Abstract
Preface
Preface
This thesis forms the conclusion of my study Technology Management at the University of Groningen. The last eight months I performed a research on disruptive space technologies and devised a method of forecasting them. I would like to extend my gratitude to a number of people for their help and support during the realization of this thesis. First of, I would like to thank everyone at the DLR institute in Bremen for the great months I had during my master thesis. I never encountered an organization in which such high collegiality and professional work style are combined. The help and friendship of my colleagues motivated and supported me in writing this thesis. My special thanks go out to my supervisor at DLR, Dipl. ‐Ing Daniel Schubert. Daniel has inspired me with his creative management style and his seemingly endless enthusiasm. Additionally I would like to thank Dr. Marco Guglielmi, the Head of Technology Strategy Section at ESA for providing me with insights and guidance throughout my thesis work. This help was really invaluable and provided me with much of the basics of the market dynamics of the space sector and its technology evolution.
In addition, I would like to thank my university supervisor, Dr. Gwenny Ruël for her guidance, patience and useful insights on my thesis. I also would like to name Dr. Niels Faber and Ing Volker Maiwald for providing very useful feedbacks on my thesis. And last, but definitely not least, I would like to thank my family and friends for supporting me in writing my thesis. My special thanks go out to my parents and my girlfriend Lena. Their support and listening ears helped me understand my own thesis better even though they sometimes had no clue on what I was talking about.
Bremen, June 2010
List of tables and figures Chapter 7: Example of method usage ... 51 7.1 Identify potential disruptive space technology concepts for the technology domain and purpose ... 51 7.2 Determine the perceived performance mix ... 52 7.3 Selection of experts... 52 7.4 Delphi method... 52 7.5 Scoring matrix... 52 7.6 Forecast ... 52 Chapter: 8 Conclusions and recommendations ... 54 8.1 Conclusions ... 54 8.2 Limitations and recommendations for further research ... 55 8.3 Reflection on research... 55 References ... 56 Annex index... 62 Annex 1: Aerospace & Defense Icons of innovation ... 63 Annex 2: Decision making tool for the Tender Evaluation Board... 64 Annex 3: Disruption example of cameras... 65 Annex 4: Technology domains from ESA technology tree version 2.1... 67 Annex 5: Propulsion... 72
Annex 6: Workshop on propulsion criteria ... 74
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 1: Introduction
The research documented in this thesis was conducted at the institute of space systems see Figure 1, of the German Aerospace Center (DRL), Germany’s national research centre for aeronautics and space. It was carried out within the section of Evaluation and Costs (EVACO) of the System Analysis Space Segment (SARA) department of this institute and constitutes the final requirements of the study Technology Management at the University of Groningen. The subject of this research is imbedded in the DLR's survey of disruptive technologies as depicted in Figure 2.
• Space Sector Analysis • Spacecraft System Categorization • Standard Technology Review • Method Review • Criteria Definition • Method Development • Search Strategy Development • DST Markets Identification • Technology Scan • DST Investigation • DST ‐ Standard Technology Comparison • Roadmap Development Space System Analysis Evaluation Method Broadcast Scan Technology Evaluation Start End
• Space Sector Analysis • Spacecraft System Categorization • Standard Technology Review • Method Review • Criteria Definition • Method Development • Search Strategy Development • DST Markets Identification • Technology Scan • DST Investigation • DST ‐ Standard Technology Comparison • Roadmap Development Space System Analysis Evaluation Method Broadcast Scan Technology Evaluation Start End Figure 2: Involvement of thesis within the disruptive technology survey (DLR, 2010)
Development of space technologies in the European space sector have resulted in many advantages for its citizens in the form of: weather data, knowledge of our universe, understanding of Earth and its environment, global positioning for transport methods, long distance communication etc. The European space sector is working continuously to improve these space technologies. However, because of budget constraints, only a small part of the developed technology concepts can be invested in. These technologies are usually incremental innovations on the dominant technology, which means that they only constitute small improvements in the performance of a technology. This tendency to lean to incremental innovations can be seen in the lack of major improvements in Annex 1, the historical data of launch costs and the number of launches. An opposite of these incremental innovations are radical innovations and disruptive technologies, which significantly improve upon the performance of a dominant technology and are so fundamentally different that they can be seen as a new technology within the same technology domain. To promote these technologies, this thesis describes the construction of a forecasting method which evaluates the potential for disruptiveness of space technology concepts. It does this by first defining what disruptive technologies with respect to the space sector are, determining the criteria that indicate a technology’s potential for disruptiveness and finally constructing a method that can evaluate concepts for this potential in order to make a forecast. Some examples of these disruptive technologies for space (or as called in this thesis: Disruptive Space Technologies) can be found in Figure 3. Disruptiveness in this research is defined as the size of an
changes the way people have been dealing with something”. As explained before, this research will document on what these disruptive technologies are for the space sector, which has alternate market dynamics than the terrestrial market. Figure 3: Possible disruptive space technologies (DLR, 2010)
Carbon Nanotubes for Advanced Structures Micro Thrusters „plant-on-a-chip“
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Research methodology
This section will elaborate on the methodology used throughout this research. The problem formulated by the DLR was: There is no method or tool to evaluate technology concepts on their potential for disruptiveness, which
leads to a lower amount of disruptive technologies investments, with the resulting loss of major improvements in the market. Because of this, the system under consideration is the investment selection process of space
technologies in the European space sector. The tool ESA (which does the majority of investments in technology for the European space sector) currently uses is illustrated in Annex 2. The problem of a low amount of disruptive technologies in the space sector is diminishing the effectiveness and efficiency of the space sector as a whole, because more breakthrough innovations could lead to new possibilities (effectiveness) or cost reductions (efficiency). This research has a system analysis nature and the fit within this methodology is illustrated in the blue field in Figure 4. ESA and the European Union have set the identification of disruptive technologies as a technology objective (which is part of the space policy) for the future years: “Foster innovation
in architectures of space systems, identification of disruptive technologies and development of new concepts” (ESA , 2008) This shows that the lack of a tool for evaluation and forecasting of disruptive technologies in space
is indeed a functional, real problem as perceived by ESA and the European Union.
This leads to the following research question:
What are Disruptive Space Technologies and what forecasting method can be used to evaluate a space technology concept’s potential for disruptiveness, so that investments can increase in these technologies? And the following research goal: The research goal is to develop a forecasting method based on theory and empirical data, with the purpose of evaluating technology concepts with respect to their disruptive potential towards in the space sector, in order to increase the investments in disruptive space technologies. With the resulting problem definition: When selecting new technologies to invest in, the European space sector does not have an evaluation method to base its investment decisions on, which leads to a lower amount of developed disruptive space technologies which in turn limits the effectively and efficiency of the European space sector.
1.2 Research layout
To understand what the indicators of disruptive space technologies are, a definition will be given, in the light of the innovation theory and the disruptive technologies theory, in Chapter 2. After setting this definition, indicators that differentiate them from regular technology concepts are elaborated. These indicators will be transformed into criteria, which technology concepts can be evaluated upon. These criteria will be used in a scoring matrix which is part of a six step method which evaluates technology concepts on their potential for disruptiveness. This method will measure the potential for disruptiveness based on its inherent characteristics and its environment (e.g. relations to other technologies and the market). When several potentially disruptive space technology concepts in a certain technology domain have been evaluated, a forecast can be made about this domains future. The criteria for disruptiveness will be divided in categories according to the three long term forecasting signals of Strong et al (2009). These categories are chosen because of their forecasting horizon and their fit with the existing innovation literature. The forecasting signals of Strong et al (2009) with examples of their applicability in space are:
Measurement of interest: Method of determining the interest of customers in a mix of performance attributes of a technology.
Example: Mass, dimension, life time and efficiency are examples of performance attributes for solar panels. An important aspect for these attributes is that they are perceived as valuable by the customers. In this research this is called the perceived performance mix.
Chapter 1: Introduction
For example: The point where one space technology surpasses another technology by developing faster along valued attributes than the dominant technology. Vision: Factors that influence the long term future of the European space sector and through these causes a change in the perceived performance mix. Example: Space could transform into a commercial sector in the future.
The measurement of interest signals are researched in the perceived performance mix in Chapter 3. The
signpost signals will be elaborated in the disruptive space technology evolution chapter which is Chapter 4. The
next chapter, number 5, contains the European' space sector's future which will constitute the Vision signals. Once the different criteria that influence these categories are identified, a method can be constructed to evaluate the potential disruptiveness of a technology, this will be done in Chapter 6. This method will then be verified for its applicability by using an example forecast in Chapter 7. Eventually the conclusion of this research and recommendations to further research will be given in Chapter 8.
1.3 Conceptual model
According to Vanston (2003); “A forecast is valuable and successful if the decisions (which are based on the
forecast) result in a better outcome than would have occurred in the absence of the forecast.” Outcome within
the context of this thesis is the state of the European space sector. Therefore it is assumed that an accurate forecasting method of the potential disruptiveness of a new technology concept will lead to an increased percentage of disruptive and thus effective and efficient technologies in the European sector. The conceptual model is illustrated in Figure 5.
In the next section, the different variables in the research scope of the model and the method of measuring them will be elaborated: Theory of Disruptive Space Technologies The theory of disruptive technologies, first introduced by Bower & Christensen (1995), explains the evolution of a technology that disrupts the status quo of both a dominant technology and a competitive market layout. It does this by having an alternate performance mix which is perceived as more valuable by the customer than the dominant technology. For space this theory cannot completely be used because of different market dynamics. Because of this, a new theory of disruptive space technologies will be constructed. This will be done by first analyzing the current innovation literature (with the subset of disruptive technology). The method for this analysis will be literature review. After this, an empirical analysis of the differences between the regular market and the space sector dynamics will indicate the problems or shortcomings of the innovations theory usage for the space sector. The method for doing this analysis will be interviews with innovation authorities within the European space sector. Based on the innovation literature and the differences in the market dynamics, a new theory of disruptive space technologies will be constructed.
The performance characteristics
In this part a method will be elaborated which can measure the perceived performance mix. This method will be based on the researchers experience gained from hosting a workshop for space engineers, in which they propose a perceived performance mix for a certain technology domain and a proposed purpose (mission).
Disruptive space technology evolution
What can the life cycle analogy theory tell us about indicating disruptiveness within the evolution of technologies? This set of criteria will determine what characteristics of evolution can indicate disruptiveness in a technology. The method used for this is the S‐Curves life cycle analogy tool, as determined by Beer (1981). This part will use an empirical analysis of the evolution of space technologies to make predictions about future evolutions.
European space sector’s future
Chapter 1: Introduction
The potential disruptiveness of a concept will be evaluated using a concept scoring matrix and criteria researched in the indicators above. The matrix for measuring the potential disruptiveness of space technology concepts will be adapted from the concept scoring matrix of Ulrich & Eppinger (2003). In this matrix one or several technology concepts are compared to a reference technology, or in this case a dominant technology in the market. A method for gathering the data for the matrix will be created, with a corresponding method to increase accuracy and decrease bias in the method. This method will then be tested on an example technology domain to verify its functionality.
1.4 Research questions
To answer the main research question, the following sub‐questions in relation to the conceptual model will be answered: 1 What are disruptive technologies in the space sector and how do they differ with the innovation and disruptive technologies theories for the business literature? (answered in Chapter 2) 2 According to which method, can the future perceived performance mix of a technology be determined? (answered in Chapter 3) 3 How can criteria predict a disruptive space technology according to the technology evolution theory? (answered in Chapter 4) 4 What factors influence the future of technology development in the European space sector and how can these be measured using criteria? (answered in Chapter 5) 5 What method can be used best to accurately evaluate a space technology concept for its disruptive potential? (answered in Chapter 6) 6 How does the method work, when tested on an example? (answered in Chapter 7)1.5 Scope and relevance of the research
Chapter 2: Theory
“Basic research is what I am doing when I do not know what I am doing.”
‐ Dr. Wernher von Braun US (German‐born) rocket engineer
This chapter will extensively elaborate what disruptive technologies for the space sector are and what their relation to other forms of innovation is. This is done because even though the theory of disruptive technologies is well described in literature by Adner (2002), Andrews (2005), Bower (1995) and Carayannis (2003), disruptive space technologies as a theory is a new concept. The main reason why disruptive technologies and disruptive space technologies differ is because the European space sector has a unique market dynamic, which differs fundamentally from the normal competitive market. According to Summerer (2009) this is partly caused by: “a
risk‐adverse culture in the space sector, which leaves only a small margin of freedom for testing innovations in subsystems not strictly needed for achieving mission success”. This will be further explained in the section on
disruptive space technologies. This chapter first provides an overview on the basic aspects of technology and innovation. Secondly, it will provide an overview of what disruptive technologies according to literature are and eventually explain what, in light of previous theories and differences in market dynamics, disruptive space technologies are. This will answer the first research sub question: What are disruptive technologies in the space
sector and how do they differ with the innovation and disruptive technologies theories for the business literature?
2.1
Technology
Nowadays the word technology is often associated with complicated machines, consumer electronics or software. However the word in ancient Greek Technología (Wikipedia, 2010) has a broader meaning. The words translation is basically twofold: Techno which is a craft and Logía which means the knowledge of a discipline. The Merrian‐Webster Dictionary (2010) has the following definition of technology, which will also apply to this research: “Technology is the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area.”
Chapter 2: Theory
2.2
Innovation
Innovation is often seen as doing something in a different way or as a successful exploration of new ideas. Innovation is a word derived from the Latin word Innovare and means according to Tidd et al. (2005, 66): “to make something new”. This research will adopt the definition given by Ayres (1969): “Innovation, the introduction or application of a new idea or invention”. It is important to note, because of a common misconception, that innovation is fundamentally different from invention. The typical distinction between an invention and an innovation is that an invention is a manifested idea and innovation is a successfully applied idea. Ergo, even the best invention has no economic value, if it can not be turned into an innovation. Supporting this is the following quote from Roberts (1989): “Innovation =
invention + exploitation”
Innovations can be classified according to their type, their novelty and their evolution over time. These three distinctions will be elaborated in the next sections. These distinctions will serve as classifications for the new disruptive space technology definition as this is also a form of innovation.
2.2.1 Innovation types
According to Francis (2005) innovations can be classified into four broad types called the 4p’s of innovation. These 4p’s and their examples when applied to space are:
Product innovation – Improvements in the products of services which an organization offers. Example: A new propulsion system which allows for more efficient space flight.
Process innovation – Improvements in the way products or service are created and/or delivered. Example: Concurrent Engineering, Simulation, Model Based Development and Verification, Virtual Prototyping
Position innovation – Improvements in the context in which the product or services are introduced. Example: A space organization is turning from doing science missions to performing commercial launches of communication satellites.
Paradigm innovation – Improvements in the underlying mental models which state what the organization does. Example: A paradigm change from expanding human frontiers (exploration of stellar bodies like the moon) to improving human life (satellites monitoring the environment or the global positioning system)
Zone 2: Zone 3: Modular Radical Innovation Innovation Zone 1: Zone 4: Incremental Architectual Innovation Innovation Unchanged Changed
Links between knowledge elements
Co re i n n o v a ti o n c o n ce p ts Overturned Reinforced Figure 6: Tidd’s (2005) wheel on the 4P’s of Francis (2005)
2.2.2 Degree of Novelty in innovation
The next group of innovation types focuses on the impact of an innovation on the market. After an exploratory research in the theory of innovation, the conclusion was made that multiple taxonomies for innovation categories were used: “As the vocabulary used to describe innovation has grown and evolved, scholars naturallygenerate multiple taxonomies which are at times overlapping, redundant, or divergent.” (Carayannis et al. 2003,
Chapter 2: Theory
According to Henderson & Clark (1990), the novelty framework divides the innovation types across two axes: the core innovation concepts and the links between knowledge elements. The core innovation concepts deal with the degree of novelty in sub parts of a technology or process. These can either be reinforced or overturned which respectively means: improved or kept the same and radically changed or innovated. The links between knowledge elements mean innovations in the overall system area such as the structure but not the sub parts itself. These can be unchanged or changed (innovated). As stated earlier, the zones indicate the different possible impacts of innovations. The zones and some examples with respect to microprocessors are elaborated next.
Zone 1:
Contains incremental innovation, these innovations are the most common innovations as they improve upon already existing products in existing markets. These innovations also generally generate the largest income for a company (Banbury and Mitchell, 1995). Incremental innovations are usually used to stay with or get ahead of the competitors. Leifer et al. (2000) describe an incremental innovation as the exploitation of a technology. An example of the successful application of this is in the field of microprocessors. Incremental innovations pushed the processor speed of the Intel Pentium I from 60 MHZ to 300 MHZ. This increase in performance was caused by small changes and improvements in the product.
Zone 2:
Contains modular innovation, where only a part of a product or service is completely innovated. For the example of microprocessors, this could be the usage of a new socket, but also a new processor itself could be a modular innovation as viewed from the entire computer. The classification of a modular innovation therefore depends on the level of aggregation used to look at the innovation.
Zone 3:
The third zone contains the highest amount of terms which all have similar meanings. In this research we will use the term radical innovation. Leifer et al. (2000) describe a radical innovation as the exploration of a new technology. Radical innovation is a form of innovation which is the hardest to reach. It means the creation of a product according to a new architecture and of some or all the modules. Even though the development of a radical innovation might take substantial amounts of time and money, it usually offers the biggest payback. An example of processors could be the creation of an electronic quantum processor which is a completely new technology based on a new architecture and modules.
Zone 4:
level. Because of this, an architectural innovation can also be seen as a radical innovation in the architecture.
The framework of 4Ps can be used in classifying disruptive space technologies. Usually disruptive space technology represents a significant improvement in either or both of the axes. Therefore we can state that a disruptive technology can be a modular, architectural or radical innovation but not incremental as this can not be disruptive. The distinction between modular, architectural or radical innovation is not that important because of the before mentioned aggregation level, therefore the term of radical innovations applies to disruptive space technologies.
2.2.3 Innovation evolution
Eventually every innovation, once it has been exploited, will evolve from a radical innovation to a innovation that needs incremental innovations to continually increase performance. This evolution of innovation within one technology can be classified into three phases, identified in the Model from Abernathy & Utterback (1978):
o Fluid phase o Transitional phase o Specific phase
Chapter 2: Theory
makes slow progress in performance, because the technology is not well known and may not attract the attention of other researchers. Also certain obstacles must be resolved so that a new technology can be translated into practical and meaningful improvements in a product.
The transitional phase is the phase where the new technology crosses a threshold after which it makes rapid progress (resulting from combined, accumulated research effort). This stimulates the research on the new technology, which in turn leads to rapid improvements in its performance. Its main opportunities for innovation are modular and architectural innovations, and these innovations are also its biggest threats.
The specific phase comes after a period of rapid improvement in performance. The new technology reaches a period of maturation after which improvements in performance occur slowly until it reaches a certain level. Sahal et al. (1982) proposes that the rate of improvement in performance of a given technology declines because of limits of scale (e.g. things become either impossibly large or small) or system complexity (e.g. things become too complex to work perfectly). When these limits are reached, the only way to maintain the pace of performance increase is through radical/disruptive system redefinition. In this phase a technology has the highest chance of becoming replaced by a radical innovation or a disruptive technology.
It is important to note that S‐Curves have one major drawback: they can measure only one performance dimension (Sood & Tellis 2005). This is usually the primary performance value on which a technology is measured on (like efficiency with solar panels). However, the consequence is often a blind sightedness to other important attributes (like life time and mass in the case of solar panels). Therefore we propose to use the theories of S‐Curves in further applications only as an illustration method in light of their perceived performance mix.
2.2.3.1 Perceived performance mix
Companies marketing technologies always try to follow the demand of the customer they try to serve. The demand or requirements for performance of technologies differs with every customer. In marketing literature this heterogeneity in customer demand is called customer‐perceived value (Yang, 2004). In this research we are trying to determine the broad performance of a technology as stated by a mix of performance attributes like cost, speed, mass, efficiency etc. Therefore we implement a new concept of perceived performance mix which is the performance mix as perceived valuable by a part of the market, or a market niche.
Figure 9: The different S‐curves in innovation by Sawaguchi (2009)
A method of illustrating the perceived performance is by using a radar chart, as this can show which performance attributes are perceived as valuable by the customer. A change of perceived performance mix over time is illustrated in Figure 10. In this example the change of the perceived performance mix sparked the disruption in the portable player market.
Figure 10: The perceived performance in portable music player in the Discman era (1984‐2000, left) and the Ipod era (1998‐present, right)
In this research a disruptive space technology is defined as a technology which performs better on the perceived performance mix than a dominant technology, whether it changes or not.
2.3.1 Theory of disruptive technologies by Christensen (1997)
A disruptive technology is an exception to the radical / incremental innovations theory, which Christensen (2002) classifies as sustaining innovations. He does so because they continue serving the same customers with the intention to sustain their position in the market. An alternate to these Sustaining innovations are disruptive technologies, which are technologies that disrupt the market of existing technologies exploited by incumbent companies. In practical terms this means that incumbent companies exploiting a dominant technology are being replaced (disrupted) by new entrants exploiting a new technology (Carayannopoulo, 2009). Also supporting this is a quote from Tellis (2006): “The disruption of incumbents—if and when it occurs—is due not to technological innovation per se but rather to incumbents’ lack of vision of the mass market and an unwillingness to [redirect] assets to serve that market.” Compared to the innovations in the previous paragraphs disruptive technologies
are therefore based on the disruptions of companies on the market and not products or services. Disruptive technologies are part of the Threat of new entrants and Threat of substitute products or services forces in the market in the five forces model of Porter (2008) shown in Figure 12. Because Porter’s model (Original from, 1980) is a model to asses the external forces threatening the survival of a company, the consequences of disruptive technologies to incumbents can be quite severe.
Figure 12: Porter (2008, 4) five forces model
Table 1: Examples of disruptive technologies
Example 1 2 3
Dominant technology Playstation Discman Mini computers
Incumbant Sony Sony Sun
Disruptive technology Wii Ipod Personal computer
(New) entrant Nintendo Apple IBM
Disruptive attribute Motion control Shockless music, high storage Cheap, for everyone
Example 4 5 6
Dominant technology Integrated steel mill Compact Cassette Telephone
Incumbant United states steel corporation Phillips T‐Home
Disruptive technology Mini mills Compact Disk Voip
(New) entrant Nucor Sony Skype
Disruptive attribute Cheaper, lower investment costs Higher quality, data storage Cheaper, more options
2.3.2 Theory of disruptive technologies by Adner (2002)
When a technology emerges, the technology is valued by the customers mainly on its most critical performance value (Adner, 2002). Over time however, when the initial basic functionality or functional threshold is reached, the perceived performance mix of the technology starts to change. This is because, even though a customer still appreciates a performance gain on the critical performance, they do not want to make concessions to other performance attributes like cost. In other words: they do not like to pay for something they do not need. Therefore the mainstream market divides itself into different market niches which value different aspects of the performance. Adner (2004) explains this by taking an example of out of the microprocessor industry and compares the Pentium processors to the Celeron processors. He states that even though the Celerons are technological inferior to the Pentiums, the Celeron was and still is very successful because it targets a market segment which values low cost more than high technical performance. This is also described by Adner (2004) as an example of a disruptive technology. Each performance attribute is valued differently according to the customers in the corresponding market niche. This process can be illustrated by the value trajectory, which is a two‐dimensional representation of the perceived performance mix, in Figure 14. The graph shows the value trajectory of a market segment which passes through several indifference curves. The indifference curve is a level of performance needed of a functional attribute by a customer. It has three levels; low‐, medium‐ and high‐end market segments.
Chapter 2: Theory
Indifference curve – Medium-end market segment
Indifference curve – Low-end market segment Indifference curve –
High-end market segment
Figure 14: Indifference curves and a value trajectory from Adner (2002)
Figure 15 shows an example of the value trajectory of a personal computer (PC) and a personal digital assistant (PDA). As can be seen, customers of a PDA technology are quickly satisfied with a low storage capacity while the portability attribute is valued much higher. The customers of the PC technology have an alternate perceived performance mix and value storage capacity higher than portability. Other examples that have a value trajectory and indifference curves in this graph are netbooks, laptops and tablet PCs. The phenomenon of changing value trajectories or changing perceived performance can also occur within one technology domain. For example automobiles were first primarily valued on speed, after which esthetics, functionality and safety became more important attributes, creating an indifference of most customers to maximum speed. With respect to space, the first rockets were measured on capabilities while later reliability, safety and especially costs became more important.
Figure 15: Different value trajectories (Adner (2002)
However when a value trajectory or perceived performance mix changes, the technology from one market niche can migrate to another, eventually pushing the dominant technology out. This is the basis of the disruptive technologies theory. This process is also shown in Figure 16.
Figure 16: An integrated model of technological transitions: the role of preference discontinuities. (Tripas (2007)
For space this means that the perceived performance mix is determined by an evolutionary process over time. This concept is supported by the fact that in the beginning of the space age, the technical performance was highly important while later economic aspects became more important. In which way performance is valued in the future depends highly on the future of the space sector. This future of the space sector will be further elaborated in Chapter 5: Space sector’s future. For now it is sufficient to explain how changes in the performance requirements influence the evolution of technologies.
Chapter 2: Theory
2.3.3 Summary of disruptive technologies
To summarize disruptive technologies according to Christensen (1997) we will use several articles that provide a description of the theory. The articles of Adner (2002), Gilbert (2003) and Govindarajan & Kopalle (2006) mention the following characteristics of disruptive technologies:
o Often, at the moment of entrance in the market, they have a worse performance compared to the dominant technology in the main performance attribute.
o They offer a different mix in terms of performance values (speed, power, functionality, flexibility etc.), or have an additional attribute compared to the dominant technology.
o They fulfill an alternate perceived performance mix better than the dominant technology of the market.
o They serve a different market segment than the dominant technology either because they serve a niche‐market, a low‐end market or because they serve a new‐market (also described as a blue ocean by Chan Kim & Mauborgne, 2005). o They might open up new options or applications which can be disruptive to the market. Like electricity which enabled street lights to use light bulbs instead of petroleum lamps. o And most importantly they pose a threat not only to the dominant technology in the market but more importantly to the incumbent company marketing the dominant technology. When the technology is successful in disrupting the market, it will change the market layout. This point especially differentiates it from radical innovations. From these insights the following definition of disruptive technology is derived:
“A disruptive technology is a technology that disrupts the status quo of both the market position of the dominant technology and the competitive market layout by having an alternate perceived performance mix which is valued more by the customer than the dominant technology.”
Danneels (2004) argues rightfully that some questions, inconsistencies or shortcomings still remain for the theory of disruptive technologies. For example:
o Is it the technology itself that is disruptive or is it a function of the companies subject to it?
o Is a technology disruptive only once it replaces an incumbent that builds its business on the prior technology?
o Christensen (2003) only takes one performance dimension into account when explaining a disruptive technology using an S‐Curve. The customer however always values a technology on multiple dimensions like; cost, speed, flexibility, reliability, safety etc.
2.3.4 Difference in market dynamics
There are many examples of disruptive technologies given in business literature, but none of these concern technologies in space. After several interviews with M. Guglielmi head of ESA’s Technology strategy section (2009, 2010), the conclusion was made that the conventional theory of disruptive technologies is not entirely applicable to the space sector. This is caused by the following reasons:
o Development time: The development of a space technology takes a long time; therefore the response time of incumbent to disruptive technologies is very high. They do this by either starting a development process of their own (if the development time permits it), or take over the company marketing the new technology.
o Risk/Return on investment: The long development time of a space technology means that the return and risk on investment is equally high, this is a barrier for new start up companies. And prevents a start‐up of becoming disruptive with an innovative idea.
o Investments: Space technologies often have a significant amount of money invested into them in the form of equipment purchases, development costs, proprietary knowledge, human capital etc. These non‐recurring costs lead to a reluctance of incumbents to cannibalize existing technology developments for new technology developments (Kamien and Schwartz, 1982).
o Flight heritage: A dominant space technology already has a long flight heritage. Flight heritage means that the technology has already been extensively tested in space, which benefits reliability and decreases risk. A new space technology candidate has to be a significant improvement to the dominant technology to justify the increases in risk and decreases in reliability.
o Testing: The testing of space technologies is very expensive, and therefore only occurs if there is sufficient trust in the technology and if a technology is mature enough. This is an obstacle in the development of space technologies, as test results only come in a late phase of the development. o Market: The space sector is a monopsony market in which one or a few buyers (governments) are
faced with the choice of multiple sellers (space industry).
o Customer: The customers in the case of disruptive space technologies are not consumers or companies, but rather missions, as these determine the requirements of a technology. The mission in turn is determined by national and international space agencies. The actual delivery of the technology is often (but not always) done by the space industry through different programs and policies. Ultimately the space program determined by a national government should serve the needs and desires of citizens of a nation. This customer‐supplier chain is also illustrated in Figure 17.
Chapter 2: Theory
2.3.4 Disruptive Space Technologies
Because of these reasons, disruptive technologies, as described in business literature, do not occur in the space sector. Therefore a new theory was developed for breakthrough technologies in the space sector, or disruptive space technologies. When analyzing the innovation literature and the theory of disruptive technologies, a resemblance can be found between radical innovations and disruptive technologies. Both are explorations of new technologies and replace dominant technologies, additionally they both offer a higher performance on the perceived performance mix. Because of this high degree of similarity, the choice has been made to combine both theories in a new disruptive space technologies theory, which will have the following characteristics: 1 Disruptive space technologies are product innovations according to the 4P paradigm (Product, Process,
Paradigm and Position innovation) of Francis (2005), because a technology is always a product innovation. This research will therefore only be applicable to forecast space technologies. (As an example: Commercial space is a paradigm innovation, a while commercial spacecraft is a product innovation.)
2 Disruptive space technologies are explorations of new technologies. This means that they represent a significant improvement in technology along a continued perceived performance (radical) or discontinued perceived performance (disruptive).
3 A concept with a disruptive space technology potential is always in the fluid phase or concept phase of a technology as depicted in the Abernathy & Utterback (1978) model in Figure 8. This means that their greatest competitor is the dominant space technology. Usually the technology has not been tested yet in the operating environment. The disruption of the dominant technology occurs in the transitional phase. In the specific phase the technology gains extensive flight heritage and reaches the end of it potential gain in performance.
4 A technology can be disruptive by changing the requirements and/or capabilities of other subsystems in a spacecraft in which those technologies become breakthrough technologies.
5 A technology can still be disruptive if it does not disrupt incumbents by new entrants, a technology replacement can be enough to label a space technology as disruptive. Because of this the label of radical innovations also applies to a disruptive space technology.
The insights mentioned above, allowed for the creation of the following definition of disruptive space technologies:
A Disruptive Space Technology is an emerging technology, which disrupts the status quo of the space sector by radically improving on the perceived performance mix, creates possibilities of improvement for other
2.4
Summary
The research question addressed in this chapter was: What are disruptive technologies in the space sector and how do they differ with the innovation and disruptive technologies theory for the business literature? There are different dimensions which need to be considered when explaining an innovation. These are: o The Francis’s 4P’s, which indicates the type of innovation. o The Henderson & Clark model, which explains the impact of the innovation. o The Abernathy & Utterback Model which explains the different phases of an innovation over time.
Chapter 3: Performance characteristics
Chapter 3: Performance characteristics
Really exotic methods of propulsion . . . will have to be devised to get there. How it will be done, I do not know. Whether it will be done, I am not quite certain. But I would bet it can be done. — Dr Edward Teller, American theoretical physicistThis chapter will explain a method to measure differences in performance between a dominant space technology and potential disruptive space technology concepts, as defined by the measurement of interest signal elaborated in the first chapter. It does this by taking an example technology domain from the ESA technology tree listed in annex 4 and explaining how the future perceived performance mix is derived from this, in light of a proposed purpose. This perceived performance mix is therefore technology domain specific and will have to be specified for every forecast as determined by the method explained in this chapter. The example domain will be advanced propulsion systems and the proposed purpose will be propulsion of space probes. An elaboration on these subjects is given in Annex 5. This chapter will start with explaining the ESA Technology tree, which contains all technology domains used in the European space sector. After that the resulting evaluation criteria for this technology domain in light of the proposed mission will be explained. During this chapter a process will be described to attain these criteria which should be used in the forecasting method. This chapter will answer the third research sub‐question: According to which method, can the future perceived
performance mix of a technology be determined?
3.1
ESA Technology Tree
ESA handles a series of technology domains, which are used to classify the different technology areas in the European space sector. In total there are 25 specified technology domains with 1 extra to cover any additional technologies that might arise. These 25 technology domains are divided into 92 technology sub‐domains which in turn are divided into 274 technology groups. An example of the technology tree is given in Table 2. These technology domains are further specified in Annex 4.
Table 2: The propulsion domain from the ESA technology tree
TD TECHNOLOGY DOMAIN
TS TECHNOLOGY SUBDOMAIN TG TECHNOLOGY GROUP I Liquid Propulsion Systems II Solid Propulsion Systems
III Air-Breathing and Hybrid Propulsion Systems I Electrostatic Systems
II Electrothermal Systems III Electromagnetic Systems I Solar Thermal Propulsion Systems II Nuclear Propulsion Systems III Solar Sailing Propulsion Systems IV Tethered Propulsion Systems V New concepts
I Modelling II Testing and Diagnostics 19 Propulsion A Chemical Propulsion Technologies
B Electric Propulsion Technologies
C Advanced Propulsion
3.2 Perceived performance mix propulsion
This section will document the criteria for advanced space propulsion as derived from a workshop performed at the DRL in Bremen with the department of space analysis transportation. Details of this workshop can be found in Annex 6. The method of determining the perceived performance mix, used in the workshop should also be used in the forecasting method. In general the steps used in the workshop were: 1. Selection of experts while taking bias factors into account 2. Planning a workshop 3. Identify all performance attributes involved in the technology domain and proposed mission 4. Rank the importance of the attributes and allocate weightsOne major conclusion from this workshop is that performance criteria can only be set in light of a detailed proposed mission. In general the performance of space technologies can be categorized in three main attribute types: o Technical value o Cost value o Quality value. The technical value attributes contain performance values which are specific to the technology and the type of mission (e.g. specific impulse, thrust, throttle ability, radiation resistance and power consumption). The cost value contains all the costs related to the technology (e.g. the recurring costs, the non‐recurring costs, operating costs and launch costs (which is determined by the mass and dimension)). The quality value contains all the quality performance measurements (e.g. lifetime, flexibility, reliability end risk).
Chapter 3: Performance characteristics Forecasting criterion 1.1.3: Mass The amount of mass of the engine determines the change of mass (or momentum) needed for thrust. A higher mass of the engine will result in more thrust is needed, more thrust needed results in more propellant needed etc. This will also lead to increased initial launch costs. Forecasting criterion 1.1.4: Storability of fuel
The storability of the fuel determines the dimension, power requirements and mass of the fuel used by the propulsion. The problem with this is that some fuels are hard to store, either because they are extremely cold (like for example hydrogen) or toxic (like for example Hydrazine). Forecasting criterion 1.1.5: Recurring costs These are the costs for building and possibly maintaining the propulsion. These life cycle costs do not include the first development cost of the technology. Greenberg (1992) defines life cycle cost as: “The present value of all current and future costs associated with the mission considered”. Forecasting criterion 1.1.6: Non recurring costs
These are the initial costs for the development of the technology, with the one time investments in manufacturing equipment.
Forecasting criterion 1.1.7: Dimension
Figure 18: Perceived performance mix
3.3 Summary
In this chapter the following research sub‐question was answered: According to which method, can the future
perceived performance mix of a technology be determined? It was found that the way a customer measures the
Chapter 4: Disruptive Space Technology Evolution
Chapter 4: Disruptive Space Technology Evolution
”Anything that is theoretically possible will be achieved in practice, no matter what the technical difficulties, if it is desired greatly enough.” ‐ Arthur C. Clarke, British science fiction author and inventor This chapter will identify the characteristics of disruptive space technology evolution over time and is part of the signpost signal elaborated in the first chapter. These characteristics will be transformed into criteria upon which technology concepts can be evaluated within the method. This chapter will answer the second research sub‐ question: How can criteria predict a disruptive space technology according to the technology evolution theory?4.1 S‐Curves as a signpost for Disruptive space technologies
In this section an explanation will be given on how S‐curves can be used for forecasting disruptive space technologies. As stated before S‐Curves have a major draw back: they can only measure one performance attribute. Because of this, a method was devised in the previous chapter to determine the future perceived performance mix of a technology domain and a proposed mission. The evolution of performance, illustrated in S‐Curves, will therefore be measure according to this future perceived performance mix. The disruptive space technologies according to technology evolution can be divided into two categories:
o The radical space technologies category o The disruptive space technologies category
X1 ΔP Cus tom er de mand Time Perceived perf o rma nce mi x Dominant technology DST Figure 19: S‐Curve of disruptive space technology replacing a dominant technology with the performance requirements increasing along the same mix of performance values
4.1.2 The disruptive space technologies category
The disruptive space technology is a technology which outperforms the dominant technology upon an altered perceived performance mix. The perceived performance mix changes over time due to various reasons: o Indifference for further development of a performance attribute will alter the performance attributes valued by customers. o External development in other technologies changes the requirements of the technology. o Changes in policies and missions contribute to a change in the requirements for technologies o A new market emerges which values performance differentlyWhatever the reason, if the perceived performance mix changes and the new technology fulfills this mix significantly better than the dominant one, it will eventually replace the latter. This is also the basis of Christensen’s (2004) disruptive technology theory. In this the new technology beats the dominant technology by changing the rules of the game. These disruptions are very difficult to detect. Some examples of these include:
o Wireless satellites utilize Bluetooth for data transfer of sensors. This form of data transfer which does not have the transfer capacity of wires, but it decreases mass and thus cost through the elimination of wires.
o Nanosats, Picosats, Microsats and Cubesats are technologically less advanced than conventional satellites but provide a useful test bed/ carrier for university experiments as the low size and mass only require medium launch costs.
Chapter 4: Disruptive Space Technology Evolution Figure 20: S‐Curve of disruptive space technology measured by the old performance mix (A) and the new performance mix (B) If this form of disruptive space technology is illustrated using S‐Curves, it looks like the technology is actually underperforming compared to the dominant technology when measured according to the old performance mix. This is also illustrated by the difference in performance on X1, in the left graph of Figure 20. The right graph illustrates the change in the perceived performance mix and shows that when measuring with this new mix, the new technology actually over performs the dominant technology.
4.1.3 Using technology evolution to predict a disruptive space technology
The previous major types of disruptive space technologies indicate the characteristics a technology concept should have in order to become disruptive. Every technology concept which has a potential for disruptiveness should fit at least into one of these categories. The two categories have one similarity which is that they fulfill the future perceived performance mix better than the dominant technology. The difference is that with the disruptive space technology the perceived performance mix changes over time. Thus, a common criterion for both categories is that they fulfill the future perceived performance mix better than the dominant technology. Because of this the following criterion can be determined:
Forecasting criterion 1.1: How does the technology perform on the future perceived performance mix?
This criterion is determined by the performance of a technology on the future perceived performance mix, determined in the previous chapter. Because of this the attributes elaborated in the perceived performance mix will be sub‐criteria for the previous criterion.
shown in Figure 21, where a dominant technology under performs to a disruptive space technology candidate at a certain point in time (X1) but is not replaced by it because its still in the fluid or transitional phase of its development. It is therefore important to have a criterion which analyzes the maturity of the technology and its potential performance. This criterion is stated as followed: Forecasting criterion 1.2: How mature is the dominant technology according to its S‐Curve? Figure 21: A dominant technology with higher potential for performance gain then the DST
4.2 Disruptive categories of disruptive space technologies
Disruptive space technologies can also be disruptive because they have an impact on technologies evolution in other domains. In some cases the way in which disruptive space technologies are combined with other technologies determines the disruptiveness of a technology. The committee on forecasting future disruptive technologies of the America National Research Council (2009) made some categories to determine the different types of disruptive technologies. If a technology has one or multiple aspects of these categories, its potential for disruptiveness will increase. Therefore these categories form different sub criteria to answer a main criterion which will measure an additional disruptive aspect of a technology:Forecasting criterion 1.3: Does the technology have one or more additional aspects of a disruptive space technology?
The categories and their resulting sub criteria are:
Enablers: A technology that makes one or more new technologies, processes or applications possible (e.g.
integrated circuit => smaller Data Mgmt S/S; Solar cell => rechargeable S/C).
Chapter 4: Disruptive Space Technology Evolution
Catalysts: A technology that alters the rate of change of a technical development or alters the rate of
improvement of one or more technologies (e.g. cubesats/ swarm technologies; distributed systems, flash memory drive).
Sub‐criterion 1.3.2: Does the technology concept change the rate of technological evolution of other
technologies? Morphers: A technology that when combined with another technology creates one or more new technologies (e.g. wireless technologies and microprocessors). Sub‐criterion 1.3.3: When the technology concept is combined with other technologies, does it reinforce these to create a better overall technology? An survey of the space sector resulted in an additional two, more space related categories, which are added to the previously listed categories: Spin‐ins/spin‐outs: A technology that crosses over from one market to another and disrupts the status quo in the new market (e.g. Nano tubes (spin‐in) and several medical scanners (spin‐out) (Heide et al., 2009)).
Sub‐criterion 1.3.4: Does the technology concept have the potential to spin in or out of the space sector and
disrupt that market?
Multiple technology disruption: A technology that replaces not only one, but multiple technologies. By itself
the technology is not better than a single technology, but because of its combined function, the technology is better than the whole of the single technologies. (e.g. solar sail replacing the propulsion system, the propellant containment, decreasing power requirements etc.) Sub‐criterion 1.3.5: Does the technology replace several technologies in a way that it is better than the dominant technologies combined?
4.3 Summary
This chapter answered the question: How can criteria predict a disruptive space technology according to the
technology evolution theory? It has done this by researching the evolution of disruptive space technologies over
