact and likelihood, and a consideration of how they might best be managed (Law and Smullen, 2008).
Decision analysis Method to obtain optimal strategies in situations involving a range of alternatives and an uncertain or risky set of outcomes (Moles and Terry, 1997).
Technology roadmapping Method to provide a structured means for exploring and communication the relationships between evolving and developing markets, products and technologies over time (Phaal, Farrukh, Probert, 2004).
Usability of technology assessment methods
All methods described above give insight in part of the future success of a technology. However, an integrated method is needed, that combines those insights. Cost benefit analysis is difficult to use for the assessment of emerging technologies, because the costs and benefits of emerging technologies are uncertain (Day and Schoemaker, 2000). Impact analysis has the same problem, because the impact of emerging technologies can only be determined after they are introduced in the market. Scenario analysis identifies the major trends within the industry. The identification of trends can contribute to the insight of the extent to which the competing technologies within the emerging technology field are following the trends.
Risk assessment identifies the impact and likelihood of a risk. Risk influences the success of a technology. Next to the other analyses is risk analysis difficult to use, because the risk is uncertain of emerging technologies.
Decision analysis is a tool for the management of companies, to help them obtain optimal strategies in situations involving a range of alternatives (Moles and Terry, 1997). The technology selection literature used in chapter 2 belongs to the category of decision analysis literature. Decision analysis is a tool from the perspective of a single company, but in this research the assessment tool needs an industry perspective. The success factors used in decision analysis can be used for the assessment of emerging technologies, see chapter 2.
17 technology development when implications can easily be identified and determined (Fleischer, Decker and Fiedeler, 2005). Technology roadmapping is a methodological solution to assess emerging technologies, because it does not focus on the outcomes or impacts of a technology. In the next paragraph is described the technology roadmapping process and its usability for our method.
3.3 Technology roadmapping
A standard definition of technology roadmapping does not exist. The term is widely used ranging from explaining the graphical representations of technology development paths and their application environments up to detailed descriptions of future technology requirements and research needs. Technology roadmapping shows the relationships between evolving and developing markets, products and technologies over time. The technology roadmapping process provides a tool for selecting which technologies to pursue in what timeframes. Therefore, the tool is widely used within the business sector to support strategic and long-range planning. Many other approaches are closely related to technology roadmapping, such as forecasting, foresight, futures, Delphi, scenario planning, backcasting and other general approaches to technology strategy development (Phaal, et al., 2004).
The advantage of technology roadmapping is the use of a structured framework that shows how the technology can be aligned to product and service developments, business strategy, and market opportunities (Phaal et al., 2004). Another important advantage is that technology roadmapping can be used to assess emerging technologies, because it does not focus on the outcomes or impacts of a technology (Fleischer, Decker and Fiedeler, 2005). Third, technology roadmapping is also a flexible approach, because different types of roadmaps exist in terms of intended purposes and different types of graphical formats (Phaal et al., 2004).
18
3.4 Steps of the technology roadmapping process
In this paragraph the roadmapping process is described, based on the research of Bray and Garcia (1997), see table 3.2 for an overview of the steps of the roadmapping process.
The first phase of the technology roadmapping starts with satisfying essential conditions (step 1). For example, there must be a perceived need for a technology roadmap. Further, sponsorship is needed for the roadmapping process (step 2). Finally, the scope and boundaries for the roadmapping process need to be identified (step 3). The participants must decide what will be roadmapped and what will be the purpose of the roadmap. The process of the preliminary activity is iterative, because the scope of the roadmap evolves over time.
The second phase is the development of the technology roadmap. This phase starts with the identification of the ‘product’ that needs to be roadmapped (step 4). Next, the participants must identify the critical system requirements and their targets (step 5). The critical system requirements provide the overall framework for the roadmap. For example, critical system requirements for an energy-efficient car include reliability, safety, and cost. Thus, the participants in the roadmapping process need to identify the critical system requirements, which are their needs regarding the technology. Further, specification is needed of the major technology areas and technology drivers and their targets (step 6). The next step is the identification of the technologies that need to be developed to meet the critical system requirements (step 7). Further, the technology alternatives and their timelines need to be identified (step 8). The following step is the recommendation of the technology alternatives that should be pursued (step 9). Finally, the technology roadmapping process provides the information needed to make trade-offs among different technology alternatives. The final information is presented in a technology roadmap, which integrates commercial and technological knowledge (Phaal, Farrukh, Probert, 2003). A technology roadmap presents the alternate technology ‘roads’ for meeting certain performance objectives.
The final phase is a follow-up activity. Critique and validation of the technology roadmap is needed to check the correctness of the results (step 10). Based on the recommended technology alternatives an implementation plan can be developed (step 11). Finally, the technology roadmaps should be routinely reviewed and updated (step 12). The review and update of the roadmap is an iterative process.
19
3.5 Usability of the technology roadmapping process for our method
Several steps of the technology roadmapping process are useful for our method to determine the future success of emerging technologies. In table 3.2 is an overview given of the roadmapping process and which steps are useful for our method. In this paragraph is described why the steps are useful or not for our method.
The preliminary activity of the roadmapping process (steps 1,2,3) is useful for our method. Setting the goal of the assessment and setting the scope and boundaries are needed to get a clear impression of the aim of the assessment.
The second phase is the development of the technology roadmap. Some steps of this phase are useful for our method (steps 4,5,8,9). Once the participant(s) have decided what needs to be roadmapped (step 4), they must identify the critical system requirements (step 5). The critical system requirements provide the overall framework for the roadmap. In paragraph 2.4 is described that the needs of the actors needs to be identified, because they influence the success of emerging technologies. Thus, the identification of the needs of the actors is important for our method.
Our method focuses on identifying technologies that are already in development, that is why the specification of the major technology areas (step 6) and technology drivers (step 7) are not useful for our method. In the technology roadmapping process these steps are needed to identify which technologies need to be pursued. However, the identification of technology alternatives (step 8) is useful in our method, because the competing technologies within the emerging technology field need to be identified to assess them on their future success. Based on the analysis technology alternatives are recommended, that should be pursued, this step is also needed in our method (step 9). The final step is the creation of the roadmap itself (10). The technology roadmap identifies alternate technology ‘roads’ for meeting certain performance objectives. The roadmap is not useful for our method, because the end result of our method is the comparison of the competing technologies on their future success.
20
Table 3.2 Technology roadmapping process (Garcia and Bray, 1997)
Step Description of step Usability
Preliminary activity
1 Satisfy essential conditions Yes
2 Provide leadership/sponsorship Yes
3 Define the scope and boundaries for the technology roadmap Yes
Development of the technology roadmap includes:
4 Identify the “product” that will be the focus of the roadmap Yes
5 Identify the critical system requirements and their targets Yes
6 Specify the major technology areas No
7 Specify the technology drivers and their targets No
8 Identify technology alternatives and their time lines Yes
9 Recommend the technology alternatives that should be pursued Yes
10 Create the technology roadmap report Yes
Follow-up activity includes:
11 Critique and validate the roadmap Yes
12 Develop an implementation plan Yes
21
4
Method
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter is described our method to determine the future success of emerging technologies. The steps of the method are based on the technology roadmapping process. See figure 4.1 for an overview of the steps of our method.
4.2 Method
Figure 4.1. Method to determine the future success of emerging technologies
1. Identify the technology field of an emerging technology
22
2. Identify actors
The second step is the identification of the actors that have interest in the emerging technology, for example government agencies, customers, suppliers, developing organizations or environmental groups. The actors can be identified in several ways, by secondary literature research, interviews or personal contacts of the researcher or client. The actors can be clustered when they have in general the same goals, interest, view and power. Clustering enables the researcher to segment a population (Cooper and Schindler, 2003). This clustering is needed to identify the needs per actor group.
3. Identify technologies
The third step is the identification of the technologies within the emerging technology field (Garcia and Bray, 1997). The emerging technologies can be identified by interviews or secondary literature research, such as industry magazines and patent databases. Technologies need to be identified within the scope of the assessment, determined in step 1. The list of identified technologies needs to be consolidated and finally checked by some experts within the technology field.
4. Select actors
The fourth step is the selection of the actors within the emerging technology field. Actors need to be selected from the list of identified actors for two purposes. First, actors need to be selected to identify their needs regarding the emerging technology field. At least one actor needs to be selected per actor group, to get a good impression of all the needs within the technology field. Second, actors need to be selected that are going to be questioned about the selected emerging technologies and developing organizations (step 7 and 8).
5. Select technologies
Technologies need to be selected from the list of identified technologies to assess them on their future success. The researcher needs to determine requirements for the selection of those technologies. The requirements for the selection of those technologies depends on the aim and boundaries of the assessment. For example, technologies can be selected that are developed within the same country. Or technologies can be selected that belong to a sub-technology within the emerging technology field.
6. Determine success factors
In this step the success factors need to be determined that are going to be used to determine the future success of the selected technologies. The success factors are based on scientific literature and the needs of the actors within the emerging technology field.
23 secondary literature research, surveys or interviews. The needs of the actors need to be consolidated in a list.
Second, the needs of the actors and the success factors extracted from scientific literature need to be selected. The selected success factors are going to be used to determine the future success of the selected technologies.
Table 2.5 presents the complete list of 65 success factors that are extracted from scientific literature. However, the entire set of success factors is too large for efficient use in a final method to assess the future success of emerging technologies. An assessment instrument with 65 items is less likely to be used, because of its length and drawing conclusions from such a large number of items is also difficult. A maximum of 30 success factors can be used for our assessment tool. This number makes the scale similar in length to the 30-item protocol used by Cooper (1993) in his NewProd Model which is widely accepted in the private industry.
The success factors are selected based on the requirements relevance and measurability (Cooper & Schindler, 2003). The knowledge gained about the emerging technology field during the previous research steps can be used to select the success factors on relevance and measurability.
Concluding, the selected success factors from scientific literature and selected needs of the actors form the success factors that are going to be used to determine the future success of the selected technologies.
7. Analyze technologies
In this step the selected technologies are assessed on the success factors. Emerging technologies are surrounded by uncertainty; therefore it is difficult to determine the score of emerging technologies on the success factors in a quantitative way. For example, it is difficult to give an accurate figure about the market potential. But it is possible to give an outlook on how the technology scores on the expected market potential; low, medium or high. Based on qualitative research the score of the technologies on the success factors can be determined.
But it is also interesting to know the bottlenecks and the potential of the technology per dimension. For example, why is the expected market potential high? The researcher can give insight in the future success of the technology by explaining its bottlenecks and potential.
With this model can be determined which technology has the biggest likelihood to reach the market by comparing the technologies on their bottlenecks and potential. The technology with the least bottlenecks and the most potential has the biggest likelihood to reach the market.
24 insight on what areas further development is needed. Finally, the prediction of the future success of the technologies can be based on the description of the bottlenecks and potential of the technology.
Each technology is influenced by changes over time, for example the improvement of the technology itself (technology), a higher competitor intensity (market), availability of more R&D resources (organization) or a change in government regulations (environment). These changes influence the future success of an emerging technology. Through these changes bottlenecks and potential can appear or disappear concerning the emerging technology. After a few years the assessment can be repeated and can be investigate which bottlenecks and potential appeared and disappeared concerning the emerging technology. For example when all the competing technologies have a lot of bottlenecks concerning the dimension organization, can be decided to investigate this dimension again and investigate if things changed over time.
In conclusion, the first step is the gathering of information about the technology by survey or interview. The second step is determining the score of the technology on the success factors; high, medium or low. The final step is the description of the most important bottlenecks per dimension; technology, environment and market.
8. Analyze developing organizations
This step is similar to the previous step, but now the developing organizations are assessed on the success factors. The first step is the gathering of information about the organizations, by secondary literature research or interviews. The second step is determining the score of the organizations on the success factors; high, medium or low. The final step is the description of the most important bottlenecks and potential of the organizations.
9. Determine future success of the technologies
25
Iterative process and non iterative process in our method
The first part of our method is, similar to the roadmapping process, an iterative and exploratory process. Because of the uncertainty that surrounds emerging technologies an iterative process is needed (Bray & Garcia, 1997). For example, during the identification of the needs other actors can be identified with similar needs or during the identification of the competing technologies actors can be identified that are connected to an identified technology. But the iteration stops at the selection of the success factors.
The second part of our method is a non-iterative process. During the analysis of the technologies and developing organizations no new success factors can be added, otherwise not all the technologies are assessed on the same success factors. Concluding, the first part is an iterative process (step 1 till 5) and in the second part no iteration takes place (step 6 till 9).
Conclusion
26
5
Methodology
Introduction
The offshore wind turbines support structures field is used as a case study to evaluate our method. The offshore wind turbine support structure has the function to support the wind turbine at sea. Offshore wind turbine support structures are referred to as the entire sub-structure, from below seabed level to above the splash zone (LeBlanc, 2004). Offshore wind energy is an emerging technology field. In the past wind farms were only build on land. By the development of new technologies and by the convergence of existing technologies, wind farms can be build in the sea. A new market is created. Currently, a lot of different types of support structures are developed within the technology field. Thus, a lot of competing technologies can be compared within this case study.
The purpose of this case study is a descriptive study to find out the who, what, when or how much of the method. A single well-designed case study can provide a major challenge to a theory and provide a source of new hypotheses and constructs simultaneously (Cooper and Schindler, 1993). The case study of the offshore wind turbine support structures is carried out once and represents a snapshot of one point in time. In this chapter is described per step of the method how it is applied to determine the future success of offshore wind turbine support structures.
1. Identify the emerging technology field
The technology field of the offshore wind turbine support structures are indentified by secondary literature research, scientific literature, company websites and industry magazines.
2. Identify actors
27 Telephone interviews are used, because they have the fastest completion time compared to personal interviews and surveys, expanded geographic coverage without dramatic increase in costs and better access to hard-to-reach respondents through repeated call backs (Cooper and Schindler, 2003). Disadvantages of telephone interviews are lower response rates than for personal interviewing, but the use of call backs can improve the response rate. Another disadvantage is the limited length of the interview, in this case the interview was not long, and therefore a telephone interview was possible. Finally, a disadvantage is that responses may be less complete; this has to be taken into account when analyzing the results of the interview.
Further, the list of actors are consolidated. Finally the actors are clustered when they have in general the same goals, interest, view and power. Clustering enables the researcher to segment a population (Cooper and Schindler, 2003).
3. Identify technologies
The technologies within the emerging technology field are identified by secondary literature research and interviews. Sources of secondary literature research are industry magazines and company websites. The development of new technologies is not always published; therefore telephone interviews are used to identify competing technologies. The actors indentified in step 1 are asked to identify different types of offshore wind turbine support structures.
4. Select actors
The actors need to be selected that are going to be interviewed about their needs regarding the emerging technology field. The actors are selected on the following principles:
- The actor needs to be active in the Netherlands - The power of the actor within the technology field - One actor can be selected per actor group
- The actor is known by the sponsor of the research
5. Select technologies
The technologies and also the related developing organisations need to be selected that are going to be assessed on their future success. The technologies are selected on the following principles:
- The technology has not entered the market
- The technology can be used in the Dutch North Sea
28
6. Determine success factors
The first step is the identification of the needs of the actors within the emerging technology field. With secondary literature research only needs are found that are already expressed by the actors within the emerging technology field. A survey or interview can also identify needs that are not expressed before. For the identification of needs are semi-structured interviews used. Semi-structured interviews can be steered, because the subjects are specific. Upfront questions are made to investigate the specific needs of the actors. The needs of the actors can be classified into economic, technical, environmental, social and political needs (Nelms, Russell and Lence, 2005). The interview questions are based on this classification. The aim of the semi-structured interviews will be to identify the actual needs of the actors. The questions will be a guideline for the researcher. When it is necessary, the researcher can go more in detail on the answers of the interviewees. Finally, the needs of the actors are consolidated in a list.
The second step is the selection of the success factors. The success factors extracted from scientific literature and the needs of the actors need to be relevant and measurable and result in the success factors that can be used for the assessment of the competing technologies on their future success.
The relevance of the success factors is related to the importance of the success factors for the actors. For example, in space science technology, reliability is more important, than in agricultural technology. When sustainability is important for the actors in the technology field, it should be included as a success factor in the assessment. Relevance is measured by the frequency the factor is mentioned by the actors within the technology field.
Second, some success factors are difficult to do research on within this research format. First, this research is an exploratory and descriptive research. This research format is limited by its scope and depth. It is for example difficult for an external researcher to determine the innovative climate and culture within the organization with one interview. Second, some success factors can only be measured after the introduction of the technology to the market, such as the speed to market and product price; therefore these factors cannot be used. Thus, the success factors need to be selected on their measurability.
The selection of the success factors is based on the following requirements:
The success factors need to be: 1. relevant
29 Based on these requirements a list is made of the success factors extracted from scientific literature. These can be used as success factors in the assessment, see appendix II. The selection of the success factors based on the needs of the actors can be done with the same requirements. The identification of the needs of the actors within the emerging technology field is required before the selection of the success factors.
7. Analyze the technologies
In this step the technologies are assessed on the success factors. The first step is the formulation of interview questions. The interview questions are formulated on basis of the success factors. Interviews will be held with experts within the technology field. In-depth interviews are used, because it encourages participants to share as much information as possible in an unconstrained environment (Cooper and Schindler, 1993). In this case it is a more focused in-depth interview. Thus, the researcher can provide guidance by using a set of questions to promote discussion and elaboration by the participant. The researcher can guide the topical direction and coverage of the success factors. Unstructured questions are used, because they do not limit responses, but do provide a frame of reference for participants’ answers. A case study benefits from an unstructured approach, because a substantial portion of the questioning would be unique to each participant.
In total ten experts are interviewed, five interviews with developing organizations and five interviews with other parties, such as utilities, producers and universities. The other parties are interviewed to get a more objective view about the technologies. See appendix IX for an overview of the interviewees. Based on the answers of the interviewees the score of the technology on the success factors can be determined. Because the emerging technologies are surrounded by a lot of uncertainty the score is expressed in the three categories; high, medium, low. Based on the answers of the interviewees the potential and bottlenecks per dimension can be described.
8. Analyze developing organizations
30 Technology X
9. Determine the future success of the technologies
Based on the analysis of step 7 and step 8 the future success of the competing technologies can be determined. A graphical overview is used to get an overview of the future success of the technology, see figure 5.1. With the graphical overview the score of the dimension can be showed. Each dimension can get a high (green), medium (orange) or low (red) score on the likelihood to reach the market. The colour of the dimension is determined by the score of the technology on the success factors. The score on the dimension is determined by counting the number of high (H), medium (M) and low (L) scores. For example, when the overall score is high it gets the colour green and when the technology scores equally medium and low on the dimension it gets the colour orange.
Concluding, the graphical overview summarizes the results of the analysis. In one view can be concluded which technology has the biggest likelihood to reach the market. The technology that is mostly coloured green has the biggest likelihood to reach the market.
Figure 5.1 Example of the graphical overview of the future success of technology X.
Technology Organization
31
6
Case study: Offshore wind turbine support structures
6.1 Identify the emerging technology field
The technology field that is central in this case study is the offshore wind energy field. Figure 6.1 gives a short introduction about offshore wind farms. Within the field of offshore wind energy the subfield of offshore wind turbine support structures are assessed in this case study. The case study is restricted for the usage of offshore wind turbine support structures in the Dutch North Sea. The offshore wind energy sector is an international game, with a lot off international players, such as utilities and wind turbine manufacturers. For this assessment only parties are included that are active in the Netherlands, both foreign and local parties.
Figure 6.1. Overview of an offshore wind farm
32 6.1.1 Offshore wind energy
The offshore wind energy sector is a new sector. In the early nineties the first ‘semi offshore wind farms worldwide were build in the Netherlands. The first offshore wind farms were based on the knowledge parties gained by the development of onshore wind farms. These wind farms were
basically onshore wind farms built in the sea. However, optimal offshore wind energy technologies are expected to differ from their onshore counterpart. The circumstances at sea require different
technologies. Also, economies of scales require different technologies; wind turbines become larger and wind farm size increases.
Offshore wind energy is more expensive than onshore wind, due to higher investments and installation costs, more expensive electrical cabling and higher operation and maintenance costs. Cheaper
technologies are needed to make offshore wind energy economically feasible without government support. At this moment worldwide a lot of parties are developing new technologies for the offshore wind energy sector, such as wind turbines, support structures and installation ships.
Currently, all the countries situated near the North Sea and Baltic Sea are active in the offshore wind energy sector; Sweden, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, United Kingdom and Ireland. The offshore wind energy sector is also under development in the United States and China, but no offshore wind farms have been built in these countries as yet. In Europe most operational offshore wind farms are situated in Denmark (427 MW) and the United Kingdom (598 MW) as of January 2009. Especially the United Kingdom and Germany have a lot of wind farms under construction and proposed projects. Currently, the installed offshore wind energy capacity is 1 percent of the global total installed wind capacity. The amount of commissioned offshore wind capacity in Europe will continue to grow, and is expected to reach a level of 2 GW in 2010, 15 GW in 2015 and 35-40 GW in 20201.
6.1.2 Offshore wind energy in the Netherlands
Currently, two offshore wind turbine farms have been built in the Dutch North Sea, with the total power of 228 MW; the OWEZ wind farm off the coast of Egmond with a total installed power of 108 MW (36 turbines of 3 MW each) and the Princess Amalia wind farm off the coast of Ijmuiden with a total power of 120 MW (60 turbines of 2 MW each). The Dutch government has a target of 6.000 MW wind energy at sea by 2020. As part of the economic crisis plans the Dutch government doubled the available subsidy in 2009/2010 for offshore wind projects from 450 MW to 950 MW. In the past years the Dutch government regulations regarding offshore wind energy changed a lot. Because of the changing government regulations the Dutch offshore wind energy sector is lagging behind compared with other European countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany and Belgium.
1
33 In the latest licensing round for offshore wind farms in the Dutch North Sea 20 applications for
offshore wind farms were submitted. The Dutch government approved 11 of these applications, and rejected the other 9. The most common reasons for the rejection of the wind farms were the
disturbance of the habitat of birds and fish and the negative influence of the wind farms on shipping lanes and helicopter flight routes. The 11 approved projects will now go through a tender procedure for the 950 MW available subsidy. Likely, around 3 wind farms will eventually receive subsidy and be built in this round.
For further rounds of development, the Dutch government has identified preferred areas for offshore wind energy in the Dutch North Sea. The circumstances of these preferred areas influence the decision about which offshore wind turbine support structure will be used. The preferred areas have a
maximum water depth of 30 metres. Further, the Dutch government has indentified search areas in the Dutch North Sea for building wind farms after 2020. These search areas are situated further from the coast and their water depth ranges from 30 to 50 metres. See appendix VI for the ‘Nationaal
Waterplan’, this map indicates the designated preferred areas and search areas.
6.1.3 Offshore wind turbine support structures
In the sea different circumstances are present, these circumstances are influencing the offshore wind farm. Variance exists in the following circumstances: water depth, soil conditions and weather conditions. These circumstances require different offshore wind turbine technologies, such as wind turbine support structures. For example, a near shore site with a rocky soil conditions requires another type of support structure than a far offshore site with clay conditions. Mainly these circumstances determine which support structure type can be applied. See appendix VII for the water depth of the Dutch North Sea and appendix VIII for the soil conditions of the Dutch North Sea.
Also, the turbine weight influences the decision to use an offshore wind turbine support structure. In the past wind turbines became bigger and bigger. The increase of the weight of wind turbines slowed down the last years; this can indicate that the increase of the weight of wind turbines will stop in the future. Finally, the decision to use an offshore wind turbine depends on its costs. The total costs of the support structure and installation for an average offshore wind farm are 25% of the total costs2. Based on the interviews with experts within the field can be concluded that the offshore wind turbine support structures market is price competitive. In most cases of offshore wind farm development a tender is used to decide which type of offshore wind turbine support structure will be used. A lot of different types of support structures compete with each other on these tenders.
2
34 6.1.4 Development of an offshore wind farm
The development of an offshore wind farm has influence on offshore wind turbine support structures. The offshore wind turbine support structure is part of the wind farm. The support structure needs to be fitted in the overall development process. The development process of an offshore wind farms consists of several steps. The process starts with the permission process, to get a permit for a wind farm. The circumstances of the wind site influence the engineering process, for the detailed steps of the engineering and permission process, see figure 6.3. After the engineering process the technologies, such as the tower and support structure need to be manufactured and assembled. The third phase is the transportation of the technologies to the location. After the transportation the wind turbine can be installed. Commissioning of the wind farm is making the wind turbine ready to work, such as connecting the wind farm to the grid. During the operation of the wind farm maintenance is needed, preventive maintenance and responsive maintenance. Finally, when the economical life time of the wind turbine is finished the wind turbine needs to be broken down or be repowered. In figure 6.2 an overview is given of the steps during wind farm development.
Figure 6.2 Development of a wind farm
Figure 6.3 Engineering and permission process
6.2 Identify actors
35 Table 6.1 Actor groups with interests in the offshore wind energy sector
Actor groups
1. Research institutes 8. Banks 15. Credit export agencies 2. Universities 9. Insurance companies 16. Shipping sector 3. Consultancy firms 10. Manufacturing firms 17. Fishing sector 4. Engineering firms 11. Transportation firms 18. Tourism sector 5. Utilities 12. Installation firms 19. Military sector 6. Project developers/owners 13. Environmental groups 20. Extraction of sand 7. Wind turbine suppliers 14. Government agencies 21. Citizens
6.3 Identify technologies
A lot of different types of offshore wind turbine support structures are developed for offshore wind turbines. An offshore wind turbine support structure consists of two parts the foundation and the substructure. The foundation is the way how the support structure is connected to the seabed. Foundation types are the monopile, gravity based system, suction bucket and anchors. The substructure is the part that connects the foundation with the wind turbine. Substructure types are the tube, tripod, jacket and floater. Many combinations are possible between these foundations and substructures. In practice many of the same combinations are used.
The most used combinations are (a) gravity based system, (b) monopile (c) suction bucket, (d) jacket, (e) tripod and (f) floating structures, see figure 6.4.
