Prod. Eng. Res. Devel.
DOI 10.1007/s11740-015-0617-8
PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT
Strategic production technology planning using a dynamic
technology chain calendar
Josef Greitemann1 • Benjamin Stahl2 • Alexander Schönmann1 • Boris Lohmann2
Gunther Reinhart1
Received: 3 February 2015 / Accepted: 8 May 2015
Ó German Academic Society for Production Engineering (WGP) 2015
Abstract Producing companies need to apply production
technology chains that best fulfill current and future re-
quirements. They have to evaluate whether the technology
chain currently being used is sufficient or if there exist
another chain that is more suitable. Moreover, companies
have to ascertain the right period in time to switch from
one chain to another, which depends strongly on multiple
cycles that occur temporally, e.g., the technology lifecycle.
To handle these cycles, this paper presents a dynamic
technology chain calendar that is integrated in a method for
strategic production technology planning. Within early
phases, technology planning relies on qualitative informa-
tion in the form of expert knowledge. To model this
knowledge mathematically, continuous-time recurrent
fuzzy systems are used. The practical use of the method is
illustrated in an exemplary application.
Keywords Production management  Production
technology planning  Continuous-time recurrent fuzzy
systems
& Josef Greitemann
josef.greitemann@iwb.tum.de
Benjamin Stahl
benjamin.stahl@mytum.de
1
Institute for Machine Tools and Industrial Management
(iwb), Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
2
Institute of Automatic Control, Technische Universität
München, Munich, Germany
•
1 Introduction
Producing companies have to face numerous challenges
including shortened innovation cycles [1], the demand for
sustainability [2] or changing customer demands [3]. Due
to this turbulent environment [4] companies need to ex-
amine if the production technologies currently being used
within the company are fulfilling future requirements [5,
6]. In this context, production technologies include all
processes needed to produce a product [7], which are re-
ferred to as technologies in the following. These tech-
nologies should offer a competitive potential on the one
hand [8] and have attained a certain maturity on the other
hand [9]. Thereby, maturity refers to the current stage of
development of a technology [10], whereby this evolu-
tionary development over time can be described as a
technology lifecycle [11, 12]. It can be divided into four
phases including innovation technology (IT), key tech-
nology (KT), standard technology (ST) and displaced
technology (DT) [11]. Especially emergent technologies
are not always mature enough to be used efficiently in the
existing production environment and need further
development [13].
Further, most products cannot be produced by a single
technology. Therefore, a combination of technologies, a
technology chain, is applied [14]. Replacing the whole
technology chain or a link of this chain in the current
manufacturing environment is a decision that affects future
conditions of a producing company significantly. In order
to identify the most suitable technology chain in terms of
strategic planning, companies need to evaluate alternative
technology chains and determine the right point in time to
conduct a technology change. This timing depends on in-
ternal and external factors, which might be temporally and
structurally recurring, referred as cycles in the following
123

[15–17]. To handle these cycles a technology chain cal-
endar is developed that is integrated in a method for
strategic technology planning. Due to the lack of quanti-
tative information in a strategic planning horizon, qualita-
tive knowledge has to be considered. Fuzzy logic
introduced by Zadeh [18] is a well established method for
modeling qualitative knowledge with various applications
in production management (cf. [19]).
Starting from the state-of-the-art regarding planning of
technology chains and technology roadmaps, this paper
presents a method for planning technology chains strate-
gically. The results of the method are displayed in a dy-
namic technology chain calendar. The occurring
interactions between the corresponding cycles are modeled
through continuous-time recurrent fuzzy systems, as com-
mon quantitative modeling methods (i.e. linear models,
differential equations) are not applicable due to vague in-
formation. The method is then applied exemplary in a case
study. Finally, the paper is concluded and an outlook of
further research activities is given.
2 Strategic technology planning
In order to ensure and establish competitiveness in the
long-term companies have to conduct technology planning.
Its major goal is to determine in which technologies to
invest depending on the production requirements and to
ascertain the point in time for a technology change [20].
According to the planning horizon a distinction is made
between strategic technology planning (long-term planning
horizon) and operational technology planning (short-term
planning horizon). In contrast to operational technology
planning that is based on precise information, strategic
technology planning is affected by an uncertainty [21],
which is caused by the long-term planning horizon and the
lack of accurate information concerning the design of fu-
ture products (e.g., materials, geometries, dimensions) [22].
Strategic technology planning contemplates technologies
and technology chains that are not necessarily available in
the company, while operational technology planning fo-
cuses exclusively on internal technologies that are already
applied within the production environment [23]. The re-
sults of technology planning are illustrated mostly in
technology roadmaps [6, 24, 25].
2.1 Technology chain planning
Reviewing the literature concerning the planning and
evaluation of technologies (e.g., [23, 26]) and technology
chains (e.g., [14, 27, 28]) a wide range of methods and
models exist. The most relevant ones for technology chain
planning are briefly described in the following.
123
Prod. Eng. Res. Devel.
Fallböhmer [14] presents an operative approach com-
bining the tasks of technology planning and product de-
velopment. The approach is based on a systematic linkage
of derived product features and potential manufacturing
processes. The focus lies on both generating various al-
ternatives and selecting the most suitable technology chain.
Trommer [28] extended the approach by integrating
company-specific constraints and including transportation,
handling and storage in addition to the technology.
Denkena et al. [27] developed an operative method for
designing manufacturing process chains. Therein, techno-
logical interactions are simulated in a reference process
chain to achieve a global optimization based on a multi-
criteria approach, whereby technological-economical in-
teractions are also described. Besides potential cause of
failure are analyzed.
Reinhart and Schindler [10] describe a method for
strategic planning of technology chains. Their five-step
approach considers the accuracy of information. The main
objective of the approach is to visualize the evaluation
results (e.g. maturity and profitability of the technology
chain) in a static technology chain calendar.
Schindler [7] details the approach focusing on the se-
lection of suitable technology chains from a strategic point
of view taking uncertainties into account.
Operational technology planning focuses on the short-
term perspective and does not take vague information
about future requirements into account. Furthermore, when
facing strategic decisions in technology planning, dynamic
interactions of factors that influence the future application
of a technology chain have an increased impact which is
not fully covered.
2.2 Technology roadmaps
To sum-up and visualize the results of strategic planning
processes, technology roadmaps are an appropriate medi-
um. A structured overview regarding various established
technology roadmap approaches is offered by [25, 29–32].
Due to the variety of industrial applications, most of the
basic approaches have to be adapted company-specific
[33]. While the majority of roadmap approaches are pro-
duct technology-based, the technology chain calendar [10]
illustrates suitable production technologies combined as
chains.
Technology roadmaps are mostly created statically at a
specific point in time and do not ascertain dynamic changes
that result from a company’s environment.
2.3 Problem statement
Operative technology planning approaches merely focus
on technologies already available in the company. In
Prod. Eng. Res. Devel.

order to apply new technologies, strategic technology Triangular membership functions lxjii and luqii are as-
planning is necessary. Especially dynamic approaches, signed to every linguistic value Lxjii and Luqii of the input and
involving the interdependencies of various kinds of cycles state variable.
(e.g. product lifecycle, technology lifecycle) are still According to [36] the membership functions have to
missing. This paper aims to extend the methods of Gre- fulfill the convex sum property
itemann et al. [34], Reisen et al. [35], Reinhart and X X
Schindler [10] and Schindler [7] by adding a dynamic lxjii ¼ luqpp ¼ 1 8i; p ð1Þ
ji qp
technology chain calendar that considers cyclic influenc-
ing factors through continuous-time recurrent fuzzy Similarly, Lwx_ii ; wi 2 f1; 2; . . .g, denote a linguistic values of
modeling. Thus, the time period to change a technology the state derivative x_i , the so called linguistic derivative.
chain can be ascertained allowing companies to take Singletons twx_ii are defined as membership functions for each
necessary measures timely. linguistic value.
The dynamic of the system is then defined through lin-
guistic rules
3 Modeling of qualitative knowledge
If x1 ðtÞ ¼ Lxj11 and. . .and xn ðtÞ ¼ Lxjnn ;
3.1 Fuzzy logic and u1 ðtÞ ¼ Luq11 and. . .and um ðtÞ ¼ Luqmm ; ð2Þ
then x_1 ðtÞ ¼ Lwx_11 ðj;qÞ and . . .and x_n ðtÞ ¼ Lwx_nn ðj;qÞ :
The basic idea of fuzzy logic is to model human-like de-
cision-making mathematically. In contrast to decisions Employing the index vectors j ¼ ½j1 ; . . .; jn T (index of the
based on classic boolean logic, human conclusions are states), q ¼ ½q1 ; . . .; qm T (index of the inputs), and w ¼
usually characterized by a certain vagueness and grounded ½w1 ; . . .; wn T (index of the state derivatives) each rule (1) is
on a linguistic classification of the relevant information. defined by the mapping j; q ! wi ðj; qÞ.
For instance, the human decision which cloth to wear when Using the algebraic product as operator for aggregation
going out depends on the outside temperature, which may and implication, and summation for accumulation of (2),
be characterized in ‘‘cold’’ and ‘‘warm’’. The linguistic the following mathematical structure for the CT-RFS is
values ‘‘warm’’ and ‘‘cold’’ are thereby fuzzy characteristic obtained:
as they cannot be strictly bounded by crisp temperatures. X Y
n Y
m
Fuzzy logic realizes the vagueness of these linguistic x_ ¼ fðxðtÞ; uðtÞÞ ¼ _
txwðj;qÞ lxjii ðxi Þ luqpp ðup Þ: ð3Þ
values in a certain space X by introducing so called fuzzy sets j;q i¼1 p¼1
Lxj ; j 2 f1; 2; . . .g, which are characterized through certain
membership degrees lxLx ðxÞ 2 ½0; 1 of each x 2 X to Lxj .
j

Fuzzy operators like the union U x ¼ Lxj [ Lxq ; q 2
f1; 2; . . .g of two fuzzy sets are defined to represent lin-
guistic expressions like ‘‘warm or hot’’. Finally linguistic
rules like ‘‘If temperature is warm then go outside’’ are
defined.
3.2 Continuous-time recurrent fuzzy systems
In this paper, continuous-time recurrent fuzzy systems
(CT-RFS) are used for modeling expert knowledge
mathematically. They are introduced in [36] based on
the above mentioned fuzzy logic as follows. A CT-RFS
is a dynamical system with a state space X ¼
fxjxmin  x  xmax g  RN and a input space
U ¼ fujumin  u  umax g  R . Hereby, ‘‘  ’’ means
M
component wise inequalities. The input and state space is
u
then partitioned into linguistic values Lxjii and Lqpp in each
dimension xi ; i 2 f1; 2; . . .; Ng of X and up ; p 2
f1; 2; . . .; Mg of U (Fig. 5).
4 Method for strategic technology planning using
a dynamic technology chain calendar
A six-step approach for strategic technology chain plan-
ning is presented as illustrated in Fig. 1. It combines a
technology identification and preselection approach of
Greitemann et al. [34] and Reisen et al. [35] with a tech-
nology chain generation and evaluation method of Reinhart
and Schindler [7, 10]. Finally, a new dynamic technology
chain calendar is presented in order to forecast the devel-
opment of concurring technology chains and determine the
optimal time period to shift to the most suitable technology
chain.
Step 1 Identification of technologies
Due to the wide range of available technologies, com-
panies need to identify those which can be used within the
production environment. Technologies can be identified
purposefully and resource-efficiently by selecting relevant
search fields based on companies needs (cf. [34]). In this

123
 Prod. Eng. Res. Devel.

1 T1 T3 T5
alternatives to the actual point in time including the tech-
T7
T2 T4
nology maturity, or the technology’s profitability among
T6
others (cf. [7, 10]).
2 Technology Step 6 Dynamic modeling of technology chain calendar
preselection
In order to forecast the development of the maturity and
3 Technology suitability of a technology chain the dynamic behavior and
evaluation interactions of relevant cycles have to be taken into ac-
4 T1 T4 T6 count. Therefore, dynamical modeling is necessary.
Technology chain
T2 T3 T4 Although some of the cycles can be easily quantified based
generation
on reliable data, most of the cycles can only be qualita-
5 tively described by experts in the fields. The relevant in-
Technology chain
evaluation formation can be well formulated through linguistic rules.
In order to include this linguistic expert knowledge about
6
Technology chain cyclic interactions into mathematic models, the use of re-
calendar current fuzzy logic has proven to be an effective method
[37].
Fig. 1 Method for strategic technology planning (based on [7, 10, 34, As the interdependencies of the relevant cycles for
35])
forecasting technology chain suitability can be well for-
context, each single search fields is a combination of a mulated as linguistic derivatives, CT-RFS are applied in
technology function and the requirements set by the mar- this approach. For example, development efforts do not
ket, whereby the former describes the purpose a technology directly cause high maturity but increase its growth.
fulfills. Grid partitioning facilitates both the interpretation as
well as the visualization of fuzzy systems. However, a
Step 2 Preselection of technologies
drawback is the exponentially growing number of rules
In order to reduce expenditures for detailed technology with increasing number of inputs. Therefore, modeling of
evaluation, technologies are preselected. Therefore, their all cycles and their interdependencies in one CT-RFS is not
ability to produce current and future products is examined practical. As different cycles have impact on the develop-
by aligning technology’s abilities with the requirements ment of the technology and some of them even influence
specification of these products (cf. [34, 35]). each other, a qualitative graph of the interconnected cycles
is set up first, where each node represents the model of a
Step 3 Evaluation of technologies
certain cycle and the edges illustrate influences between the
Preselected technologies are then evaluated in detail. cycles (Fig. 2).
Replacing a technology chain or a single technology as a Subsequently, a submodel is created for each node of the
link of this chain induces risks for manufacturing companies graph as shown in Fig. 3. The inputs u1 ; . . .; un of the
if the technology is not mature enough to be used efficiently subsystem are the current states of all relevant cycles. A
in the production environment. Therefore, the maturity separate CT-RFS is set up for each input ui quantifying the
needs to be assessed [22]. Besides, development and pro- influence of the input ui on the development of the cycle x_i
duction cost of a technology are decision factors. These depending on its current state x. Following the method
three criteria result in the suitability of the technology [7]. presented in Sect. 3, both variables ui ; x are fuzzyfied into
linguistic values Luqii ; Lxj and a rule base is set up in order to
Step 4 Generation of technology chains
describe their interconnection. All rules are interfered and
Based on the evaluation of alternative technologies, the resulting influence on the cycle x_i is calculated. The
technology chains are generated considering the different
interdependencies between single technologies as well as
the synergy effects and interactions within a technology
Production
chain, through application of a method developed by cost Technology chain
Schindler [7]. suitability

Step 5 Evaluation of technology chains Development Technology chain

cost maturity
Once various kinds of suitable technology chains are
generated, the fifth step focuses on the evaluation of the Fig. 2 Exemplary network of interconnected cycles

123
Prod. Eng. Res. Devel.
Fig. 3 General cycle model
influence x_1;...;n of all inputs u1;...;n onto the cycle is then
combined into x_ through weighted summation and finally
integrated over time to receive the development of the
modeled cycle x.
Based on the graph model (Fig. 2), the development of
all relevant cycles of technology chains can then be pre-
dicted, considering the initial conditions evaluated in Step
5.
A prognosis can be made for all selected technology
chains and optimal period to change from one chain to
another can be suggested.
Continuous planning can be achieved by updating the
initial conditions whenever changes occur either in the
organization or in the environment to anticipate external
and internal cycles in technology management.
5 Application
Facing rising production quantities accompanied by an
increase of commodity prices, a manufacturer of welding
nozzles made of copper, decided to identify alternative
technology chains in order to improve the production
process. The current process consists of three technologies.
First of all sawing, then turning respectively milling and
finally grinding of the welding nozzle. Therefore, the above
mentioned method is applied.
In Step 1 two alternatives to sawing were identified:
normal and adiabatic cutting. Similarly, extrusion and
swaging were found as possible substitutes for turning and
grinding. As all technologies are potentially feasible to
produce the company’s products (Step 2), their potential for
application in an alternative technology chain was
evaluated in Step 3. Turning and adiabatic cutting were
dismissed due to a low level of maturity and high material
offcuts respectively. Subsequently, four technology chains
were generated in Step 4 by combining the remaining
technologies.
The alternative technology chains as well as the current
chain were evaluated in Step 5. For the presented case,
suitability s, maturity m, development cost d, and produc-
tion cost p were relevant. As sawing and extrusion finally
turned out to be the most appropriate alternative, detailed
results are only given for the current and this alternative
technology chain in the following.
To assess the actual maturity of the concurring tech-
nology chains, expert interviews were conducted using a
defined questionnaire developed by Schindler [7], resulting
in m0;c ¼ 0:9 for the current and m0;a ¼ 0:75 for the al-
ternative technology chain.
The calculation of development cost and production cost
is based on Schindler [7] already taking interdependencies
between technology chain maturity and cost into account.
In this application example, the actual cost provided by the
controlling department were forecasted applying a time
series analysis. The plausibility of the trends were validated
by experts. The development cost of the current technology
chain was determined to dc ðtÞ ¼ 0:10 to ensure a stable
process. Additionally, the estimated production cost per
unit of the current chain decreases by 0.5 % per year from
pc ð0Þ ¼ 7:80 EUR to pc ð60Þ ¼ 7:57 EUR within the fol-
lowing 5 years (prognosis horizon) (Fig. 7). This depends
on the learning curve and the growth of the estimated
production quantities within the product life cycle, where
the peak value of 44,000 units is reached in month 50.
Within the first 10 months the predicted investment
needed for further development of the alternative tech-
nology chain rises to the peak value da ð10Þ ¼ 0:80 and
remains stable on that level for the following 20 months.
At the beginning of month 30, the development cost de-
clines to da ð30Þ ¼ 0:10 and stabilizes at this level to ensure
a productive working environment. Besides, the manufac-
turing cost per unit decreases by 1 % per year from
pa ð0Þ ¼ 8:00 EUR to pa ð30Þ ¼ 7:76 EUR in the following
3 years due to learning curve effects. As a result of the
increased maturity, realized through high development ef-
forts, production cost declines by additional 4 % per year
to pa ð60Þ ¼ 6:66 EUR because of an optimized material
utilization (e.g. reduced scrap) and cheaper operating cost
(e.g. reduced downtimes, processing times).
The dedicated values of the three cycles pð0Þ; dð0Þ and
mð0Þ of the concurring technology chains provide the basis
for calculating the initial suitability of the technology
chains s0;c ¼ 0:8 and s0;a ¼ 0:75.
In Step 6 dynamic modeling of the relevant cycles was
conducted based on the evaluation results (Step 5). The
interdependencies between the four cycles are displayed in
Fig. 4.
A CT-RFS is set up for each influence on the maturity
and suitability. The respective input variables are therefore
123
 Prod. Eng. Res. Devel.

Production cost Technology chain suitability

p( t ) ṡ 1 ( t )
w1
CT-RFS

ṡ 2 ( t ) ṡ ( t ) s (t )
w2
Development cost Technology chain maturity CT-RFS
d( t ) ṁ ( t ) m (t )
ṡ 3 ( t ) s0
w3
CT-RFS
m0 CT-RFS

Fig. 4 Selected cyles and their influences in technology chain planning

(a) L s1 ’l’ L s2 ’m’ L s3 ’h’ (a) m (t) (b) s(t )

1
IT KT ST DT l m h
degree µ( s )
membership

µs1 ( s )
µs2 ( s ) l z p z z l p pb z
µs3 ( s ) d(t) m p pb p z p(t) m z p z
ṁ (t) s˙1 (t)
0 h pb pb p z h z n z
0 0.5 suitability s 1

(b) Lm
1 ’IT’ Lm
2 ’KT’ Lm
3 ’ST’ Lm
4 ’DT’
(c) (d) s(t )
1
s(t ) l m h
degree µ( m )
membership

µm
1 (m )
µm
2 (m )
l m h IT z p z
µm
3 (m ) l z z z KT z pb z
µm
4 (m )
m (t) s˙3 (t)
d(t) m z n n ST z pb z
0 s˙2 (t)
0 0.5 maturity m 1 h z nb nb DT z z n

(c) Fig. 6 Rule bases for CT-RFS. a Influence of development cost dðtÞ
L s1˙ ’nb’ L s2˙ ’n’ 1 L s3˙ ’z’ L s4˙ ’p’ L s5˙ ’pb’ onto technology chain maturity mðtÞ. b Influence of production cost
degree µ( s˙ )
membership

pðtÞ onto technology chain suitability sðtÞ. c Influence of development

cost dðtÞ onto technology chain suitability sðtÞ. d Influence of
technology chain maturity mðtÞ onto technology chain suitability sðtÞ

-0.04 -0.02 suitability derivative s˙
Fig. 5 Partitioning of cycles into linguistic values by fuzzy sets.
a Fuzzyfication of input variables by three equidistant triangular
membership functions. b Fuzzyfication of maturity mðtÞ variables by
three equidistant triangular membership functions. c Defuzzification
of linguistic values Ls_i of suitability derivative s_ and respective
singleton positions tis
partitioned using triangular membership functions. The
suitability sðtÞ 2 S ¼ ½0; 1 and the development cost
dðtÞ 2 D ¼ ½0; 1 are characterized by three equidistant
linguistic values low, medium, and high (l, m, and
h) (Fig. 5a). Equivalently, three values l, m, and h are de-
fined in the range P ¼ ½6; 8 of the predicted production
cost pðtÞ. For the maturity, four values IT, KT, ST, and DT
are considered (Fig. 5b). For the suitability derivatives s_i
five equidistant singletons tis 2 f0:04; 0:02;
0; 0:02; 0:04g were defined representing the linguistic val-
ues negative big, negative, zero, positive, and positive big
0.04 (nb, n, z, p, and pb) (Fig. 5c). Analogously, the maturity
derivative m_ is characterized by five singletons
tm 2 f0:005; 0:0025; 0; 0:0025; 0:005g.
The rule bases of all CT-RFS achieved by expert in-
terviews are summarized in matrix form [37] in Fig. 6. For
instance, if the suitability sðtÞ is m and the production cost
pðtÞ is l the suitability derivative s1 ðtÞ is pb.
Considering the specific industrial sector and business
objectives of the company illustrated in the case study, the
influence of the different input variables on the resulting
cycles were weighted applying the analytic hierarchy pro-
cess (AHP) [38]. Due to the need of cost reduction the
weight of production cost was ascertained to w1 ¼ 0:625.
Offering competitive advantages the investment in alter-
native technologies involves risk and uncertainty as well.
Therefore, the weighting of the development cost results in
w2 ¼ 0:125, while the technology chain’s maturity is w3 ¼
0:25 through ensuring a stable production process in the
long run.

123
Prod. Eng. Res. Devel.

technology chain suitability s ( t ) technology chain calendar. Therein, a set of cyclic influ-
1
encing factors is regarded that can be adapted and extended
depending either on the company or the industry. The de-
0.5
period for changing veloped technology chain calendar forecasts a technology
the technology chain
0
chain’s suitability and its underlying parameters including
10 20 30 time t in month 60 maturity, development cost and production cost over time,
technology chain maturity m ( t ) so that alternative chains can be compared to ascertain the
1 right period in time to switch a whole chain or any part of
it. The application of the method, was exemplary demon-
0.5
strated in a case study.
Further research activities will focus on the synchro-
0
10 20 30 time t in month 60 nization of technology planning, product development and
production cost p( t ) in €/pcs investment planning to take a holistic view on the com-
8 pany’s strategy. Besides, the different cycle length of im-
portant product components will be integrated in the
7
dynamic technology chain calendar.
6
10 20 30 time t in month 60 Acknowledgments The authors thank the German Research Foun-
dation (DFG) for funding this work as part of the collaborative re-
development cost d( t ) search project ‘‘Managing cycles in innovation processes—Integrated
1
development of product service systems based on technical products
(SFB 768)’’. This paper is a result of a cooperation of the subprojects
0.5 A3, B3 and T2.

0
10 20 30 time t in month
current technology chain
alternative technology chain
Fig. 7 Dynamic technology chain calendar for mapping the suit-
ability and its underlying parameters of concurring technology chains
over time
Having set up the dynamic technology chain calendar,
the development of the concurring chains can be fore-
casted. The result is presented in Fig. 7. The suitability of
the alternative technology chain sa ðtÞ increases from month
32 onwards because of growing maturity ma ðtÞ and reduced
development cost da ðtÞ and production cost pa ðtÞ, while the
value of the current one sc ðtÞ decreases continuously. By
applying the developed technology chain calendar, the
most suitable period for changing the current technology
chain is identified between month 40 and 45.
6 Conclusion
In order to remain competitive companies need to apply
technology chains that best fulfill production requirements.
For this reason, they have to check whether the actual
technology chain or another alternative is more suitable.
Additionally, producing companies need to determine the
right time period to switch from one chain to another.
Therefore, this paper presents a method for strategic
technology planning that concludes with a dynamic
60
References
1. Nyhuis P, Reinhart G, Abele E (2008) Wandlungsfähige Pro-
duktionssysteme: Heute die Industrie von morgen gestalten. PZH
Produktionstechnisches Zentrum, Garbsen
2. Seliger G (2012) Sustainable manufacturing for global value
creation. In: Seliger G (ed) Sustainable manufacturing. Springer,
Berlin, pp 3–8
3. Du X, Jiao J, Tseng M (2005) Understanding customer satisfac-
tion in product customization. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
31(3–4):396–406
4. Wiendahl HP, ElMaraghy HA, Nyhuis P, Zäh MF, Wiendahl HH,
Duffie N, Kolakowski M (2007) Changeable manufacturing:
classification, design and operation. Ann CIRP 56(2):1–25
5. Milberg J (2005) Deutschland eine starke Marke: ein Beitrag zur
Leitbilddiskussion in Deutschland. In: Brecher C, Klocke F,
Schmitt R, Schuh G (eds) Wettbewerbsfaktor Produktionstechnik.
Shaker, Aachen, pp 1–16
6. Schuh G, Agassi S, Orilski S, Schubert J, Bambach M,
Freudenberg R, Hinke C, Schiffer M (2011) Technology
roadmapping for the production in high-wage countries. Prod Eng
Res Dev 4(5):463–473
7. Schindler S (2014) Strategische Planung von Technologieketten
für die Produktion: Diss. TU München, Utz, München
8. Gausemeier J, Echterhoff N, Kokoschka M (2011) Direct
manufacturing: innovative Fertigungsverfahren für die Produkte
von morgen. In: Gausemeier J (ed) Vorausschau und Technolo-
gieplanung, HNI-Verlagsschriftenreihe, Band 300, Heinz-Nix-
dorf-Institut, pp 5–27
9. Wördenweber B, Wickord W (2008) Technologie—und Innova-
tionsmanagement im Unternehmen: Lean Innovation. Springer,
Berlin
10. Reinhart G, Schindler S (2012) Strategic evaluation of tech-
nology chains for producing companies. In: ElMaraghy HA (ed)
Enabling manufacturing competitiveness and economic sustain-
ability. Springer, Berlin, pp 391–396

123

11. Sommerlatte T, Deschamps JP (1985) Der strategische Einsatz
von Technologien. Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp 39–76
12. Foster RN (1986) Innovation: the attacker’s advantage. Summit-
Books, New York
13. Brousseau EB, Barton R, Dimov S, Bigot S (2010) A method-
ology for evaluating the technological maturity of micro and nano
fabrication processes. In: Ratchev S (ed) Precision assembly
technologies and systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 329–336
14. Fallböhmer M (2000) Generieren alternativer Technologieketten
in frühen Phasen der Produktentwicklung: Diss. RWTH Aachen.
Shaker, Aachen
15. Schenkel SA, Behncke FGH, Hepperle C, Langer S, Lindemann
U (2013) Managing cycles of innovation processes of product-
service systems. In: IEEE international conference on systems,
man, and cybernetics (SMC), 13–16 October 2013, Manchester
16. Plehn C, Koch J, Diepold K, Stahl B, Lohmann B, Reinhart G,
Zäh MF (2014) Modeling and analyzing dynamic cycle networks
for manufacturing planning. In: Proceedings of the 3rd CIRP
global web conference on production engineering research: ad-
vancement beyond state of the art, 3–5 June 2014
17. Greitemann J, Stahl B, Michels N, Lohmann B, Reinhart G
(2014) Quantitative model of the technology lifecycle for fore-
casting the maturity of manufacturing technologies. In: IEEE
international conference on management of innovation and
technology (ICMIT). Singapore, 23–25 September 2014
18. Zadeh L (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353
19. Wong BK, Lai VS (2011) A survey of the application of fuzzy set
theory in production and operations management:1998–2009. Int
J Prod Econ 129(1):157–168
20. Schuh G, Klappert S, Orilski S (2011) Technologieplanung. In:
Schuh G, Klappert S (eds) Technologiemanagement. Springer,
Berlin, pp 171–222
21. Gausemeier J, Fink A, Schlake O (1998) Scenario management:
an approach to develop future potentials. Technol Forecast Soc
Change 59(2):111–130
22. Reinhart G, Schindler S (2010) Reife von Produktionstechnolo-
gien: Konzeptionelle Bestimmung des Entwicklungsstadiums von
Fertigungsverfahren und -prozessen. Zeitschrift für wirtschaftli-
chen Fabrikbetrieb (ZWF) 105(7–8):710–714
23. Reinhart G, Schindler S, Bruckbauer P (2011) Reife von Tech-
nologieketten: Konzeptionelle Bestimmung des Entwicklungssta-
diums der Reihenschaltung von Produktionstechnologien.
Zeitschrift für wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb (ZWF) 106(9):639–
643
24. Schmitz WJ (1996) Methodik zur strategischen Planung von
Fertigungstechnologien: Ein Beitrag zur Identifizierung und
Nutzung von Innovationspotentialen: Diss. RWTH Aachen.
Shaker, Aachen
123
Prod. Eng. Res. Devel.
25. Phaal R, Farrukh CJP, Probert DR (2004) Technology
roadmapping: a planning framework for evolution and revolution.
Technol Forecast Soc Change 71(1–2):5–26
26. Nau B, Roderburg A, Klocke F, Park HS (2012) Risk assessment
of hybrid manufacturing technologies for ramp-up projects. CIRP
J Manuf Sci Technol 5(4):228–234
27. Denkena B, Rudzio H, Liedtke C, Brandes A (2005) Planung
fertigungstechnischer Prozessketten: Entwicklung und Methoden
zur ganzheitlichen Prozesskettenplanung. wt Werkstattstechnik
online 95(11–12):866–871
28. Trommer G (2001) Methodik zur konstruktionsbegleitenden
Generierung und Bewertung alternativer Fertigungsfolgen: Diss.
RWTH Aachen. Shaker, Aachen
29. Kostoff RN, Schaller RR (2001) Science and technology road-
maps. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 2(2):132–143
30. Probert D, Radnor M (2003) Frontier experiences from industry–
academia consortia. Res Technol Manag 46(2):27–30
31. Daim TU, Gerdsri N, Basoglu N, Albar F (2011) Technology
assessment: forecasting future adoption of emerging technolo-
gies. Erich-Schmidt, Berlin
32. Carvalho MM, Fleury A, Lopes AP (2012) An overview of the
literature on technology roadmapping (TRM): contributions and
trends. Technol Forecast Soc Change 80(7):1418–1437
33. Lee JH, Phaal R, Lee C (2011) An empirical analysis of the
determinants of technology roadmap utilization. R&D Manag
41(5):485–508
34. Greitemann J, Plehn C, Koch J, Reinhart G (2014) Strategic
screening of manufacturing technologies. In: Zaeh MF (ed) En-
abling manufacturing competitiveness and economic sustain-
ability. Springer, Berlin, pp 321–326
35. Reisen K, Greitemann J, Rester N, Reinhart G (2014) Production
technology screening for innovative products. In: IEEE interna-
tional technology management conference (ITMC). Chicago,
12–15 June 2014
36. Adamy J, Flemming A (2006) Equilibria of continuous-time re-
current fuzzy systems. Fuzzy Sets Syst 157(22):2913–2933
37. Stahl B, Diepold KJ, Pohl J, Greitemann J, Plehn C, Koch J,
Lohmann B, Reinhart G, Zäh MF (2013) Modeling cyclic inter-
actions within a production environment using transition adaptive
recurrent fuzzy systems. In: Proceedings of the 7th IFAC con-
ference on manufacturing modelling, manangement and control.
Saint Petersburg, 19–21 June 2013
38. Saaty TL (1990) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, pri-
ority setting, resource allocation. RWS Publishing, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania